role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 3, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l132 - Tue 3 Dec 1996 / Mar 3 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

TRENT-SEVERN WATERWAY

OBSTETRICAL CARE

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

MARKET ONTARIO

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

MIKE PERENACK

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

PROTECTION OF JOBS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WATER SUPPLY

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

WATER SUPPLY

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

TENANT PROTECTION

HOME CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

CRIME PREVENTION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

GO TRANSIT

DEPUTY CHAIR

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

EDUCATION REFORM

BEAR HUNTING

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

SPIRITUALITY IN SCHOOLS

FIRE SAFETY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SCHOOL BOARDS

RENT REGULATION

SCHOOL BOARDS

RENT REGULATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIREARMS CONTROL

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): For the past year and a half we have fought vigorously against government that seems to be on a rampage as they slash or eliminate programs, remove important regional offices from the north and download financial responsibility to municipalities and the private sector in a headlong rush to find ways to pay for their foolish tax scheme.

In northern Ontario we've been forced to watch as the so-called advocate for our region, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, continues to find ways to force our cash-strapped municipalities or just individual taxpayers to take over responsibility and the financing for programs that clearly belong to the province.

The latest is that the minister now wants municipalities and other stakeholders to start paying for our forest fire protection. We know from a leaked Price Waterhouse document that the minister wants these stakeholders to pay for 40% of the cost previously funded by the province, a very substantial sum if you look at the over $150 million spent in 1995.

We all know that the Minister of Finance will be announcing very soon the massive transfer payment cuts to the public sector, including municipalities. How could he then expect them to find $40 to $50 million more a year to pay for forest firefighting? But more importantly, where is the Minister of Northern Development when these issues are being discussed? We see him in the north when he wants to announce a program or two, and we're glad to see him. But, Minister, you seem to avoid us when you're taking things away. Stop playing games. Be honest with us and give us a chance to make some decisions on our own.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): As the public hearings on Bill 82 begin today, two important points must be raised with respect to the process. Firstly, the government did have the time to have full public hearings on these important matters. It's a shame that presenters from outside of Toronto have to come to this city when the justice committee could well have gone to those communities to hear those folks there.

It's ridiculous as well to devote only two and a half days to a public discussion of matters which will affect thousands and thousands of recipients and payors. The government has held out the false hope that if we pass this bill tomorrow, many, many recipients will immediately receive their arrears.

The fact is that Downsview is not up and running, the fact is that staff have only recently been hired, and the fact is that the technology needed to carry out the enforcement has not even been purchased by the government yet, much less been put in place and the people trained on it. It will be months before any of the enforcement activities can go into effect, and it's unconscionable for this government to conveniently neglect to tell recipients that.

Secondly, I question whether or not the government has any intention of amending Bill 82 despite the serious concerns the NDP raised regarding collection of fees, privatization, the ability of the director to write off arrears and the opting-out provision. Last Friday my office received a memo from the family support plan describing the new intake sheets they're now going to use. At the bottom of the action sheet, the FSP staff are to check off the reason for the inquiry: late payment, arrears, enforcement or opting out. It's clear the Attorney General has already made up his mind.

He's not going to change the opting-out provision. I certainly hope he's not going to do that on all the other serious concerns --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

TRENT-SEVERN WATERWAY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Last week the federal auditor issued a report that recommended slashing the Trent-Severn waterway's operating season and closing this

section of the waterway. This recommendation would be devastating to tourist operators and businesses in the Peterborough area.

The waterway extends 386 kilometres from Trenton to Port Severn on Georgian Bay, and runs directly through my riding. It consists of 44 locks, two hydraulic lifts and 125 dams. The Rideau and Trent-Severn systems generate approximately $45 million in tourist dollars annually. The auditor's recommendations are shortsighted and would represent a significant economic loss to the community and to the province.

The Honourable Sheila Copps indicated, and I quote, "Reducing service on the waterway would be a mistake," and feels they would not act on the recommendations. I call on the minister and the federal government to live up to that commitment. The waterway is too important to our community.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): As has been the case of late, we've been discussing the issue of prenatal care and obstetrical care for women in Essex county. Today is no different.

Our minister is on record. He's been talking about opening up a prenatal clinic, something he believed he could do within 30 to 60 days. To date, nothing has been done. He talked about rostering of doctors' service, a rationalization of doctors' service in Essex county. To date, nothing has been done. He spoke of designation of an underserviced area for Essex county. To date, nothing has been done.

Our minister simply talks, and the minister has done nothing. I will tell you that his behaviour is more likened to a juggler in a circus than that he could possibly be a minister of the crown for the Ministry of Health. Which is the answer under? Under which cup do you find the ball? Will we have rostering? Will we have rationalized service? Will we have a prenatal clinic? Will we be designated as an underserviced area?

The latest volley of all that he chooses to throw is that yesterday he said our local clinic is on hold, and why? It's on hold because our local people have put it on hold. Here's the reality. Our local people submitted a proposal; the ministry so far has rejected it. I will remind the Minister of Health that during the committee of estimates on health, the minister specifically said, "There will be new funds." May I remind the Minister of his responsibility to women and children in Essex county.

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The picture is slowly coming into focus. The economic plan for this province is congealing and the result is not very pleasant. Small businesses are going bankrupt at a record rate and unemployment is up.

In my own community of Sault Ste Marie we have a perfect example, actually two of them, of the way this government is intending to work and operate. The Ontario Lottery Corp, one of the most important industrial pieces in my city, is now on the selling block. We're looking at the loss of maybe 300 to 350 jobs and all that means to Sault Ste Marie. We are now short in Sault Ste Marie two of our most corporately responsible citizens. Provigo won the battle of the Loeb.

Two entrepreneurs in my community who have invested all of their time and energy and the resources they had in a business they thought they would be able to eventually turn over to their kids are now without that business. They are now not able to do that which they do best in my community.

This government talks about free enterprise and the marketplace as being the be-all and end-all of what we need to do to get government out of the face of business, to let business do its thing. Well, the instance of the Loeb franchisee battle with Provigo, that big corporation out of Montreal, and the fact that this province is now short 22 of its most successful entrepreneurs is an example of how this picture is becoming more and more troubling for all of us.

MARKET ONTARIO

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I rise today to share a good-news story from my riding. Last week, the Hobart Food Equipment Group of Canada celebrated a milestone achievement in workplace safety: one million hours in four years without a disabling accident. That in itself is impressive, but that's not all. During the celebration open house I spoke with the plant manager, who shared some encouraging news. Hobart provides a classic example of the recently unveiled Market Ontario initiative, with one small addition. The theme should read, "Grey-Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada: The Future's Right Here."

Hobart is a growing and competitive equipment manufacturer located in Owen Sound. Since the enactment of the North American free trade agreement, the operation has grown by leaps and bounds. Its export mandate has expanded worldwide, with approximately 95% of the production going to the United States and offshore, including Japan, China and Germany. Employment at the plant has grown by 115 jobs -- two added just last week -- and payroll has doubled in the last two years alone.

As Hobart draws much of its labour locally and purchases many supplies and services in the Grey-Owen Sound area, the spinoffs from its continued growth and expansion are good news for the community, and in turn good news for the province of Ontario.

My congratulations to the staff and management of Hobart Food Equipment Group of Canada, and best wishes for another million hours of accident-free production and continued expansion.

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Members of this House may have been listening in to CITY-TV's on-line news magazine over the noonhour. They happened to be discussing Wheel-Trans cuts. They conducted a poll on whether the public would forgo their tax cut if it meant saving Wheel-Trans for those who need it. It was not surprising that 72% of those answering adamantly replied with an overwhelming yes: 306 citizens clearly feel it's not fair to fund the Tory tax cuts on the backs of seniors and the disabled.

I wish to remind this House that it was just last month that the minister responsible for seniors stood in this House and stated that his central guiding principles are seniors' dignity, independence, participation, fairness and security.

I call upon the government to listen to what their obsession with cutting has accomplished. Cutting Wheel-Trans has taken away seniors' and the disabled's dignity by making them feel insignificant. Cutting Wheel-Trans means their independence is gone. Cutting Wheel-Trans means seniors and the disabled participate only within the confines of their homes. Cutting Wheel-Trans in fact shows what fairness and security for seniors and the disabled means to this government. As one caller to CITY-TV asked today, "How sick do I have to be to get Wheel-Trans service restored?"

MIKE PERENACK

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's with sadness yet pride that I use this opportunity to pay tribute to a Crowlander and a Wellander, Mike Perenack, who passed away on November 30, 1996, but a few days ago.

He was certainly one of the key and important people in the development of volunteerism and in service at the municipal and township level. He had been elected as a member of the Crowland township council, had served as its deputy reeve and reeve, and then served as Welland's mayor for four terms beginning in 1961. Although he ran as a Liberal candidate in 1963, he was unsuccessful, but his passion for the community and for politics remained with him throughout his life.

I had the opportunity to speak with Mike Perenack but a couple of months ago in September when he was honoured by the city of Welland as one of the recipients of Welland's 50th anniversary volunteer recognition awards: a firefighter, a worker, a volunteer in recreation and someone who was incredibly committed to his community, to his family, and to all those whose lives he touched.

I've known Mike Perenack since I was a kid, and he had become clearly a fixture in Welland and Crowland politics. We want to express regrets to his wife, to his son, to his daughters-in-law and to his grandchildren. He will be missed but his contribution will be long remembered.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): December 3 marks the official observance of the International Day of Disabled Persons. The International Day of Disabled Persons was first proclaimed in 1992 by the United Nations General Assembly. Since July 1995 our government has undertaken several initiatives to improve living conditions for disabled people. We have reinvested $170 million in community-based health services to help people with disabilities and seniors live independently in their own homes.

Incentive funding levels will be maintained for colleges and universities to assist them in meeting their obligations to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities.

The government's workplace disability component includes assistance for employees and employers with respect to barrier removal for persons with disabilities, an access fund to provide access and job accommodation for persons with disabilities, and a shift to consumer-focused job approaches for job accommodation programs.

In addition, under social services, people with disabilities and seniors will be moved off welfare on to an Ontario guaranteed support plan that meets their needs, respects their dignity and continues to protect their benefits.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I have questions both for the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Minister of Community and Social Services, and neither is present at this time. I'm wondering if I should stand them down or whether they'll be making a presence.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We're supposed to have all the ministers -- we are given a list of ministers. Here comes the minister now. Thank you.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today I want to address the very real danger which countless women and children are forced to face every day as a result of violence in the home.

In response to a question put to you on November 19 about women in abusive situations, you stated: "The biggest threat to the women in this province...is the debt this government inherited from those across. That is the biggest threat."

I want to ask you, Minister, what do you think would be more dangerous to you, the provincial debt or living with a violent abuser?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much for the question. Excuse me for being slightly out of breath. I ran in the door to be here for this question.

What I was referring to was the fact that as the interest on that debt has eaten up our ability to pay for social programs they all value, that is why there is a threat to all those people who are on the receiving end of programs. Women are in very difficult circumstances out there. That's why we are trying to protect the 97 shelters, the 100 counselling programs, all those services that are there for women in such circumstances. We want to protect that funding. We want to make sure those services are there for those people, because they do desperately need it.

Mr McGuinty: We on this side of the House are sick and tired of all of the ministers there trying to act like the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Environment's job is to advocate on behalf of the environment. This minister's job is to advocate on behalf of the poor and children and downtrodden women. She's not doing that. She's standing up there and making a statement as if she's the Minister of Finance.

I want to raise a specific item with you. The Redwood Shelter in Toronto's west end is one of the most successful and cost-effective shelters in Metro. It provides a safe haven and supports women and children forced to flee abusive situations. The Redwood Shelter is in danger of closing but they have found a way to keep it open. They've been very creative. Metro has agreed to kick in $40,000. The shelter itself has come up with $50,000. All they need is $50,000 from you and the centre is going to be able to stay open and keep women and children from their abusive partners.

Minister, will you now prove that protecting women and children is far more important than fighting the debt? I'm not asking this of you as finance minister. Will you provide this one-time financial assistance to keep the doors of the Redwood Shelter open?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, I don't believe we need lectures about caring for women who are in these circumstances. We are spending $11 million extra on capital funding for women's shelters, because we know there is a need. Unfortunately, for reasons I am not aware of, the Redwood Shelter did not request the capital money for that allotment, so we fully spent that money on other shelters.

I appreciate the need that is there for the Redwood Shelter, and that is one reason why we are continuing to pay the hostal per diem rates to support Metro Toronto, which shares this responsibility with us. We're paying something like $4.5 million for those shelters in Metro because we believe that they are a necessary component and a necessary support for those women.

Mr McGuinty: That lends no comfort of any kind whatsoever to the women and children presently residing at the Redwood Shelter. Minister, the difference between you and me is that when I hear that a shelter for women whose lives are at risk is closing, I want to help; you sit on your hands and do nothing.

Just to provide us with an interesting contrast, not so long ago this government spent $130,000 on newspaper ads to tell us what we already knew. We can come up with $130,000 for Ontario newspapers, but we can't come up with $50,000 for 30 women and children living in a centre away from an abusive situation.

Minister, you've cut legal aid, you've cut affordable housing, you've bungled family support and you now are ignoring the grave concerns of women at the Redwood Shelter. When are you and your government going to end this attack on women and children in this province? Will you now agree to come up with $50,000 for this shelter?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said, we came up with $11 million for capital spending for shelters because of the need. Unfortunately, this shelter did not get its application in. I do not know why. We had money available for capital funding. We are also continuing $4.5 million for the services out there. We are continuing to pay for those per diems for those hostels because those women need those shelters. We are well aware of the need and I believe that we are meeting our responsibilities as we try to address that very important need.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, we were expecting the Minister of Environment to be here this afternoon for a question. Usually they're here at the beginning of question period.

The Speaker: Do you want me to stand it down?

Mr Bradley: Can you be of any assistance to us at all? How would we deal with this matter?

The Speaker: Sure, I can be of a lot of assistance. I can stand the question down. New question, third party.

PROTECTION OF JOBS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I wanted to ask this question of the Premier, but I'll be forced to ask it of the Minister of Finance. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is aware of the financial crisis at Canadian Airlines International. Almost 4,000 Ontario residents work for Canadian Airlines and, more than that, thousands of other jobs depend on Canadian Airlines here in Ontario.

The British Columbia government has contributed $12 million to repositioning the airline, and the Alberta government has now announced that it is prepared to contribute $8 million annually to help reposition the airline. Ontario has nearly twice as many Canadian Airlines employees as does Alberta. Can the Minister of Finance tell us, will the Ontario government get involved in the effort to reposition Canadian Airlines and to preserve over 4,000 Ontario jobs?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I don't believe the solution to the Canadian Airlines dilemma relies upon further government involvement. I believe that there is a deal there to be had. I understand that the only union that hasn't agreed is undergoing negotiations with Canadian and the other partners.

Mr Hampton: What's interesting here is that the federal government is now involved. The six unions and the government of British Columbia and the government of Alberta are talking with the federal government about what kinds of contributions the federal government could make. I want to remind you that Canadian Airlines pumps close to $1 billion a year into the Ontario economy in terms of wages, salaries, supplier costs, and other spending. If this airline crashes, it will have a real impact on Ontario's economy.

Hon Mr Eves: I believe that there is a deal there to be had with the facts and the information on the table now. I would point out to the honourable member that in the province of Alberta fuel tax was five cents a litre. As their concession to this particular dilemma or problem, they have reduced their fuel taxes to 2.5 cents a litre, exactly what the tax is in the province of Ontario already.

Mr Hampton: Earlier this year the Premier was very happy to show up at de Havilland Aircraft and try to take credit for some of the work that had been done by a government that I was part of to reposition de Havilland so that it would continue to contribute jobs in Ontario and would continue to contribute to a productive Ontario economy.

Minister, Ontario's fuel tax is 2.7 cents. As you noted, even the Conservative government in Alberta has come to the table and has found a way to contribute to protect those jobs. The impact in Ontario, as I said, is over 4,000 jobs; it's over $1 billion a year contributed to our economy. Why won't you go to the table? Why won't you be part of an overall effort in Canada on the part of unions and governments and employees to help reposition and save these 4,000 jobs in Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member: (

a) To the best of my knowledge, they haven't asked for assistance, and (

b) when Canadian Airlines did ask your government for assistance in 1993, you declined that assistance. We happen to believe that the facts are on the table now to permit all concerned parties to come to an amicable solution for the benefit of all parties.

Mr Hampton: I want to say to the Minister of Finance: Your government received a letter over two weeks ago, and you are misinformed, sir. When we were government, we helped to facilitate restructuring that helped to preserve those jobs, and you should do the same.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As you know, you have all of your corporate friends deciding the future of municipal government in Toronto. We found out that 75% of the people want a referendum on your proposal for a megacity in Metro Toronto. Will you hold a referendum? Will you involve the people of Toronto in the decision around what kind of government Metro Toronto will have?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the leader of the third party, it's pretty difficult to have a referendum when you wouldn't know what the question would be. I could list 15 questions that you could ask on governance in Metropolitan Toronto. Do you want one city? Do you want four cities? Do you want six cities? Do you want a two-tiered level of government? You'd have to have a referendum to try and determine what the question would be.

Mr Hampton: It appears that the government's position is that it's okay for corporate hacks who contribute money to the Conservative Party to sit on a committee and decide how four million people are going to be governed. That's okay by you. The people of Toronto, the people of the Metro Toronto area, simply want a role. They want a

part in the decision-making about how their services are going to be handled. That's all they're asking for.

There were thousands of people at the meeting last night at Toronto city hall, a thousand people in North York. People are asking you, Minister. They want a

part in democracy. They want to have a role in deciding how they are going to be governed. Will you give them the referendum that they're asking for?

Hon Mr Leach: I'll be sure to pass on to Hazel McCallion and Bill Bell that the leader of the third party considers them to be corporate hacks. We've got 15 people on that panel, from all walks of life, and it's pretty insulting for the leader of the third party to put them in that category.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Put the question, Minister. Let the people decide.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, member for Lake Nipigon.

Hon Mr Leach: A referendum is good for a yes or no question. This is not a yes or no question. There are numerous questions that could be put on the ballot, even --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, did you finish your response? Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Minister, it's your government that has the discussion paper out there now on referenda. It's your government that's saying referenda would be a good thing in Ontario. This is simply that 75% of the people in the largest city in all of Canada want a referendum on how their city is going to be governed. Yes, you could simply ask them: Do they want a megacity or not? Do they want to be ruled by nameless, faceless bureaucrats or not? I'm asking you, why don't you put the question? Why don't you sit down with the mayors and discuss what that referendum question might be like?

Why don't you let 75% of the people in Toronto participate in the question of how they're going to be governed?

Hon Mr Leach: An appropriate referendum question might be, "Are you satisfied with the status quo?" I know what the answer to that would be. No one is satisfied, including the mayors who have put their position forward. And by the way, their report built the best case I've ever seen for a single city. A referendum is just not appropriate for questions of this nature.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. It seems to me that one of the most fundamental and essential services a government can provide is to ensure that the people of this province are provided with clean and safe drinking water. Minister, can you tell me what makes you want to wash your hands of the responsibility of providing clean and healthy drinking water here in the province? Can you tell me why on earth you're considering selling Ontario's drinking water to the highest bidder?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition, that 75% of the water plants and sewage plants across this province are presently owned by the municipalities. In effect, the province has the mortgage on the other 25%. It's the intention of this government to turn over that additional 25% of sewage and water plants to the rightful owners: the municipalities.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Downloading.

Hon Mr Sterling: No, the owners.

Mr McGuinty: If this is a change in the policy, that's coming as news to us, Minister. You've indicated in the past that you intend to proceed with privatization.

Ensuring that clean drinking water is available is one of the fundamental responsibilities of your government. Let's raise another issue: The auditor says you aren't doing your job to inspect the water, and your only answer, unless you've changed your mind here now, is to sell it off to people who are going to care more about -- and this is quite natural -- making money than providing safe drinking water.

It's clear that you've already made up your mind on this. You don't care that drinking water is an essential service. You don't care that other jurisdictions have shown that privatizing can be a tremendous flop. Will you stop what you're doing with respect to anything for drinking water and allow for full public hearings on the future of Ontario's drinking water supply before you made any decisions?

Hon Mr Sterling: Let me say it again: There is no intention by the province of Ontario to do anything other than return or give the ownership of the sewage --

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Downloading.

Hon Mr Sterling: It's not downloading. They're the rightful owners. The municipalities want to own these particular plants. We are going to turn those plants over to them and they will be making the decisions as to what they might do with regard to the operation of those plants.

I will, as the Minister of Environment, continue to regulate and continue to assure the people of Ontario that there is a clean drinking water supply for each and every member of the Ontario public. That is the duty of the Ontario provincial government: to set tough regulations and see that those regulations are enforced. In fact, they can concentrate their efforts on making regulations, inspection and enforcement, as they should, not with regard to the operation, which is clearly a municipal responsibility, a responsibility they are much better able to do than the provincial government. It's simple.

Mr McGuinty: You'd like us to think it is simple, but it's not. You're cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from your own ministry budget. You're not going to have the people power and you're not going to have the facilities to regulate what you're trying to do.

Minister, I'll give you an opportunity now, because I want to get to the bottom of this. Can you provide us with every assurance here and now that there will be no privatization ventures with respect to Ontario water? Can you provide us with that assurance right now so we can put it out of our minds and stop worrying about it?

Hon Mr Sterling: I will assure the member that we will turn over the ownership of each and every sewage plant, each and every water plant to their rightful owners: the municipal governments of this province. That, in my view, has nothing to do with privatization. There is no plan to privatize one sewer, one water plant in this province. It is the responsibility of those particular municipalities to deal with providing their individual residents with water, with sewage service, as it has been in the past.

It will be my responsibility, this government's responsibility, to ensure that that water is clean for those residents to drink, and we will keep that enforcement. We will ensure that that enforcement is right.

The whole notion of privatizing this came from the opposition. It did not come from the government benches.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question today for the Attorney General. Yesterday your government released a report that recommends abolishing the special investigations unit, the SIU, a civilian agency that oversees Ontario's police, in favour of a new body that would come under the Solicitor General's ministry instead of your own.

Essentially, this report, which is the culmination of only a six-week study, would put police officers back in charge of investigating other police officers. There are many community concerns about this, as you know, and this was the original reason for creating the SIU to begin with. Minister, why is your government so committed to destroying the notion of civilian oversight of Ontario policing?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The report that Mr McLeod prepared does not recommend abolishing the SIU. What that report recommends is that the SIU be a separate and independent police investigative agency, separate from any existing police force. It recommends that the head of the SIU be an investigative person as opposed to a crown attorney, as has been the tradition in the past. Certainly we're reviewing those recommendations. We've made no decisions about that, and we're looking at it.

Mr Ramsay: That unit would still come under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, who is the top cop of the province. I think, as a lawyer, you would appreciate that for justice to be done it also must be perceived to be done, and that's why we feel very strongly about this. This was a narrow, six-week study, announced with very short notice. Members of affected communities were not on the review panel and were only given six business days' notice to prepare and submit their reports to that review committee. Minister, you can hardly suggest that this was a broad-based, open consultation process.

As you know, the SIU doesn't only deal with matters that require an apology; it is frequently required to investigate beatings, shootings and other allegations of excessive force by police. These are very serious matters, yet on the basis of almost no community consultation you're going to allow police to investigate themselves.

Attorney General, will you give us your guarantee today that you will not transfer responsibility for investigating complaints against the police to the Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly the proposal in Mr McLeod's report did not indicate any fundamental change in the role of the SIU. It recommended that the SIU be within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. That recommendation has been made. We're going to consider those recommendations; we've made no decisions yet. I can tell you that the Solicitor General is interested in having people comment on the report. He wants to get people's feedback about what the report says, and that's what's going to happen.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This morning I attended a press conference by the Ontario Municipal Water Association, the folks who own the water systems in this province, by and large, as the minister has indicated. I don't think these are the kinds of folks who tend to overreact to Tory pronouncements. They received word, as a matter of fact, from the minister in his public pronouncements that the Ontario Clean Water Agency was on the block and a prime candidate for privatization. They are very worried about the quality of water in Ontario.

I ask the minister: Why are you going along with the government plan to put the squeeze on municipalities to the extent that in many cases they will have no choice but to sell off their water supply? That's what's got them worried. Why are you doing this?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): With regard to the restructuring of municipalities with regard to resources, that does not come within the mandate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The Minister of Environment and Energy is there to try to ensure that there is clean water and adequate sewage for each and every community across the province. That is why we are looking at such tools as OCWA and their competitors, which include municipal employees who operate different municipal and sewage plants across the province and the private sector.

In terms of the operating wing of OCWA, the people who operate the plants, we believe there is no reason why the government should be involved with OCWA as an operating agency. Therefore we believe that in a competitive atmosphere the municipalities, the taxpayers, the residents, will get a better break.

Mr Laughren: That sounds a lot like privatization to me. I wonder if the minister could give us assurances that before he makes this kind of move, whether or not he calls it privatization, he will give assurances to the people of this province that there will be -- this is what the municipal water association folks are after -- public hearings across this province so people can judge for themselves what the minister has in mind, to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to the water supply in this province as happened to the water supply in Great Britain when they privatized it there. Would you give us those assurances for public hearings before you take any such steps?

Hon Mr Sterling: First, I've met with the Ontario Municipal Water Association and made it clear to them that the intention of the government was to devolve those assets back to the municipalities. They were satisfied with it and that seemed to be their prime concern.

To be able to do this, because of the nature of those assets, because many of those assets serve not one municipality, not two, but many municipalities, I believe that if we were to go ahead with this particular plan legislation would be required; therefore, this Legislature would have the opportunity to debate this bill and it would be the choice of the Legislature whether there would have been committee hearings and public hearings.

I suspect that would be the case and I would be anxious that would be the case. I can assure the member that through the legislative process there will be some form of public hearing.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. In the last budget the finance minister outlined plans for a student opportunity fund where the province would match, dollar for dollar, any donations made to assist Ontario students with the cost of their education at a post-secondary institution. Could you please report to the House the status of this program and the deadline for contributions?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to report to the House that the government last May established the Ontario student opportunity trust fund. It's a method of the government in helping to encourage the private sector, individuals and institutions to support the most needy students in our province. In fact, the government will match dollar for dollar contributions made by the private sector and individuals. The trust fund will be used to help students who have the academic criteria to gain entry but who have, for various reasons, severe financial constraints.

We hope to match up to $100 million in funds, creating $200 million in trust funds across the province. The reports I've had to date are very encouraging. A number of individuals and corporations across the province are very interested in making this opportunity available to students. In fact, some $25 million has been raised, and the campaign will be on until March 1997.

Mrs Ross: One of the reasons for the question was so that I could highlight something that's happening in my riding of Hamilton West. McMaster University recently announced that it has raised $1.6 million for its McSOF fund. This will double the amount McMaster has in its current assistance program for needy students. I'd like to read to you a quotation from Dr Peter George of McMaster University. He's the president there. He writes:

"Your government's decision to announce the establishment of the student opportunity fund matching grants program is proving to have signal impacts on the willingness of private sector donors to contribute to McSOF. I want again to thank you for introducing such an innovative and farsighted program."

Minister, could you please tell me and other members how other public institutions are doing with this program?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Of course, McMaster is justifiably proud of its record in fund-raising and the support it's had from its community for this program. York University has raised $8.5 million; the University of Toronto, $9.5 million; Queen's University, $1.2 million; and this program is just beginning. Colleges and universities across this province are beginning their fund-raising campaigns. I would encourage individuals and institutions, those private sector concerns that are interested in supporting the most needy students in the province, to get on the bandwagon to support their local institution and let the province match, dollar for dollar, their contribution in this exciting fund.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Parenthetically, you may have seen the TV program on the student who couldn't afford to get a loan and was living in a van. You might want to reflect upon that.

Related to my question, just before the last election the Royal Commission on Learning released its report For the Love of Learning. All three parties virtually welcomed overwhelmingly the recommendations that were made. Despite the fact that your party has endorsed the recommendations, you have taken the policy of education in exactly the opposite direction in terms of what the commission had reported. For instance, the commission recommended more early childhood education; instead, you cut junior kindergarten. One of the authors, a co-chair, has written to you protesting your continued suggestions that your policies reflect the commission's recommendations. Minister, they do not.

You can't implement half a recommendation and have it reflect what the recommendation was in terms of impact. When will you begin to implement the policies that are reflected in that commission, which are represented from the general public, students, parents and teachers?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member opposite for the question. It's a good one. I believe that the royal commission -- it cost about $3 million to produce its report -- was not mandated to examine education governance or education spending, so this government has been left to deal with those two critical issues. Of course the recommendations of the royal commission have to be taken in context, looked at in view of funding and governance and the other issues it did not address.

That said, I've been pleased, and I know our government has been pleased, to move forward on some of the recommendations of the royal commission, including the establishment of the College of Teachers, which we're justifiably proud of, the Education Quality and Accountability Office and other measures, including the reduction of our five-year secondary school program to a four-year program as recommended by the past two royal commissions.

We're also justifiably proud of keeping our promise to the people of Ontario and restoring junior kindergarten to a local choice. If the honourable member hasn't heard this from people across the province, there are people who are concerned about putting four-year-olds --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, thank you.

Mr Patten: The minister talks about taking the commission in context. I'd like to read a few passages in the letter from the co-chair of that commission:

"Your activities as education minister so grossly violate the spirit and purpose of our report that even when you formally adopt one of our recommendations, it's done in a way that distorts our intention and undermines the value of the proposal. I call on you to stop misrepresenting the work of our commission."

"Let's set the record straight, Mr Minister. Every part of this is diametrically opposed to what we recommended" -- he refers to some of your implemented policies -- "and you have no right to associate any of it with our report.... So please stop pretending that your destructive work has any relationship to our report. Stop using us to legitimize your actions. Stop misrepresenting our work."

Minister, will you stop taking the commission's work out of context and accept responsibility for your own draconian measures that are hurting students in the educational system in this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It'll come as no surprise to the member opposite that the co-chair he makes reference to is politically different from me. He's from a different political party; he has different concerns politically. But I believe the education of our young people in this province is too important for partisan politics.

I think improving our school system, having higher standards of student achievement, having a better funding system so there'll be no second-class students and finally moving not only on the recommendations of this royal commission but of the last royal commission to improve our school system so that the achievement of our students will be on a global scale, not where it is currently, is too important for partisan politics. That's the position I've taken from the start of my term in the ministry.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Earlier this afternoon I participated in a news conference with tenants from St James Town in your riding. Some of the tenants are here in the gallery to hear your answers to my question. They have two messages for you:

(1) Stop threatening our health and safety; and (2) don't give bad landlords rent increases. Those were the messages.

Catherine Howard and Dori Landmark say their buildings have had rent freezes put on recently because of bad maintenance: such things as no hot water, no fire extinguishers and elevators working badly. An order prohibiting rent increases, they say, is an important tool to hold bad landlords accountable. You're taking that away.

Minister, how can you look your constituents, who are going to be looking for you as you go out there today, in the face when you are giving their landlord a rent increase and taking away their most effective tool in ensuring their health and safety?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The fact is that we're actually giving more powers to the municipality to enforce building orders. The provincial standards officers are going to be given more power. They're going to have the authority to take experts with them into the facilities to make sure the work is done. We're also increasing the fine for somebody who doesn't comply with the work order, up to $50,000. If we're doing anything, we're improving the situation for tenants.

Mr Marchese: That's not what the tenants said. The tenants said that yours is a tenant attack act, that yours is a landlord protection act. Your act means higher rent and less maintenance. You are downloading your responsibility for maintenance to municipalities, and even they have said this won't work. They told us that during the hearings. We hear that throughout Ontario.

Minister, will you show the courage to hold a public meeting in your riding with these people from St James Town this month so you can explain to them why you are threatening their health and safety while at the same time rewarding landlords? Will you have the courage to have that meeting with them?

Hon Mr Leach: I meet with tenant groups in my riding almost on a weekly basis. Any tenant who wants to --

Mr Marchese: That's not true. You never go down.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Fort York, that was out of order. I ask that you withdraw it, please.

Mr Marchese: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Leach: Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was telling the member opposite that I meet with tenants on almost a weekly basis. Any tenants' organization or any tenant who wants to meet with me at any time has just to call my constituency office and they can come in and see me at any time.

I should also tell you, though, that this legislation does allow tenants to apply for a rent decrease for poor maintenance. You should try reading it.

HOME CARE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Last week a Canadian Press story ran in a number of newspapers, including the Sudbury Star, about the state of home care across Canada. With our growing number of seniors, many groups which provide health care at home have not been able to keep up with the demand. Caregivers are overworked, and the

article quoted one caregiver who regrets not having more time to spend with each patient.

I would ask the minister responsible for seniors to explain what the government is doing to alleviate this very serious problem.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member for the question. I too read the

article in the Sudbury Star. I am pleased to announce that this government, as part of its reinvestment plan and restructuring health care, has committed $170 million to expand these home care services for seniors and the disabled, and it will improve access for about 80,000 individuals in this province and create capacity for about 4,400 new front-line jobs in long-term care.

But this is just the beginning of a reinvestment. This government has a challenge, because we need to make sure that seniors are spending less time in hospital, because that's where they can receive many infections, in a hospital environment, when they want to spend more time in their home receiving direct care.

Last week I had an opportunity to meet with Dr Evelyn Shapiro for several hours. She was the woman who started the first home care programs in all of Canada. She was here to talk to us and the Older Women's Network about a growing problem we have in this province, and that is with caregivers. Half of the people with dementia in this province are receiving treatment at home, and 80% of their caregivers are women, and they are --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr Hardeman: I'd like to ask the minister, are there any concrete examples of reinvestment of dollars, and if so, could you share them with the House?

Hon Mr Jackson: I'd be pleased to respond, because we have already approved $30 million worth of the $170 million. I know my colleague opposite, the member for St Catharines, would be pleased that we have put about $800,000 into facilitating independent living for people with AIDS, seniors and people with acquired brain injuries. The member for Kingston and The Islands is quite pleased that we responded with about $200,000 for the Kingston Friendship Homes Community Support Program. The member for Timiskaming will be pleased about some $24,000 to the Kirkland Lake Consumer-Survivor Family Network.

The list goes on and on. The fact is that we have committed about 44 projects and about another 100 of these projects to expand these services. I want to remind the House of one important point, and that is that our reinvestment in long-term care is essential not only to helping those patients, but also to helping the family caregivers who need relief from the exhaustion they are experiencing in caring for a family member at home.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Your ministry obviously has been in the process of working out a new definition as it affects disabled Ontarians. There's a great fear within the disabled community that your new definition is going to exclude many, many individuals who currently receive disability benefits, many individuals who have mental illnesses, many individuals who have chronic illnesses, individuals who may have cancer that's in remission and whose condition may change very quickly.

There's a real fear that this change, meant only to lower the benefit level of many of these individuals who will have to go from disability benefits to welfare, is going to impact tens of thousands of Ontarians.

Minister, the question is very simple: Can you assure the House today that not one individual who is currently receiving disability benefits in the province of Ontario will be termed ineligible as a result of your definition change of disability?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd be very glad to give whatever assurances I could to the honourable member when we get final decisions made on a definition. As he probably knows, one of the reasons we're looking at changing the definition is because it very, very badly serves those in the disabled community right now, the way it is. As he mentioned cyclical illnesses, for example, the program is not very helpful for people who have disabilities that might well be better at some times as opposed to others.

There are many reasons why we are developing a new income support program for those who have disabilities. It's why we listened to the disabled community when we started. We've gone back to them. We are continuing to work on the rules, on the program, on the definition to make sure we can meet their needs.

Mr Agostino: You have said absolutely nothing that would reassure an individual today receiving disability benefits that their benefits are not going to be cut off as a result of your changes. I have letters from the Income Maintenance Group representing disabled groups in Ontario; the Canadian Mental Health Association; the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics; the Access Coalition.

All these groups have expressed the same concern, Minister: that your ministry in its consultation has used the words "severe restrictions and limitations ongoing" as your new definition of disability. It means that if someone who has cancer that may be in remission right now to some degree and who is receiving a disability pension does not fit your new criteria, they would be forced to go back on to welfare and then go through a process of a year or a year and a half, as it's now taking someone, to apply and get on disability benefits.

That clearly is unacceptable. You have not given the assurance that is required and necessary. Again I will ask you. Not later, but today, can you give this House the assurance that every single Ontarian who's receiving disability benefits will be protected once your new definition comes in?

Hon Mrs Ecker: My ability to give assurances on how we fund and support those who are disabled has been extremely hampered by the inability to get the federal government to make a decision as to how it's funding the vocational rehab program. Perhaps the honourable member, who shares the political philosophy of Mr Chrétien and Mr Pettigrew, can be of assistance in this area, because we would like very much for them to extend the funding so that we can continue to provide the supports.

Mr Agostino: You cannot give any assurance, Janet. Cut the crap.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said, we are continuing to consult with the disabled community. It's a very important issue. We want to make sure that the income support program for those individuals will support their needs.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton East, I ask, now the answer's been put, that you withdraw your comment.

Mr Agostino: Which comment?

The Speaker: The one where you told the minister to "cut the crap."

Mr Agostino: I withdraw it if that's unparliamentary.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Last week you and your colleagues in this House went to great lengths to convince the people of Ontario that there were no more problems with family support and that you had everything under control. But on the weekend, the news was full of a computer problem at family support yet again.

Cathy Dunn, who is a constituent in the riding of Ottawa-Rideau and a client of family support, spoke with Maureen in Gary Guzzo's office on Friday, November 29, concerning her family support. She was told in a message left by Maureen at 9:55 am, Friday, November 29, that nothing could be done because the computers at the family support office had been down on Thursday. They were expected to be up again, but they were down on Thursday.

Later that Friday morning, between 11 and noon, Cathy called the family support office herself and got through. She talked to an employee who said they couldn't check her file because the computer system was down. She called the family support office again yesterday and was told that the computer system was down last week and that was why they couldn't help her.

Your aide told everyone that there was no computer problem, that the computer had not crashed. Minister, my question to you is, how do you expect people to believe anything you say about the family support plan?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm going to refer this to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The reason this has been referred to the Chair of Management Board is that a change was made to the computer system by the computer telecommunications systems people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Members, the question has been referred; the Chair of Management Board does have the floor. I'd ask you to allow him to make his answer.

Hon David Johnson: The answer again is that a change was made to the computer system over the weekend by the computer telecommunications systems people. Unfortunately, the change was made to one of the computer systems and it impacted on the family support plan computer service. It's one of those inadvertent routine changes that are made to the system to ensure it's up to date. It had an unfortunate impact on the system and brought the system down. The computer people were working on the problem over the last couple of days. The system is now back up and fully operational.

Mrs Boyd: It's good to see that someone has some answers on the family support plan, even if they don't satisfy the clients. The management board chair may want to refer back to the minister for the next question, because we understand today that a constituent in Sudbury East has been calling the automated line for the answers and it either rings busy or she gets a message that it can't process her call. She finally got through to an operator on the 1-800 number, left a fifth message, and a real person called her back and said, "The computers are down." So that means the automated answering machine wasn't.

The same client in Ottawa-Rideau was told by Mr Guzzo's office that she couldn't trust the automated answering machine, she couldn't trust those answers, that she had to keep trying to get through to the plan because the automated answering machine isn't working.

Minister, really, you folks have been trying to tell the world there's no problem with this plan since you closed the regional offices and destroyed it. Would you please tell us what's going on with the automated answering machines?

Hon David Johnson: The Attorney General will answer that part of it.

The Speaker: Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you that --

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This is not the Liberal convention, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I assure the members that it is in fact in order. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you that the percentage of calls that are being answered in the family support plan today is far in excess of what they ever used to be.

Mr Pouliot: Playing ping-pong.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, please come to order.

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you that nearly 50% of the calls coming in are being returned, which is far in excess of the 6% of calls that were returned under the old family support plan. I can tell you that the automated phone system has been working. Yesterday calls were being responded to within 20 seconds as a result of the automated system and we're returning a far greater percentage of calls than the family support plan was ever able to do when 6% of calls were returned.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Solicitor General. When the report by Mr Justice Archie Campbell on police investigations into the crimes committed by Paul Bernardo was released this last July, you said there would be action taken by your ministry. The Campbell report called for better coordination by the police services in combatting serial criminals. This is a matter of great concern and urgency for all Ontarians. What exactly have you done in response to the Campbell report?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the member for Oshawa for the question. As you know, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has already taken steps in response to the Campbell report. This includes the allocation of an additional $5.2 million to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. This move was praised by Justice Campbell and is an item of which this government is particularly proud.

Yesterday at OPP general headquarters in Orillia, OPP Commissioner O'Grady and I were present at the official opening of the provincial violent crime linkage and analysis system, the ViCLAS centre. We were accompanied at this event by Mrs Donna French. ViCLAS reporting is a powerful tool to aid police in early identification and apprehension of serial predators. Our objective is to save lives through early recognition of serial crimes. As an added benefit, this will save valuable police time and resources which can be directed to other areas of law enforcement and prevention.

Mr Ouellette: I understand that ViCLAS has been underutilized in the past and that this was cited by Justice Campbell in his report. Minister, how will you ensure that the ViCLAS system is used to maximum effect, and does this new facility have the support of the Ontario police services?

Hon Mr Runciman: The honourable member is correct with respect to underutilization of ViCLAS, and making better use of the system was one of the key recommendations of the Campbell report. To spearhead the government's commitment in this area, the ministry will pass a regulation under the Police Services Act which will make ViCLAS reporting mandatory for all Ontario police services. The member should know that Ontario is the first jurisdiction in Canada to take this important action in the fight against these terrible crimes.

Senior criminal investigation officers from various Ontario police services as well as the OPP will staff the facility, and their commitment, experience and energy will give all police and all Ontarians a fighting chance against these very serious crimes.

I'm pleased with this important initiative by the policing community. This cooperative effort will bring some of the most experienced minds in Ontario policing to bear on this vital area of crime fighting. Through their efforts, the centre will be fully operational by January 1, 1997.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me tell the member for Kingston and The Islands, everybody has the same amount of time to put their question and answer their question. If you heckle me, it doesn't do any difference to the time.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Attorney General. In my constituency offices in Ridgetown and Belle River, my staff have been deluged by family support calls from desperate single parents. A crisis exists for these parents who are trying to feed and clothe their children and keep a roof over their heads.

We have faxed over 40 cases to family support in the last month and have been unable to get responses because we cannot reach any case workers. Last week, 20 pages of our original inquiries were faxed back with cryptic pencilled-over notes and a legend of abbreviations attached. It was completely chicken scratch.

My question to the Attorney General is, how can an elected representative hope to solve these serious problems if we can't understand the family support plan responses?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Last week we were able to respond to 1,075 MPP inquiries, and if the member has some problems with the answers or understanding what the answers are, I would be more than happy to ensure that he meet with the appropriate person to understand that information.

Mr Hoy: Every member has this problem. Everyone is calling our offices on the family support plan. It's not just myself. Attorney General, with Christmas just around the corner, you appear an incompetent Scrooge. My supplementary is simply, when will these people get their money?

Hon Mr Harnick: We were able in the month of November to distribute cheques to over 110,000 people; $34 million in cheques were distributed. There are 200 people who are trained and working in the new Family Responsibility Office. Cheques are being processed within 24 to 36 hours. Under the old plan, this could take up to a week. As I've indicated, we now have a capacity to process 25% more cheques a day than we had before.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Do you think it appropriate at a time of constraint, when workers are having to take concessions, that managers should take a pay increase?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the question but I am really not in a position of any knowledge as far as managers' pay increases are concerned. I will certainly get back to the member on that.

Mr Bisson: I do agree that you don't have a lot of knowledge when it comes to a lot of issues around transportation, but I would bring to your attention the following. You would know that GO Transit, through the negotiations they've had recently, went to the ATU local in order to negotiate concessions under collective agreement so that the GO Transit authority was able to offer services to commuters in the 905 area. The union went to the table; the ATU membership negotiated in good faith with management and in those negotiations basically took concessions around benefits to be able to save money for GO Transit and keep in operation.

We learn now recently that GO Transit managers have given themselves an increase of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4% to 5% in their wages. I ask you, Minister, is this acceptable in your view? Should the managers of GO Transit be taking a 4% to 5% raise at a time when workers are asked to take pay cuts?

Hon Mr Palladini: A question coming from a member who a little while ago wanted to give me lessons on geography. But as far as knowledge of what is going on in the province of Ontario is concerned, I would like to say this: I believe that since this government has taken over in Ontario, I must say that there's a lot more going on in a positive sense, a heck of a lot more than was going on when you were in power.

DEPUTY CHAIR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have a point of order from the member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Speaker. My point of order actually surrounds your office in some respects. I do have the greatest respect for your office and the role that you play, and your office, in part, is signified by the robes that you wear here in the Legislature. As well, Mr Speaker, all members of this House share the same privileges when they are seated in their place. I want to know, as a relatively new member, whether you believe that it is proper for a Deputy Chair, while seated in his place and wearing the robes of the Deputy Chair, to enter into debate and have exchanges back and forth on issues while dressed as the Deputy Chair of the House.

The Speaker: I'm very tempted to say I'll wait for the supplementary, but I will take that into consideration and maybe meet with you and find out exactly where you're going on that one and I'll respond in the House at a later date.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): That's the kind of answer we get from them.

The Speaker: But I did it within the time constraints; that's the only difference.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's obvious there was no answer forthcoming from the Minister of Transportation and I'm requesting a late show for Thursday.

The Speaker: You've filed the appropriate --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I realize that it will be a very late show. I don't think it's in order. No, you're not allowed, actually. It's not in order.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did say to the honourable member that I would take the information that he has just offered and I would get back to him. I did say that I would report back to him.

The Speaker: Okay, that's true. But there is no late show, regardless.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to discharge the order for committee of the whole House for Bills 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 and that the bills be ordered for third reading.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that the order of the House dated Thursday, November 28, 1996, with respect to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 82 in the standing committee on adminstration of justice be amended be deleting "5 pm" in the third line and substituting "8 pm" therefor.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster evictions by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

Thousands of these petitions are coming in daily, and I attach my signature to this.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition from parents of children attending Mountain View school in Goulais River in Algoma district to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The parents are expressing concern over changes being made to the education system. They wish to be consulted and feel that they haven't been properly consulted.

They are very particularly concerned about the loss of 50% of their special education, loss of libraries, junior kindergarten, music programs and so on. They are appealing for reconsideration of these future changes to education and the budget cuts.

I submit this petition signed by 35 constituents and I attach my name to it.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I should be giving this petition to my friend Isabel Bassett, because it is about black bears and she has been very concerned, but it comes from my riding.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Why don't you just read the petition?

Mr Murdoch: Peter Shaw sent it to me from my riding. It's a petition to end the spring bear hunt.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

There are 128 signatures here.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the rights of Catholic ratepayers to govern Catholic education in Ontario is constitutionally protected in the British North America Act (1867) and the Constitution Act (1982); and

"Whereas the Minister of Education and Training is reviewing and considering a number of reforms to the education system in Ontario; and

"Whereas a number of these proposed reforms would have a serious negative impact on Catholic education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We strongly urge that the Minister of Education and Training be requested to reaffirm the government's commitment to the maintenance of Roman Catholic denominational rights ensuring that any reforms will not lessen or abrogate any such rights;

And further, that the minister enter into realistic and meaningful consultation with all education stakeholders that will lead to positive change for students."

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative government of Ontario are taking away our voice and democratic rights; and

"Whereas Harris's government intends to cut five northern seats from the Ontario Legislature, thereby reducing the number of seats in the north from 15 to 10; and

"Whereas northerners count on their members of the Ontario Legislature to present their concerns on issues that affect their families and communities, from health care to education; and

"Whereas this will have a direct impact on the people of Markstay, Hagar, Warren, St Charles and Noëlville; and

"Whereas this riding will become part of the riding of Timiskaming-Cochrane, a riding stretching from Noëlville in the south to Cochrane in the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and his government have already demonstrated that they are not friends of the north and have introduced a bill that will discriminate against us even further;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to listen to the voice of northerners and abandon Bill 81."

This is signed by 63 residents in the riding of Sudbury East. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

SPIRITUALITY IN SCHOOLS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the 1989 Ontario Court of Appeal decision on religion in public schools never implied that spiritual expression should be suppressed; and

"Whereas spirituality in public schools is currently limited to the reading only of multifaith prayers and texts; and

"Whereas the shared celebration of spirituality is an important part of the overall education of students to the multicultural and multifaith character of Canadian society; and

"Whereas local public boards should have the right to determine for themselves how best to incorporate spiritual expression in the daily life of public schools,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the important role of spirituality and its multifaith expression for students be recognized and that local public boards across Ontario be allowed the right to determine how such expression can be included in the daily activities of public schools."

I sign it as well.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is in response to Bill 84. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and after extensive public hearings."

I affix my name to it, as I agree with it.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is signed by 25 people who live in the Ottawa area. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris and Charles Harnick promised to improve the family support program; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that `government should concentrate its efforts on tracking down deadbeat parents and enforcing payment orders'; and

"Whereas the closure of the family support plan's regional offices have caused a decrease of quality service and lengthened delays; and

"Whereas the cuts to the family support plan have eliminated community-based services, replaced enforcement staff with technology, and limited communication;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris reopen the regional offices and guarantee adequate staffing numbers to provide quality services to recipients and children."

I agree with the petitioners and I have signed this petition.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education, with clearly defined responsibilities limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by the locally elected representatives;"

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of the schools to deal with broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

I respectfully submit this petition on behalf of my constituents who signed it and will affix my name to the corner.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): They're coming in by the thousands as we sit here today. I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster evictions by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I affix my signature to these thousands of people who are petitioning the government.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by several people from the area of Sudbury to Premier Mike Harris, Minister Al Leach and members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control;

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution document;

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system;

"Whereas the government has consulted with special interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5-million tenants of Ontario;

"Whereas although all renters will suffer, seniors and others on fixed incomes will suffer particular hardship if rent controls are abolished;

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5-million tenants in this province."

I've attached my signature to it.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of the schools to deal with broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects 3.3-million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster eviction by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris and John Snobelen promised no cuts to classroom education, and since their election, the Harris government has cut more than $430 million from school board budgets, representing a cut of nearly $1 billion to public education on an annualized basis; and

"Whereas our children have already lost 50% of their special education funding, they've lost their librarians and in some areas their junior kindergartens. Many of them have no music programs left in their schools. Their class sizes have increased enormously. Some are in danger of losing their buses; and

"Whereas parents across Ontario know that most of the changes in education are being made just to cut $1 billion that the government needs to fund its tax cut; and

"Whereas parents know these cuts are affecting the classrooms and quality of education for their children; and

"Whereas parents know that they have not been consulted;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris stop these cuts to our children's education and their future."

This is signed by 39 constituents in the riding of Sudbury East. I agree with the petition and I have signed it as well.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we welcome real control, and welcome those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms and new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms, or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime, and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I affix my name as required.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have another petition from the community of Barrhaven in my constituency, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Barrhaven lacks any high schools to educate the large number of students living in this area;

"Whereas Barrhaven is the most rapidly growing community in Ottawa-Carleton;

"Whereas the National Capital Commission's greenbelt severs the community of Barrhaven from Nepean, forcing students to be bused from other communities, wasting both time and money;

"Whereas St Pius X and St Paul high schools in Nepean have 36 portables onsite;

"Whereas the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board has undertaken significant cost-saving measures to help reduce the construction costs of its high schools;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We strongly urge the Minister of Education to recognize the urgent need for a Catholic high school in Barrhaven and provide the funding required to build our school."

Because I'm in agreement, I've affixed my own signature thereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

Mr David Johnson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 81,

An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I ask for unanimous consent that the member for Scarborough East be permitted to speak on this bill. It won't be 90 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there unanimous consent? It is agreed. The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough East.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I appreciate the conundrum, given that the House leader does not have a parliamentary assistant, therefore this is a somewhat unique bill in that regard.

We had the opportunity to travel since the last time we spoke to this bill in the House. The committee held meetings in eastern, western and northern Ontario as well as here in Toronto. I'd like to speak to some of the issues we heard criss-crossing the province, but before I do that, perhaps just a very brief recap of what this bill is all about.

Having proceeded through second reading and committee, we stand poised to enact legislation which fulfils one of the few commitments remaining from the Common Sense Revolution. Our policies have been shaped by commitment, consensus and consultation, not by a knee-jerk reaction to newspaper headlines the night before.

Over and above the philosophical importance of this bill there are a great number of practical benefits that will accrue to taxpayers across this province. I think it's safe to say that in this House, and certainly in committee, there was a broad recognition of at least some of those benefits even from the opposition members.

When our leader first undertook the consultations which ultimately formed the Common Sense Revolution, we had the direct input of thousands of Ontarians in shaping each and every commitment in this document. Over four years in town hall meetings, via questionnaires and at policy conferences, Mike Harris consulted with people across this province, and almost without exception Ontarians voiced concern that government had gotten too big. We were overregulated, we were overtaxed, we were overbureaucratized. Government had become too unwieldy, too self-serving.

It had lost touch with its original goals and objectives as it had grown and it had become inefficient in many ways. It had become increasingly difficult for government policies to be translated into action at the local level.

Despite the fact that over the years there has been a significant increase in the number of MPPs, there is no evidence whatsoever on the issue of accountability or in terms of access for the public or in terms of demonstrable need based on workload that those increases were justified. Back in 1955, there were virtually the same number of MPs as MPPs. There were 85 MPs serving in Ottawa from the province of Ontario, and there were 90 MPPs serving in this chamber.

Since then the federal government has seen fit to increase by 14 to this date, with a proposal to add another four for the next election, but here in Ontario we added 40 members. Obviously the population increase impacted exactly the same on the workload of both the MPs and MPPs, and I am at a loss to understand why previous governments were so prone to increase cost to the taxpayers by going along with these outrageous increases in the number of members in this chamber.

In addition, years of neglect, years of inequitable growth rates in different regions of this province, and to some extent an unwillingness to tackle the fundamental democratic principle of representation by population had left Ontario with a patchwork of ridings which saw some members elected by literally six times as many voters as some of the other members in this chamber. I personally believe that every person living in Ontario has the right to have their vote count for the same weight as everyone else in this province.

The leader of the third party represents a riding with only 19,000 voters, and yet Minister Palladini represents a riding with 129,000 voters -- six and one quarter times the workload.

In this document we said the belt tightening would start here at Queen's Park. The Common Sense Revolution made it very clear that MPPs were not to be immune from the belt-tightening that had to affect all transfer partners and all the people who were part of the expenses of the provincial government.

I'm very pleased that since our election we've reduced our pay. We've trimmed our budgets as MPPs. All members trimmed their budgets by 27%. We've eliminated the gold-plated pension plan. Now the fourth plank in our platform of personal belt-tightening has reached third reading. This bill will eliminate 27 seats across Ontario, reducing from 130 down to 103.

I, for one, am quite prepared to stand in this House and say that I'm prepared to take on the additional workload, and I believe that the government members share this with me. We're up to the task of handling the responsibilities of representing ridings which will have over 100,000 residents.

We heard during second reading there was even precedent for this move back in 1933, when the government of the day was facing similar extraordinary financial problems. They didn't have a $100-billion debt, but they had the world's worst recession. They reacted by trimming the same 20% that we're proposing to trim in the number of members today. A coincidence perhaps, but I think an apt one.

This takes us back to some of the practical savings we can expect from the bill. Obviously, 27 members and their staff and their offices and their attendant expenses will work out to a saving of about $11 million each and every year.

Over and above that, there are the savings that we will accomplish by cooperating with the federal government in the technical aspects of running elections. Clearly, with identical boundaries, we'll be able to have the same voters' list; we'll be able to have the same mapping of the ridings and the same designation of poll locations. All of those things are estimated to save us an additional $36 million each and every election. Given a four-year average term of office, we're talking about savings of $80 million to the taxpayers as a result of this bill.

That's $80 million that can be put into the sorts of programs the members opposite talk to us about every day and suggest this province needs. But of course they had no way to fund them. This is exactly our answer to how you come up with the resources to deal with the important issues. I submit to you that it's far more important that we have funding for health care and education than to make our workload easier here at Queen's Park.

Just again to start with the background on the bill, there's one final point that must be stressed as an inevitable consequence of this bill: It shows that our government is prepared to lead by example, not just within the context of our dealings with the civil servants but also in terms of our relationship with the subsidiary municipal levels of government.

When you recognize that right here in Metro Toronto alone we have 104 school trustees, we have 112 other elected officials -- a number greater than the total number of MPs who represent all of Ontario -- clearly we have a problem with overgovernment and overrepresentation. It has become abundantly clear to any reasonable taxpayer that the excesses, the unfettered growth in the provincial bureaucracy and governance pale by comparison to what has happened in the municipalities.

It is interesting to note that the support shown to us by all three Toronto newspapers went so far as to suggest that what we are doing demonstrated exactly the sort of leadership that the municipal level of government will have to follow. I am confident in the next few weeks that we'll see the sort of initiatives that will encourage municipal governments to follow our example.

When we were out on the road, we certainly heard a number of differing points of view, and it was indeed a treat to travel to the extremities of the province. It should be noted for the record that this is the first time in 10 years that any committee has travelled during the period that the House is in session.

So I want to thank members from all three parties who, over and above their responsibilities in this House from Monday to Thursday, went out Thursday night, Friday and Saturday and travelled the province to listen to the over 100 groups and individuals who made written and oral representations to the committee. I believe their service was above and beyond the call of duty, and I thank all the members, including the opposition members, who travelled with us to the north, to London and to Ottawa.

I guess having had the opportunity now to travel across the province and to listen to those people, as well as to read the newspaper clippings -- virtually every newspaper in this province has had at least one

article or one editorial on the subject. I note Diane Francis had an

article in the Financial Post headlined "Ontario Politicians Deserve a Medal for Reducing the Size of Their Government." That's quite typical of the reaction.

As I mentioned a minute ago, all three of the Toronto newspapers came out in support, and it's safe to say that almost 100% of the newspapers in this province expressed a similar reaction to the cost-saving initiatives that this bill suggests.

If I may, I'd like to take a few minutes to reiterate the key concerns that we heard outstanding across the province, in the north in particular. There was certainly an expression of concern for what would happen to the rural northern ridings. I make that distinction because in all three stops in the north, we did not have one single representation from an urban northern riding that expressed concern with any aspect of this bill -- not one.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mayor Poulin, the mayor from Smooth Rock Falls. What a misrepresentation.

Mr Gilchrist: Forgive me, Smooth Rock Falls is a fine town, but I would not call it an urban centre. The reality is, in Sault Ste Marie in particular, almost 50% of the people who showed up spoke in favour of the bill, something I suspect the opposition members found somewhat troubling and perhaps a little confusing.

In fact, down here in Toronto we had a submission from Mr John Sewell. That's the same John Sewell, that well-known friend of the members opposite, and certainly anything but a Conservative supporter, and Mr Sewell spoke very eloquently and at great length that there should not be a bias in favour of any region in this province and that we really should, wherever possible, follow the model of representation by population. I think for the first time there is something that Mr Sewell has stated before committee or in public that I agree with. But he hit the nail right on the head with that representation before the committee.

I can go further and say that there was universal acceptance that there was a need for riding redistribution. In fact, in Timmins, the member for Cochrane North, responding to Ms Bonnie Foster's representation before the committee, said, "I have no problem with the reduction of ridings, only with the process." I agree with him. I think the reality is that the process was the thing that we said after the election would be the one issue that we had to address in the course of fulfilling the promise we made during the Common Sense Revolution, because our commitment to the reduction was unwavering but we had to believe that what the federal, non-partisan boundary commission did --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Appointed by the Liberals.

Mr Gilchrist: Appointed by the Liberals -- was in fact done in a fair and equitable manner.

Perhaps I can just read very briefly from the report of that committee. "The Commission's Mandate" is the heading.

"In assigning boundaries to electoral districts, the commission must apply the principles established by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The act directs the commission to divide Ontario into 103 districts `on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province shall as close as reasonably possible correspond to the electoral quota for the province.'

"The commission may depart from the quota where necessary or desirable to:

"(

i) respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province;

"(ii) maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.

"In departing from the quota to respect community of interest and the other enumerated considerations, the commission must make every effort to ensure that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the population set for each electoral district remains within 25%, more or less, of the electoral quota."

I think this really comes to the hub of why we are as committed as we are to this bill. There is no doubt, and every single presenter, every one to whom the question was put, said that if there were a duplicate provincial boundary commission appointed and asked to travel the province, they would make exactly the same submission to the provincial commission that they made or would have made to the federal commission.

The bottom line is that to suggest that we need to waste more taxpayers' money and waste more time to create a second commission and cross-cross the province at who knows what expense to simply elicit the same responses is clearly something that no reasonable taxpayer would support.

I'll go further. I would encourage all members opposite to read the 1994 Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario, because they detail at great length the submissions that were made to them and how they weighed the various issues -- geography, population, natural barriers -- and came to the conclusions they reached in this report. There were 185 oral representations and 116 written representations heard by the commission. Again, particularly in the north, they detail at great length why they did what they did.

It has to be pointed out as well that this commission was at arm's length from the Liberal government in Ottawa. This was a neutral, non-partisan commission. There was no bias. I am very pleased that the members opposite did not raise when we were on the road the suggestion of gerrymandering. Some of the presenters who did not know the background and how we had arrived at our conclusions did have some concerns, but I can address them very directly by saying our government had no say in the shaping of those boundaries.

In 1994, long before any maps were drawn, but knowing that the federal government had this commission criss-crossing the province, we made it very clear. The people that voted for us, the 2.5 million households that got a copy of the Common Sense Revolution -- and I'd like to believe read that and cast their vote on the basis of the sound judgement that demonstrated by agreeing with the premises in that book -- saw that our commitment, long before there was a map, was to follow the direction of this neutral, non-partisan commission.

The flip side, however, is true for those members sitting in the House today who got elected on June 8, because by that date, 13 months after we made our promise, the shape of the boundaries was clear. It was clear to every member, all three parties, that if the Conservative Party formed the government, we were going to follow through on this commitment and they could expect in the next election, in 1999, to have the boundaries as shown in the federal boundary commission. But they had seven more months, while the commission was at the final review stage, when they could have made representations directly to their MP or to the boundary commission.

We heard in some of the hearings that there were people in this province who did just that. We did not hear from any of the members who are speaking against this bill today, who knew full well -- they all had copies of the Common Sense Revolution -- 17 months ago that this bill would be coming forward. They did not express any concerns to the federal boundary commission, even though they knew we would follow its final decision.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We couldn't believe you were serious in abdicating your responsibilities like this.

Mr Gilchrist: We're very serious about keeping our promises.

It's also true that almost 50% of the presenters at our stop in London were former NDP members of this House, hardly a representative sample of the community. Quite frankly, if those people were the only persons in southwestern Ontario who opposed the bill, I am neither surprised nor concerned, because their policies and their failure to address important issues such as riding redistribution were repudiated by their own constituents during the election last year.

If I can just leave a final couple of points on the record, those groups that came before us certainly all had legitimate concerns. Many of them and others who spoke, groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Taxpayers Coalition of Peel, were all in favour of this bill and its cost savings and its leadership.

Those people who needed some assurance left the committee room having heard from the members on the government side the real story behind this bill. They learned the cost savings. They learned that this was a question of keeping our word, of doing what we said we would do. While I would not go so far as to suggest everyone left satisfied, I think it is clear that the overwhelming majority of people who appeared before us had the majority of their concerns addressed.

Clearly they must have, because our government put this bill through 25 internal reviews, probably the most intensively reviewed and researched bill that's ever been brought forward. Therefore, our government didn't feel inclined to put forward any amendments; neither did the third party, and the Liberal Party had a couple of amendments, which we've dealt with more by motion because their most significant amendment dealt with other issues that will arise after this bill has passed, and we've certainly given our commitment to address all those concerns.

Just to summarize, the key points of this bill are as follows: After years of neglect and the erosion of the principle of representation by population, this government is prepared to make the tough decisions which are needed to right these wrongs. We continue to recognize the unique situation that exists in northern Ontario, and the plan allows two more ridings in the north than would be the case under strict representation by population. That's a 20% differential. The workload for the average rural member in the north is 20% lighter than the average of all the other members in this House. That will address the concerns of geography.

The plan will save money: tens of millions of tax dollars in each term of government after the next election. It shows we're leading by example; it's, "Do as we do." When we talk to municipal governments and school boards, we can show them that we're asking nothing of them we haven't already asked of ourselves.

The final point I'd like to leave for our northern members and something that I think was a useful product of our committee hearings in the north was that we heard at length that over and above the service provided by the MPPs themselves, there are myriad other government resources they can call on. I was most impressed. We were able to visit one of them, the offices of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in the north. There's one of these in every significant town and city in the north. Everything we heard from the presenters up north was that these offices do a significant portion of the workload that would normally be handled by members here in southern Ontario.

In terms of gathering information and making sure the community is aware of everything from bills to various regulations and being a resource for members to add to their staff, we saw at first hand that the members in the north actually have far greater access to their constituents than would be the case for members such as Mr Hardeman and others representing large rural ridings, certainly Mr Grimmett in the large rural riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

It's clear to us that those resources, if utilized wisely, if they embrace modern technology, if they use the 1-800 phone service that's offered to them and isn't even part of their operating budget -- it's over and above that -- if they use this bill as the inspiration to work smarter and to use all the assets at their disposal, to follow the example Mr Miclash has set in the riding of Kenora, where he has volunteers acting as his eyes and ears and his outreach in some of the smaller communities -- not using taxpayers' money to set up a third or a fourth riding office. He has done a laudable job.

He is to be applauded for showing that sort of initiative in the north. I would encourage all the members of what will be only four ridings, only four rural ridings that we're talking about here, to follow Mr Miclash's example. He's proven it can be done and I'm sure they will find equally eager volunteers throughout the north to help us address the concerns that we must find cost savings that we can rededicate to more important issues.

With that, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. It's an important initiative. We genuinely appreciate the input we got across this province. It was very illuminating to members of the committee. I should say that when we were in Dryden we even took the opportunity that, rather than have dinner, members from the government went and toured a pulp and paper mill -- it was the first time for the Avenor mill in Dryden -- just one of the side benefits of being able to travel around the province and see exactly the issues and the concerns of the people in all the ridings.

I encourage all members to support this bill, as it's certainly going to generate a lot of money for the taxpayers and show the kind of leadership that has been long overdue in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): That was an interesting speech. It certainly didn't reflect the views that I heard in Dryden or in Sault Ste Marie. The issue that concerns most northerners is the fact that we are losing five seats of our 15. Fully one third of the seats in northern Ontario are to disappear, which means that the percentage here of representation will be severely diminished vis-à-vis the rest of the province.

There will now be, if you can believe this, 10 members across all of northern Ontario: 90% of the land mass of this province will be represented by 10 members. Of those 10 members, only five are rural members, so essentially what you have is five rural members representing 90% of all of Ontario. Given the fact that under the redistribution the federal seats went from 11 to 10, not 15 to 10, I think you can understand why northerners believe this government is intentionally attempting to shut the north out.

During the election, I read the Common Sense Revolution. As a matter of fact, it had television ads that said they're going to reduce your representation in the rural ridings by half. And do you know what? There wasn't a Conservative elected except in North Bay. I think they got the message. I think northerners understood what you were saying; I think northerners still understood what you're saying. And I think the members who were touring pulp and paper mills for the first time, which is commendable, should understand that the people of the north won't stand for this.

Mr Wildman: The member for Scarborough East continues to discount geography. While all of us recognize that there must be redistribution to try to mirror population and to have representation by population, he continues to discount geography. He makes the point that the leader of the New Democratic Party represents a very small population and ignores the fact that with this redistribution the new riding will be one third of the whole land mass of Ontario.

The member also says that while he didn't think that everyone left satisfied, he felt that most of their concerns had been addressed at the committee hearings in northern Ontario. I just received today a letter from a constituent of mine from Desbarats, Mr Ed Sadowski, and I'll read a portion of it into the record:

"I also want to formally lodge a complaint with you on the treatment I received from the government committee members. MPPs Gilchrist and Young of the committee failed to understand that my complaint was with the process; that the government policy of trying to expedite their legislation without regard to citizens' concerns is undemocratic and, in my opinion, unconstitutional...."

Further, he says: "The Premier of this province states that he wants to consult with citizens of this province. Yet when I accept his invitation, my access to important information is restricted. When I point out these problems to committee members, I am verbally chastised for doing so. The government members only offer asinine explanations which are totally unrelated to what is being discussed.... These arrogant and insulting statements coming from the government members clearly show total disrespect by the government to the citizens of this province and it calls into question the Premier's true intentions regarding the process of public consultation with the citizens of this province."

That explains clearly the feelings that northerners had as a result of the government members' attitudes on this committee. They weren't really interested in hearing what the people had to say. They were only forced into public consultation because of the opposition in this House and they didn't intend to respond one way or the other to the representations made by northerners.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to respond to the comments made by the member for Scarborough East. I know the extent he's gone to, to do the research and share that with you today. I know he's reported to a number of members of caucus regularly. I've learned from him to appreciate, first of all, the principle of delivering on our promise and our commitment of smaller government, but also doing it in a fair and reasonable way. I like the choice of terms he uses when we look to our federal counterparts, the members we should work with regardless of the party, to service the people in our ridings.

It's very important that we in the rural ridings now I believe are adequately represented. In fact, my riding, Durham East, I would classify as about 60% rural and 40% urban. My riding actually gets a bit smaller, because it's by the representation.

I believe when you look at the total number of members being reduced by that percentage, the benefit is to the people of Ontario as well. The cost here at Queen's Park, maintaining a constituency office, the staff and duplication that's grown over the years -- we have to lead by example. That's fundamental. We're asking other municipalities to combine and merge, we're asking hospitals to combine and merge, and I think we have to lead by example.

When a constituent calls my office, frequently they don't know whether the issue they're calling on is municipal, federal or provincial. Each one of us should be there to help them to solve that problem, so we're going to have to work in partnership to eliminate waste and duplication both in the constituency offices and indeed here at Queen's Park.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough East for sharing the insights he's picked up and developed over the last while. He's done a spectacular job, and we all owe it to him.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I always find it instructive listening to the member for Scarborough East when I want to know what the Reform Party is thinking or what the notes are from the Premier's office, because I detect that when the member speaks.

I want to say to him, the issue is not redistribution. I think he knows that. Everyone has to accept redistribution. It has to be done, based on the new census each time. That's not the issue.

Your real motive in this is to appeal to that group of people you've convinced that elected representatives are the real problem and not others in government. If only we saw significant reduction in the Premier's complement. I don't just mean the people in the Premier's office but the others they hide in other budgets, because that is what's happening. What is happening now is that you are transferring more and more power to unelected people and you're diminishing the power of individuals who are elected, people the general electorate can get at, can influence.

In the Niagara Peninsula, for instance, we go down to four seats. My friend the member for St Catharines-Brock loses his seat, for instance, and I think he is a person who's working diligently for the people in that constituency and must be very concerned about that.

We have to remember as well that what you are doing is significantly reducing and diminishing government resources. While the member says that there are other agencies of government to serve people other than MPPs, what's happening is that he is significantly reducing it -- witness what's happening with the family support plan -- so the workload for constituency offices and staff is increasing very significantly. That's one of the problems I have.

I don't think we should increase the number of seats in this Legislature. I think that's out, and everybody would agree with that. My problem is the motivation of this government and what they're not taking into consideration.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough East has two minutes to respond.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you for the comments from my colleagues on both sides of the House. I would like to touch very briefly on a couple of the issues they've raised, first off, the issue of who wins and who loses in the north, because that's the way it was phrased. Quite frankly, Metro Toronto is the region that loses the most seats, not the north. Eastern Ontario loses just as many seats as the north and eastern Ontario has a far greater population. Metro Toronto, of course, has twice the population of the whole north, in fact almost three times the population of the north.

The proposal absolutely addresses the concerns for the urban-rural and the rural ridings. Populations vary from the low seventies to over 110,000. That differential is in the bill, it is addressed by the federal boundary commission. The suggestion that we should go beyond 22% below the average to address in four ridings these geographical concerns I don't think is acceptable.

There exists the technology today for the members to be accessible to all their constituents. In what will be the new riding of Kenora-Rainy River, we were told there are 50 first nations communities; 49 of them are hooked up to fax service. There is the technology in the north.

The bottom line is that this is a promotion, if anything. The member for St Catharines suggests that this is somehow meant to disparage the work done by elected officials. It's just the opposite. It is a reflection that we can and we should and we will work harder and smarter and better. We can do better. We're going to restore confidence in this chamber, confidence in our province, and this sort of demonstration of leadership is exactly what's called for after 10 long years of waste and mismanagement.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Could I ask for unanimous consent to share my 90 minutes with my colleagues Mr Grandmaître and Mr Patten?

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? It is agreed.

Mr Curling: I have looked forward very much to this day, when I would be addressing the House on this very, very important bill which this government has called the Fewer Politicians Act. They are shameless in their approach to this. They're shameless in their approach, to say that what we're trying to do is to put a demise on democracy, that the politicians here should be less until we reduce them to a point of view where there will be none.

As a matter of fact, when they have completed diminishing the representatives of the people through the democratic process, I presume the next step, which they have started already is to privatize everything. As they appointed a minister of privatization, the next step I'm sure is to start privatizing the politicians.

I wanted to speak, before I get into the meat of the bill, a bit about democracy. It's a rather painful situ