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

October 29, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 29 October 2001 Lundi 29 octobre 2001

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

PORT HOPE LIONS CLUB

SOINS À DOMICILE

LABOUR DISPUTE

HARVEY PARTNER

IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT

AND COUNSELLING SERVICES

AWARDS OF RURAL EXCELLENCE

BORDER CROSSING AT WINDSOR

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

BRANCH 43

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SPENDING

PUBLIC SERVICES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

AND LONG-TERM CARE STAFF

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HIGHWAYS 7 AND 8

BAY OF QUINTE WALLEYE FISHERY

SAVE PROGRAM

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

HOME CARE

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOME CARE

OHIP SERVICES

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

EDUCATION PEACE PLAN

HEALTH CARE

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Monday 29 October 2001 Lundi 29 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): After three weeks of stonewalling and refusing to address concerns of patients and parents over cuts

at the London Health Sciences Centre, it was nice to see you blink in London last week, Minister of Health.

The hospital's scoping exercise is riddled with inaccuracies and incorrect information, an exercise that has gone terribly wrong.

Dr Lawrence Hurst, chair of plastic and reconstructive surgery, said that the scoping document says that 339 patients had uninsured procedures in one year, and

this is wrong. The true number is 42 cases. The $73,000 profit from these cases is, again, pure fiction; the training program will be irreparably damaged; and none of the major stakeholders were

ever consulted.

Dr Guy DeRose of vascular surgery points out more incorrect information that was supplied to the board: a cost of $600,000 a year -- not true; that the procedure

is experimental -- again, not true; and that the waiting list will be reduced -- incorrect again.

Tuesday night the hospital's entire department of surgery, representing 50 surgeons, will be appealing to the board to reconsider this ill-conceived,

error-riddled process.

Before this minister gets too absorbed with his leadership aspirations, now is the time for you, Minister, to show some real leadership. The minister must

immediately intervene into what's going on in London. Consider the value of this academic centre that provides tertiary and quaternary care. Stop the scoping exercise and ensure that the

appropriate funding is allocated to the London Health Sciences Centre now. Show some leadership.

PORT HOPE LIONS CLUB

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the 70th charter anniversary of the Port Hope Lions Club. For seven

decades, this club has played an important role in Port Hope and the surrounding community, supporting in excess of 30 noteworthy causes. They have been successful in raising funds in a variety of

manners such as bingos, street fairs and car draws.

These funds have been reinvested in the expansion of the recreation centre, the creation of a local swimming pool and the erection of a Friendship Arch some five

years ago. In 1996, they made a declaration of continuing community service to the mayor of Port Hope, rededicating and pledging themselves to the continuing civic life and welfare of their

community.

They have also regularly canvassed for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

As the oldest Lions Club between Montreal and Toronto, The Port Hope club has also been key in sponsoring other Lions Clubs in the neighbouring communities of

Bowmanville, Whitby, Peterborough, Oshawa, Cobourg and Bewdley. This is indeed an exceptional legacy of outreach.

The Lions Clubs International motto is; "We serve," and The Port Hope Lions Club exemplifies this in all of their community endeavours.

On Saturday I will be attending the 70th charter anniversary to recognize the efforts made by the Port Hope Lions. Please join with me in acknowledging the

worthy contributions this organization has made over the past 70 years.

SOINS À DOMICILE

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : Je prends la parole aujourd'hui pour exprimer mes graves inquiétudes concernant le

manque de personnel de soutien pour les services de soins à domicile, plus précisément, dans le secteur rural. Le gouvernement avait bien indiqué qu'il augmenterait le niveau

des services en place puisqu'il était préférable de garder les personnes âgées dans leur foyer aussi longtemps que possible.

Voici la situation actuelle pour le secteur rural depuis la privatisation des services. Le bureau d'Ottawa se voit avec une pénurie de personnel

désirant desservir les petits hameaux tels que Navan, Cumberland et Sarsfield. À cause de la distance entre leurs clients, ils ne peuvent desservir le même nombre de personnes dans

le secteur rural que dans le secteur urbain.

Une autre grave lacune s'ajoute au sérieux problème. M. Édouard Cléroux senior de Navan se voit recevoir des soins à domicile deux jours

par semaine mais de deux différentes personnes : une francophone et une unilingue anglophone. Hors, M. Cléroux est une personne âgée de 88 ans, francophone, qui ne peut

aucunement parler ou comprendre l'anglais.

Les membres de la famille Cléroux essaient depuis des mois de rectifier ce problème, mais sans succès. M. Cléroux n'a pas de choix que de

continuer avec le même service, qui le rend inquiet et complètement vulnérable.

Étant donné ces faits, comment peut-on expliquer aux gens du secteur rural qu'ils ne sont pas à la même hauteur des autres, puisqu'ils ne

reçoivent certainement pas la même qualité de services ?

J'implore le ministre pour veiller à ce que tous les gens de l'Ontario reçoivent la même qualité de services et qu'ils ne se sentent pas

délaissés et pénalisés en raison de la négligence du gouvernement.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Again we find ourselves in the same situation over the last couple of weeks when it comes to the residents

at the St Mary's Manor in the city of Timmins. We've been after the Minister of Labour for some two weeks now to intervene on behalf of the workers, the very workers who are going to be fired by

their employer because the employer does not want to go to the bargaining table to find a contract for those people that have joined for the first time a union of the St Mary's Manor.

I've asked the minister on a number of occasions to facilitate a process that would bring the employer to his senses and I'm going to offer him another one

today. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has filed procedures under the Labour Relations Act against the employer for bad-faith bargaining. I'm asking that the Minister of Labour speed up the

process to hear that prior to November 4 because, as you know, Minister, November 4 is the date that the employer is going to fire all those employees. We're asking the Minister of Labour to

facilitate the Ontario Labour Relations Board hearing of the workers ahead of the date we have now, which is January, and move it up sometime before November 4 -- I see I've got your attention,

finally -- to try and get this heard.

I think all of us would have to agree that at the end of the day, this is not a fair situation for the workers. You can't allow an employer to say, "Heck, I

don't want a union, so I'm just going to fire people." That's not the Ontario I believe in.

HARVEY PARTNER

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the late Harvey Partner, who served for over 20 years as a hydro

commissioner in Clarington. Last Thursday, Veridian Corp, our local electric utility -- I might say successful electric utility -- held a ceremony at the Clarington operations centre in

Bowmanville. At that time, they dedicated this building in memory of Harvey Partner.

Mr Partner was the first chairman of the reorganized Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission and began serving the communities of Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono as

early as 1980. He was chair of Orono Hydro for eight years, but his role as a hydro commissioner doesn't begin to describe all the things he did for his community.

Harvey Partner was the quintessential volunteer. He served as captain of the fire department, president of the Orono Chamber of Commerce and as a trustee for the

Police Village of Orono. He was a sponsor and coach of many local teams, and a successful business person who spent over 30 years in the retail business of plumbing, heating, electric installation

and service.

I would like to recognize the members of the Partner family, who were in attendance and honoured with this week's opening: Mr Partner's wife, Bernice, sons

Harvey Jr and Jim, daughters Pat Mercer, Wendy Partner and Bonnie Jackson, and grandchildren.

I'd also like to congratulate John Wiersma, George Van Dyk, Pauline Storks and Dave Clark of Veridian Corp for recognizing Harvey's important contribution and

for the successful opening of their operations centre in Bowmanville, part of Veridian Corp. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about my riding of Durham.

IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT

AND COUNSELLING SERVICES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to speak on behalf of Lill Petrella, executive director of Immigrant Settlement and Counselling Services in

my riding of Brant. Ms Petrella has written me about her concerns of the challenges facing the mental health program and subsequent concerns about the disparity in funding compared to other mental

health programs in Brant.

The agency operates the multicultural mental health services program which provides assistance to the culturally diverse population of Brant experiencing a

serious mental illness. The program has received no increases in its core operating budget since 1984, despite growing program costs. Even with a shortfall of almost $67,000, all expressed concerns

to the ministry program consultant regarding their budget shortfalls continue to fall on deaf ears, always with the same response: "There is no new funding."

Ms Petrella writes, "Our agency practises sound fiscal management and has always utilized program funds in a responsible manner. The bimonthly transfer payments

which we are currently receiving from the Ministry of Health do not cover program expenses. Furthermore, we are no longer in a position to absorb these costs from fundraising initiatives intended

for other programs within our agency."

There are other mental health programs in Brant that receive 100% of their costs and funding for new facilities and initiatives from the Ministry of Health, as

well as their lease, while their agency continues to struggle to meet program costs and receives zero per cent for rent.

I ask the Minister of Health today to end this disparity and make sure that our municipality receives equal funding.

AWARDS OF RURAL EXCELLENCE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Last Thursday evening I had the privilege, along with Dr Galt, to attend the third annual Awards of Rural

Excellence in Alliston. The awards ceremony recognized the outstanding work being done in rural Ontario. Just some of the recipients of the award were the Brant Agri-Business Opportunities

Association, which won the 2001 economic development award, and the J. Steckle Heritage Homestead, which won the 2001 award for outstanding volunteerism.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs also announced last Thursday that the province would invest $240,000 in support of the Ontario Rural Council,

which is one of the sponsors of the awards ceremony. The Ontario Rural Council is a forum that brings together those who share a commitment to building strong rural communities and organizations.

The council provides a unique and important opportunity for multi-sector co-operation within the rural sector. The government supports growth in rural Ontario and we are glad to support this

organization that provides a unique and important opportunity for co-operation by government, industry and residents of the rural sector.

I'd also like to recognize the Foundation for Rural Living, another sponsor of last Thursday's ceremony. As most members know, the foundation's mission is to

ensure the very best quality of life for all rural citizens toward a vibrant Ontario. I'd like to thank the foundation for all of their excellent work. I'd like to also thank Minister Coburn for

his support of this organization.

I'd also like to welcome all of the young people and their teachers and parents who are in the audience today.

BORDER CROSSING AT WINDSOR

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On Friday of this week the provincial Ministry of Economic Development and Trade is going to be hosting a

meeting to discuss the border situation with a number of officials from the states of New York and Michigan and Ontario and the federal government. I urge the ministry to extend an invitation to

our local municipal politicians -- our mayors and so on. In addition, I would say the federal Minister for International Trade, M. Pettigrew, will be in my community of Windsor this week, on

November 2, to see at first hand the problems we are experiencing at our border crossing.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, attended about two and a half weeks ago, along with my colleagues from Essex and Windsor West, to meet with local business leaders. I

implore one of the ministers in this government to come to our city and meet with our business leaders, and I implore the Minister of Transportation particularly to make the decision today, as a

first step, to upload Huron Church Road to the provincial government. That is the busiest border crossing in the country. This government downloaded it some four years ago, and the municipality

cannot afford its upkeep.

So I invite them to come to our community this week. Don't be the last ones to the table; be the first to the table. Show some leadership. Take a role that can

be meaningful, not only to my community but indeed to the whole province. The Minister of Transportation's silence on this issue is appalling. It's time you did something like the rest of the

governments around North America are doing.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

BRANCH 43

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd ask all to join me in congratulating Emil Baumgartner, president, and the entire executive of Royal Canadian

Legion Branch 43 in celebrating its 75th anniversary on October 26.

During these 75 years, Branch 43 has been tirelessly serving veterans, their families and our community of Oshawa well. Branch 43's charitable donations through

their poppy drive and other club events include $180,000 in 1978-79 to various charities, and today's are too numerous to mention. From the November 9 to December 31, 1929, records showing how

Branch 43 helped 42 families with $383.88 of assistance or today's veterans and their families whenever they need it, to instituting a bursary program that awards two local high school students

with a four-year scholarship program to further their educational needs, Branch 43 truly touches the entire community.

From its humble beginnings in the old council chambers where it started in 1933 to the momentous laying in 1933 of the cornerstone of the then-called Post 43 on

Centre Street, today the club is located at 471 Simcoe Street South, thanks to the members' dedication and commitment to raising the building funds needed.

They are also founding members of Oshawa's rich sporting tradition. All minor baseball in Oshawa has been sponsored by Branch 43 since 1948, and the Oshawa

Legionnaires Junior A hockey club has been sponsored since 1974.

I would once again like to ask you to join me in congratulating the 1,800 members of Branch 43 on their 75th anniversary, and I would like to personally say

thank you for all your dedication to our community.

VISITORS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know everybody in this House will want to join me in welcoming grade 5

students from Withrow Public School in the riding of Toronto-Danforth, who are with us today in the gallery.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There's a class visiting here from Messiah College in Grantham,

Pennsylvania. They join us every year to watch how we conduct Parliament in the Legislature in Ontario, and I just want to welcome them from Pennsylvania.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): I have several motions here. I'd like to seek unanimous consent to put forward

a motion regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mr Sergio and Mr Peters exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr

Peters assumes ballot item number 40 and Mr Sergio assumes ballot item number 45; Mr DeFaria and Mr Kells exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Kells assumes ballot item number 70 and

Mr DeFaria assumes ballot item number 36; and Mr Beaubien and Mr Gill exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Gill assumes ballot item number 34 and Mr Beaubien assumes ballot item

number 61.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

APPOINTMENT OF HOUSE OFFICERS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): This is regarding the Deputy Speaker position.

I move that the order of the House dated October 15, 2001, be rescinded and, notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 26, 2000, David Christopherson,

member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the committee of the whole House; Bert Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth-Middlesex, be

appointed First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House; and Mike Brown, member for the electoral district of Algoma-Manitoulin, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the committee of the

whole House.

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

Motions?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, I believe I would like to have another couple of conversations with the House leaders in the next few minutes on the

final motion, so I may, if we have agreement, ask for unanimous consent on it at the end of question period.

The Speaker: That's fine. I look forward to that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you will be aware

that the Toronto Star has been running an eye-opening and, I would describe, very sad series on the plight of Ontarians with developmental disabilities and their families.

There are families in Ontario to which some very special children have been born. These are kids who, in a very real sense, will not grow up. These children

look to their parents on an ongoing basis for some help. In some cases, where these children find themselves in their forties, their parents, elderly now, are helping them with their baths, using

the toilet, brushing their teeth, shaving them, changing their diapers and those kinds of things.

This is exhausting work and it is provided entirely out of love by parents to their children. By the way, that work performed by those parents for their

children saves taxpayers tremendous money. I believe that those families need our help.

Minister, can you tell me, what is the minimum standard of help which all of these families are now receiving?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): The ministry and the government of Ontario provide a range of supports to help people with developmental disabilities. Two years ago, we increased that budget by $35 million,

last year we increased it by $50 million, and we announced an unprecedented funding commitment of $67 million in capital and an additional $197 million expended over the next four or five

years.

We provide a range of services in terms of the standard: special services at home, residential supports, day programming, a range of employment supports, and a

particular program, Foundations, to help young people when they leave the school system, and a range of supports. If the member opposite wants to talk about specific ones, of the array of programs,

old and new that we've just begun, I'd be pleased to discuss it with him.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I can tell you that you are not ensuring that today in Ontario there is a minimum standard to which each and every one

of these families is entitled. That is not the case.

I encourage you to read the stories that appeared in the Star. What is happening on the front lines is that if you are capable as an advocate and looking out

for the interests of your child, and you can push hard, then you get help in your family. But if you don't, then you do what so many thousands of those families do. They lead lives of quiet

desperation, and now they are very worried, especially as the parents get on in years, about what is going to happen to their children.

On top of that, if these children do end up in a group home, they can face very horrific problems there. There are stories of abuse: sexual, verbal, physical

and financial. There are no ministry standards for dealing with abuse. You've investigated recently 274 incidents -- only 12 of those were in fact investigated. The Provincial Auditor tells us that

you are not doing nearly enough to follow up on these reported incidents.

Why is it that you have no standards, Minister, to protect our most vulnerable children from abuse?

Hon Mr Baird: The ministry does influence a whole series of standards through a number of methods, including annual licensing reviews, annual

inspections to ensure compliance, the reporting requirements; in addition, we do a number of random audits.

I'm the first to acknowledge that we can do more. That's why we sought an unprecedented funding increase in the budget to help people with developmental

disabilities -- the biggest funding increase, in fact, in Canadian history.

We're dealing with the issue in a number of ways. One, we're addressing where the critical need is that the Associations for Community Living and other local

service providers around the province have cited, and that's funding for staff to ensure they can attract and retain the very best qualified people to work with these, our most vulnerable citizens.

Of that, $31.7 million will go toward this year alone. That money has not only been committed, it is out the door and being spent and benefiting people right across the province of Ontario.

That's the first part of a five-year investment. We want to do more training, and in year two of this unprecedented funding reform, we'll be doing initiatives

with respect to training and ensuring the setting of standards. Many agencies use an organization called Accreditation Ontario to validate in terms of the quality of life that these --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Final supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: Minister, here's what the Provincial Auditor said in connection with the incidents of abuse that had been reported to your

ministry. He said in his 1999 report, "We found no evidence that the ministry had reviewed or, where necessary, followed up on many of the serious occurrences reported."

That's his assessment of your failure to protect our most vulnerable children, who find themselves in families where parents are struggling to continue to

assume their heartfelt responsibilities.

To sum it up, Minister, we have no minimum standards in Ontario when it comes to providing assistance to these families. There are no minimum standards in

place, obviously, to ensure that you follow up on incidents of reported abuse.

It seems to me that one of the most important ways that we might judge a government, Minister, is how well you are doing when it comes to protecting our most

vulnerable. I ask you once again, why is it that you are failing to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens -- children with special developmental disabilities -- and why are you failing to

help their parents, who are struggling to assume their responsibilities?

Hon Mr Baird: I certainly welcome participation in this debate from the member opposite. This is something which I personally have been

working on for more than two and a half years. As to the member opposite, this is the first question he's asked in this regard in the two and a half years since I've been minister.

I can tell you I'd be quite prepared to listen to the comments of the president of the Ontario Association for Community Living, who said after our

announcement, "This commitment to multi-year funding will be a tremendous help in addressing critical needs over the coming years."

I could look at the president of the Superior Greenstone Association for Community Living: "Thank you again for keeping your word and working so hard to ensure

the supports and services required for people with developmental disabilities are available."

Or I could look to his own caucus: "One of the good things that the budget did" is that it did some good things for the developmentally handicapped, "and they

ought to be congratulated" for that, "because it was long overdue." That's Greg Sorbara, his own member for Vaughan-King-Aurora.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Mr Minister, we learned with some surprise

that last Friday you put out a release entitled New Rules for Government Advertising, and it says that you will now have new standards that will provide a distinction between government advertising

and partisan advertising.

Well, talk about closing the barn door after the cows are out. Six years later, you've spent close to a quarter of a billion dollars on partisan advertising.

All along apparently you couldn't afford enough textbooks for our children, you couldn't afford enough hospitals and nurses for our sick, and more recently your government couldn't even afford to

keep working for them the best biohazard experts that we had on the job.

Now that you can finally admit that you have spent close to a quarter of a billion dollars in partisan advertising, Minister, I'm wondering, when is the

Ontario Progressive Conservative Party going to reimburse Ontario's working families the full amount?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It's a very strange statement to be coming from the Leader of the

Opposition considering their dismal record in terms of advertising as well. Certainly the record speaks for itself, the fact that the Liberal government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a

part had far more spending in advertising than this current government did.

Secondly, for the very first time you would think the Leader of the Opposition would say, "Thank you." It's an important step to take. They certainly had the

opportunity to do this when they were in government. They certainly chose not to take those steps. For the very first time, we're able to differentiate very clearly, and this is a response to the

Provincial Auditor's report as well; we now have standards that govern paid advertising. So clearly if it's something they believe in, and it's something that we have done, he should be in a

position to say, "Thank you for doing something that we believe in too."

Mr McGuinty: Clearly you responded because you felt the heat; it's not because you saw the light, Minister.

We're very, very interested in these new standards of yours. We have yet to get hold of a copy of them. But if we look back on the close to one quarter of a

billion dollars you spent on partisan advertising, I'm just wondering, Minister, on behalf of taxpayers generally but more specifically our hard-working families, which among that quarter of a

billion dollars, which among those probably close to 100 ads, according to your new standards, were partisan? And of course, if they are now deemed by you to be partisan, will you now also,

Minister, reimburse our families?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The Leader of the Opposition has talked about finally seeing the light. You certainly had an opportunity, sir, during the

five years in which you were in government. Probably at the time you figured that was a train coming at you through a tunnel.

I've got numerous examples of advertisements that were done by the Liberal government of which he was a part, in which a lot of the complaints they had --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I hear members over there squeaking at me now. I would certainly be glad to hold them up and show pictures of various

people, which I'm sure they don't want me to do. The fact of the matter is, the government saw fit to act on this. The government saw fit to bring in some rules that clearly define what government

advertising --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): What are you talking about?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The member says, "What are you talking about?" There are numerous examples. For example, there was a Ministry of Natural

Resources ad.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Answer?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm responding to the member from Windsor. Here is an advertisement from the minister at that time, who was Lyn McLeod,

showing a picture of that particular minister. I have numerous examples of this sitting in my binder.

Mr McGuinty: I really appreciate your history lessons about what happened in the last millennium, but I wonder if you might focus on this

century, this millennium and the activities of your government.

Apparently, you find nothing wrong with any of the ads your government has run in the last six years. You find nothing wrong with the close to $250 million of

taxpayers' money you spent on partisan advertising, which tells me your new standards are nothing but propaganda.

If you really want to get to the heart of the matter, you know what has to be done. I put forward a bill twice in the Legislature. What it is does is take the

decision-making regarding advertising out of the hands of any of us here in this chamber and puts it in the hands of the Provincial Auditor, an independent third party who can make a determination

as to whether an ad is in the public interest or in the interest of the party that happens to be governing. If you want to do the right thing, if you really want to crack down on partisan

advertising, then why won't you take my bill and run with it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I heard some suggestions as to what to do with Leader of the Opposition's bill, and they're certainly not to run with

it.

The Leader of the Opposition says, "Let's not talk about the last millennium." I can only assume he's talking about the time the Liberals spent in government

as being the last millennium, which means of course he's talking about himself as a dinosaur.

The fact of the matter is, the Provincial Auditor made some suggestions. We responded to the Provincial Auditor's report. Now we have the advertising content

directive and guidelines to provide standards governing paid advertising. This is something new. This is something we, as a government, felt was necessary to do, and that's why we advanced it.

Certainly that member had an opportunity for five years and saw fit not to do anything, and now he's squeaking at me. Sorry, that's the answer.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today we have even more evidence that your dirty deal to

sell off our electricity system -- in this case the Bruce nuclear generating station -- is going to cost the people of Ontario a lot of money. Despite your efforts to keep the information secret,

the privacy commissioner has forced you to disclose that in your lease of that generating station, British Energy is getting a $7.7-billion asset for next to nothing.

Since the chairman of British Energy is rubbing his hands in anticipation of the profit they're going to make in Ontario, tell the people of Ontario what it's

going to cost them when you sell off this public asset at bargain basement prices.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The reality, with respect to the Bruce nuclear situation, is that an investment which

in the end will be more than $3 billion is being made by Bruce Energy.

With respect to the issue of the publication of documents relating to the lease -- and it is a lease, not a sale; OPG remains the owner of the Bruce nuclear

facility -- I'm sure you'll know that the lease documents were released to the CBC some months ago. That's hardly keeping documents confidential. I think they did a special on it, if I recall. So

the leader of the third party will know that the important lease documents have been in the public domain for some months.

Mr Hampton: The finance minister will know that he has tried to keep the Provincial Auditor from evaluating this deal. Our member for Nickel

Belt put forward a motion over a year ago to have the Provincial Auditor look at this lease deal, and your members tried every step they could, every procedure they could to avoid that happening,

just as you tried to keep the information secret from the privacy commissioner.

The fact of the matter is that for a $7.7-billion asset, British Energy is only going to pay rental fees of $16 million a year. What a giveaway. And when it's

over, the people of Ontario will have to pick up the cost of decommissioning the nuclear facility and the cost of storing the nuclear waste. You're giving away the profits to your corporate friends

for virtually nothing, and you're loading the people of Ontario with all the debt down the road.

Tell me, Minister, how do you justify trying to keep this secret from the people, how do you justify trying to keep the Provincial Auditor away from it and how

do you justify such a giveaway to your corporate friends?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I think that if any government were trying to keep anything secret, they wouldn't give it to the CBC. The lease agreements

have been in the possession of the CBC for months. They seem to be news to the leader of the third party, but they're hardly news to the rest of the people of Canada -- certainly those who watch

CBC.

As the Premier indicated to members last October, the Provincial Auditor is auditing the transaction. It's something he has chosen to do. We support his

efforts in that regard. We look forward to seeing the auditor's report. In addition, as with any transaction of this size, we had Salomon Smith Barney provide a fairness opinion which was related

to the agreement, and the government's own financial advisers reviewed this transaction as well. So there are many levels of review of this, including a review by the Provincial Auditor, who is an

officer of this assembly. I'm sure all members would think that is appropriate, given the importance of this transaction to the future of our province.

Mr Hampton: Minister, if you think all the documents are out, then table all the documents, including your government's evaluation of those

documents, here today.

You cite Salomon Smith Barney. This is the company you hired to put the deal together. They get $7 million for putting the deal together. Of course, after they

have received the $7 million, they're going to tell you it's a good deal. They made $7 million on the transaction. What do you expect?

The Provincial Auditor was delayed from looking at this deal for over a year and a half by your government. You used every stalling tactic, every procedural

step you could to avoid having this deal reviewed by the Provincial Auditor. So I say to you, before you sell off any more stations, nuclear or coal-fired or anything else, if you believe that all

the information is out on this deal, then put all the documents on the table here today.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I know the member opposite doesn't believe in the private sector being involved in creating energy in this province. This is

a $3-billion investment of private sector money in electricity production in Ontario. We welcome it. I know you don't welcome it.

Under the terms of the agreement, an initial payment of $625 million before various closing adjustments will be paid in three instalments, as well as annual

lease payments. Annual fixed and variable payments in the first year are expected to average approximately $150 million. In addition, if Bruce Power terminates the agreement, there is a provision

for a $175-million penalty to be paid to Ontario Power Generation, and Bruce Power cannot terminate the lease before January 1, 2006.

These are good, protective provisions for the people of Ontario. This power is going to come on stream. It's good that we have the private investment. It's

good for the future of Ontario. I know you don't believe in the private sector, but if you look at the experience around --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question to the Deputy Premier -- and I say that selling off a $7.7-billion asset for a couple of

hundred million dollars is never a good deal.

I want to ask you about your definition of choice in health care and education. One of the things you and your colleagues boasted about this past weekend at

your policy conference was more private choice in education and more private choice in health care. To us, that means private and elite hospitals for the well-off and crowded emergency rooms for

the average person in Ontario. It means more taxpayer money for private schools while our public schools crumble from lack of budget.

Tell us, please, Deputy Premier, and tell the people of Ontario now, before any leadership contest is held, what it means to offer "more private choice" in

health care and education.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Dealing with the education issue, the member will be aware of the budget initiative

this year with respect to introducing a tax credit for those parents who choose to send their children to independent schools. Ontario has now joined the majority of Canadians and the majority of

Canadian provinces in providing some grants to assist parents who for religious, cultural or other reasons choose to send their children to private schools. Of course, they have to pay their full

public education taxes in the first place before they pay out of their own pockets to send their children to those schools. I know that the member opposite would deny that choice to those parents.

I gather that some of the Liberal members, although not all of them, would also deny that choice to those parents for their children. That is not our position.

Mr Hampton: The question was to ask you to define what you mean and what your government means by "more private choice" in health care and

"more private choice" in education. Does it mean there's another step now beyond the tax credits for private schools? Does it mean that you actually get into setting up private clinics and allowing

private clinics in health care, and subsidizing them with public money?

Before the last election, your government said you were opposed to public money for private schools. After the election, people found out that was not true.

Before you waltz into a leadership campaign, we think you owe it to the people of Ontario to tell them directly what "more private choice in health care" means, what "yet more private participation

in education" means. We believe it means lower-quality schools and crowded emergency rooms for the average person and elite services for the well-off. Please tell us your definition, Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I could begin by saying that our government views that individuals in our society have rights and that parents have the right

to make some choices for their children, that these family decisions ought to be made by families in Ontario and not by the leader of the third party and, quite frankly, not by government, that

parents generally know best what's good for their own families in this province.

On the health care side, the government has repeated that we are committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act. They require universal access, as the

member opposite knows. There's certainly room in the health care sector for private involvement. Indeed, more than 30% of health care expenditures in Ontario come from the private sector today. In

fact, if we go back to 1994-95 and up to the present, there are only four sources of health care funding: the provincial government, the federal government, private insurance and individuals. All

three of the latter, every one except the federal government, are contributing more to health care today. It's only the federal government spending --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SPENDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Last year, you took a staff person into your office,

you paid that staff person the annual equivalent of $215,000, more than your deputy minister, and the primary qualification of this person, David Small, was as leadership and election campaign

adviser to Brian Mulroney, Michael Harris and Jean Charest. For Jean Charest, this person took a six-month contract in that person's office and then became Jean Charest's campaign manager in his

leadership contest.

Minister, I want to ask you, on behalf of parents and students who have to go to schools in this province every day without textbooks, without education

assistants, how you justify paying $180,000 of taxpayers' money for your personal political advice.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): The honourable member, not surprisingly, is wrong again in his facts. This

individual was not retained by the ministry office, was not put on staff. He was a consultant who, through the due process, was hired by the ministry to provide communications advice on policy

initiatives this government was bringing forward. We were very clear what they were, we were very clear where we were going with them, and Mr Small had expertise that was necessary to help this

government communicate those initiatives. I would suggest to the honourable member that he might want to check his facts about what he's doing instead of spreading allegations that have no basis in

fact.

Mr Kennedy: I hope Mr Small threw in that response for free, because it isn't worth very much to the people of Ontario. What they want to know

is how the Minister of Education is paying a personal political adviser $180,000. That is as much money as 19 elementary schools raised in their private fundraising efforts. That is seven education

assistants who aren't there this year, and families are struggling and the minister know this.

Minister, you were over budget by almost $4 million in your office requirements last year. You spent over $5.5 million on advertising and communications and

you spent $180,000 on personal political advice. I want to ask you, what assurance will you give this House that this expenditure will not take place again this year and that David Small won't show

up on your leadership campaign?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I know you love to spread these allegations around, but this ministry and this government have hired, and will continue to

hire, expertise in a whole range of areas -- whether it's communications, whether it's some other area of expertise -- because we want the best advice we can get to help us put forward the best

policy initiatives and to help us communicate those in the most effective fashion.

I find the honourable member's allegations quite offensive, not based on fact. If he has proof of wrongdoing, he should prove it instead of standing up here

and trying to besmirch the government or individuals who might well provide expertise to assist this government.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question today is for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. This government has been very vocal about

its commitment to quality public services, and we've heard a great deal about the steps it is taking, and has taken, to ensure that Ontario has the best public service in the world.

Not many people pay that much attention to what goes on in the public service. Most people just know that they pay their taxes and they want to see something

for it. This means that they expect their government to be forward-looking and proactive, not only to solve problems but also to make improvements.

I realize, and I believe other people realize, that government has a more difficult job than businesses in the private sector. But I also know that when I'm in

a rush, I don't want to spend hours in a line, no matter what it's for. I would like to know what some specific tangible examples are of the progress this government has made in improving services

to the people of Ontario.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member is quite right that this government has been very proactive in

terms of challenging how we can improve services for people in this province. In fact, the majority of people who have accessed government services have indicated overwhelmingly that they are

satisfied with the services and how they access them in the public service. This is the result of changes we have made in the delivery of these services, making them more efficient and certainly

more convenient for people across the province to access.

I must say I congratulate the former Minister of Consumer and Business Services, Bob Runciman, and my current colleague Norm Sterling for the lead they've

taken in initiating such things as the automatic kiosk, the Web site organized by service as opposed to the old bureaucratic silos they used to have, and certainly the government information

centres. I might just indicate that the people of Ontario who have accessed these services have indicated overwhelmingly, in the high 90 per cents, their satisfaction with the services and how

they're delivered.

Mrs Munro: I appreciate the answer from the Chair of Management Board. I have often seen the government of Ontario kiosk in shopping malls but

did not know that they had been so successful. This is truly indicative of the innovative approach this government has taken in a number of matters.

This minister has said a great deal about his commitment to further improving the public service and making it a world leader. From the previous answer, I

think we can all see that on a local level there have been improvements in a real and tangible way. Can the minister tell us more about how he plans to measure the future progress this government

makes in improving services, and how are we to know if this government's services are indeed world leaders?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I thank the member for York North again. I might say that I guess I can add the member from Toronto-Danforth to that group.

As I was giving my first answer she said, "You're so wonderful." So I'll add you to the group of the high nineties percentile who are satisfied with government services.

I must say that imitation is the best form of flattery. Since we've embarked upon these initiatives for the Ontario government and for the people of Ontario,

130 nations have visited Ontario to see how we have transformed the types of services and how we provide them, and we've received numerous awards. I'd like to take a moment to inform the people of

Ontario that among these awards are the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration Management, the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, the Institute for Public Administration

in Canada, and the CIO Canada ITX Awards for Technology Innovation.

I believe these achievements speak for themselves. The recognition we've had in this province speaks for itself, and certainly it's for the benefit of the

people of this province.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I assume that also includes the member for Toronto-Danforth, who I am sure is saying how good these services are once

again.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Attorney General regarding Ipperwash. We have a copy of the typed notes from

the police command post on September 5 and 6, the day before and the day of the shooting death of Dudley George. They were, as you know, prepared from handwritten notes taken at the police command

post. We've now found that at least six critical elements that were in the handwritten notes -- three of them referring to the Premier, by the way -- were edited out of the typed version prepared

and given to defence counsel. You've had four weeks now to be aware of this situation.

My question is this: who made the decision to edit those comments out and why did they make that decision?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member opposite raised this issue a number of weeks ago;

that's quite true. Immediately thereafter I began to ask questions of the appropriate individuals within the ministry. What I learned, somewhat to my surprise, based on the inference of the

question, was that not only the original, handwritten document that he referred to was produced to the accused and their counsel but also the typewritten document that he has referred was produced.

So in fact there was complete disclosure, I am advised, and, based upon that, it was all in the hands of the accused.

At no time during the trial did anyone raise an issue as to disclosure. All the information was there; they could do with it what they would. Frankly, they

didn't think it was an issue then, but of course the member opposite is trying to make it an issue now.

Mr Phillips: The Attorney General has acknowledged that there were dramatic changes made between the handwritten notes and the typed version.

The question remains: who made that decision and why?

I would like the public to be aware, and I am publishing the six very significant changes from the handwritten notes to the typed. One says, "Premier is in

constant touch, good communications." This is the police command post, handwritten notes. No reference in the typed notes.

In another issue, Mr Beaubien and, it indicates, two other people made a fax and sent it to the Premier. Five minutes later the command post was called and it

was stated the Premier's office would be acting on it. No reference in the typed notes.

In another place, the commanding officer said, "Premiers no different treatment from anybody else -- we're ... on right track." In the typed version, no

mention of the Premier's comments.

In another very serious one, one of the police officers went to see the First Nations. They indicated that they are happy to have the burial ground dealt

with.

The question remains, Attorney General, who made the decision to omit from the typed version these extremely critical and important comments, three directly

involving the Premier?

Hon Mr Young: This might be an issue if the member opposite had facts like the ones he thought he had at the commencement of this dialogue

some four weeks ago. But in fact both the handwritten note and the typewritten note were provided to the accused. That is the information that I have been provided with.

If it was an issue then, the individuals involved, the individuals with something at stake, could have raised it with the judge. But they thought it wasn't

necessary. There was no issue as to disclosure then; there is no issue as to disclosure now.

In spite of what the member opposite thinks, he is not a judge; he is a member of provincial Parliament who must be respectful of the judicial system. He

thinks he's Judge Gerry; he is not.

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, we all know that

rural communities in Ontario are essential for the economy and well-being of the province. We also know that one quarter of the province's population live in areas outside of our urban centres. We

also know that having rural young people continue to live, work and invest in their own areas is essential to maintaining the vitality of these communities. However, in my riding and, I know,

elsewhere, many young people leave for the city right after high school, either for further education or to get a job, and often they don't come back. What are we doing to encourage young people in

rural Ontario to stay closer to home?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for the question. I am

pleased to report that our investment in the rural youth job strategy is paying off big time, with more than 10,000 jobs and work experiences for young people in our rural communities. That is a

result of a $35-million investment we made for long-term job creation, and this increases the employability of our Ontario youth.

To the end of June, our investment of almost $25.4 million has resulted in the injection of nearly $64 million into getting rural young people good jobs and

good training in their own communities. This rural youth job strategy is paving the way for businesses, entrepreneurs and communities to eliminate barriers to employment in rural areas for our

rural youth.

Mr Barrett: I wish to thank the minister for those facts and figures. I consider $64 million quite significant.

Minister, the rural youth job strategy fund has supported many different projects in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. The young people in my area consider

it an opportunity to get some valuable work experience. Could you give us a few more details of what specifically the program has done, for example, for rural businesses, light manufacturing and

the need for a skilled labour force in rural areas and small-town Ontario?

Hon Mr Coburn: One that I like to talk about is the Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium, better known as EMC. That has been a highly

effective program in several communities. This is a project that addresses marketing issues and training needs for our rural businesses and it brings together non-competing businesses to help

generate an environment that provides opportunities for interns to increase their skills, training and development expertise. It also improves the quality of the local labour pool. It provides an

excellent opportunity for our youth to learn in these internship programs.

More than $22 million has been invested in EMC projects, resulting in 1,900 young people obtaining work experience at more than 170 manufacturing companies,

and the good news is that over 80% of them have obtained full-time jobs.

These consortium projects in Owen Sound, Brantford, Stratford, Midland, Collingwood and Orangeville have proven to be very successful and an opportune time for

our youth to gain additional skills.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

AND LONG-TERM CARE STAFF

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Dr Martin Preston is the scientist, the public servant, who

developed a new method for identifying and tracking the E coli that killed seven people in Walkerton. As a reward for this important scientific work, your Minister of Health fired him.

Today, Dr Preston will be testifying at the Walkerton inquiry. He has publicly warned of more Walkertons in the future. I want to know, why are you firing the

experts and putting more lives at risk? Is that the real reason he was fired, because he wouldn't shut up?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I understand that Mr Justice O'Connor is having another day of hearings in Toronto

today and some of the issues being canvassed relate to documents that have been produced to the public inquiry into the events at Walkerton.

The member opposite will recall that it was this government that chose to have a full public inquiry, headed by an eminent judge of the Ontario Court of

Appeal. I was the Attorney General at that time, and of course had some involvement in seeking to have Mr Justice O'Connor participate. He has been conducting a thorough public inquiry. The

commission has reviewed over one million documents provided by the government, a large task but a task in which there has been full co-operation by the government of Ontario.

Ms Churley: Minister, you're completely ignoring my question, and I'm going to ask you again. Justice O'Connor of the Walkerton inquiry thinks

that Martin Preston is worth listening to, and that leaves all of us asking why you don't. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that Mr Preston is warning that there could be another

Walkerton in Ontario.

Minister, if you want to be seen as worthy of being the next Premier of this province, shouldn't you start by coming clean about hushing up this scientist, and

shouldn't you take heed of what he is saying? Do the right thing, and hire back Dr Preston and the other scientists that you just laid off. Will you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Flaherty: With respect to this specific question, I refer the question to the associate minister of health.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. As the

member across well knows, the individuals who were working in the standards and methods development unit that she is talking about were not involved in the laboratory investigation of Walkerton.

She knows that; she has been told that. They were not involved in developing tests that were used in Walkerton or in the investigation in Walkerton in any way.

The team at the public health laboratories who led the investigation used methods approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention out of Atlanta --

she well knows that -- to identify the strains involved in Walkerton and to provide an accurate, standardized testing that enabled medical officers of health across the province to respond to water

quality issues.

This is not the way the story should be told. The truth is that --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I'd like to return to the issue of the

Andersen/ Accenture contract, signed at $180 million before you renegotiated this boondoggle of a contract. After the renegotiation, you have to date paid them $193 million in excess of the

original amount. Not only that, we now have a copy of the federal lawsuit launched against this same company, where they are alleging professional negligence, conspiracy to conceal information.

This is in fact the same company that you're dealing with.

This company would dearly love to meet with me, and I would love to sit down and talk to them. I have asked them to bring to such a meeting all of the revenue

that they have received from this contract from the Ontario government and all the documents that would support all of those receipts. They suggest that the government of Ontario would not be

comfortable sharing that information. I can't believe that would be true; you're their greatest defender.

Minister, would you please allow this company to share with me all of that information when we meet?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for children, minister responsible for francophone

affairs): Day after day, the member for Windsor West comes into this House and makes scurrilous accusations against companies and against the government of Ontario and against public

servants. Every day, she has come in here and talked to a question like this. Every day, I find out after question period that she's totally wrong, and I'm not going to presume she's right on this

one.

Mrs Pupatello: Minister, "scurrilous" is taking Ontario tax money and paying an outside company money you could well have given to your own

civil service to do it for you at half the price. You're the one who neglects your own civil service, which could be doing this kind of work for the taxpayers of Ontario. This is a contract you

negotiated, which the Provincial Auditor said was outlandish and did an enormous review and gave you a scathing report after that audit was done. Now we are asking you to allow us to see the

records, the supporting documentation for $193 million of taxpayers' money, and that was after you renegotiated a $180-million contract. This is the same company that, when you started to

renegotiate, started making significant contributions to the PC party.

Minister, stand on your feet today and say you're prepared to allow us to see all that information. You wouldn't dare try to bully this company. You wouldn't

bully this House. You have been a defender of the contract, and now we have the right to see that detail --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Baird: We have strong access-to-information laws in the province of Ontario, and of course they'll continue to be respected.

This project got off to a difficult start. No one in this House does not acknowledge that fact. But the reality is that this project is going to be

successfully delivered on time and on budget and is going to yield, as it already has, $350 million in savings to taxpayers. The public servants at the ministry and our partners at Andersen, now

Accenture, can be very proud of the work they have done. We've seen substantial reductions. We're clamping down on fraud and yielding a better welfare system.

The member opposite wants to turn back the clock. She wants to go back to the old money-for-nothing welfare system of the past, she wants to get rid of

workfare, she wants to get rid of fraud measures, she wants to go back to the old technology. The old technology didn't work, it didn't support the welfare system, it didn't support a $5-billion

system. Thank goodness this government is finally attacking this substantial problem. Thank goodness this government is finally taking action to clean up a welfare system that her party left.

HIGHWAYS 7 AND 8

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Transportation, and it concerns Highways 7 and 8 from Kitchener to

Stratford. On the rural segment between New Hamburg and Stratford, there have been a significant number of car accidents, claiming the lives of seven people since 1997. Obviously I'm very concerned

about these fatalities, as are Wilmot Township Mayor Wayne Roth, his council and area residents. We recognize that the ministry is planning to take action to improve safety at the intersection of

Highways 7 and 8 and Regional Road 1, work that should be undertaken immediately. But we also want to ensure that every possible avenue is explored in terms of meeting the best possible standards

for safety on this stretch of provincial highway.

Based on my consultations with my constituents, I believe that a corridor study, which is a major study encompassing and addressing safety, traffic, increases

in volume and growth, is needed for this highway. Will the minister initiate a major corridor study of Highways 7 and 8 between Kitchener and Stratford?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Transportation): I want to assure the member that this government shares his concern about safety on our highways

in his community. I'm pleased to inform the member that an assessment is in fact being initiated to identify what improvements need to be made on Highways 7 and 8 from New Hamburg to Stratford. In

August this year, staff from my ministry met with the member himself and the mayor of Wilmot and reviewed various locations of concern along Highways 7 and 8. As a result of this meeting, staff of

my ministry initiated an operational review of the Highways 7 and 8 and Regional Road 1 intersection. This review has resulted in some interim improvements that can be implemented over the short

term. The ministry will also be initiating a study shortly to address roadway conditions between New Hamburg and Shakespeare to identify long-term improvements.

Mr Arnott: I thank the minister for his answer, and I'm asking this supplementary on behalf of my colleague the member for Perth-Middlesex,

who also wanted to have this issue raised in the Ontario Legislature. The member wanted me to inform the House that this stretch of highway is a key route to Stratford in his riding and that his

constituents will appreciate the study of this corridor with a view to a better, safer highway in the future.

Our experience, however, is that traffic volume is increasing due to economic development and growth throughout our area. Will the minister address these

growing pressures in our area and put a tight timeline on his review? Can he give us a timeline?

Hon Mr Clark: As I previously stated, my ministry has completed an operational review of the intersection of Highways 7 and 8 and Regional

Road 1. We've taken concrete action to identify additional improvements that can be made.

Furthermore, an assessment is being initiated to review the need for improvements to Highways 7 and 8 between Shakespeare and Stratford. Since we're at an

early stage in the process, unfortunately we cannot commit to a completion date. However, I can assure the member that safety along this highway is an important consideration for the government and

is being acted upon.

Let me remind this House that Ontario has the safest roads in Canada, and we will continue to work toward our goal of having the safest roads in North

America.

BAY OF QUINTE WALLEYE FISHERY

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The Bay of Quinte has

been a world-class walleye fishery --

Interjections.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Maybe the minister would like to wake up before I answer the question.

The Bay of Quinte has been a world-class walleye fishery which has stimulated and supported local business, tourism and fishing derby promoters for decades. On

October 22, your ministry issued invitations to a meeting on October 25 -- only three days' notice -- to about 20 resource users, to consider individual perspectives about the Bay of Quinte

fishery.

However, the rumour among the stakeholder groups before the meeting was that it was the intention of your ministry to completely close the walleye fishery in

district 8, which stretches from Brighton to Amherst Island. Motivated by this drastic possibility, over 80 concerned stakeholders arrived at the meeting to learn about the ministry's plan.

As it turns out, their worst suspicions were true, and your ministry officials presented your plan to close the walleye fishery for a period of three years as

soon as January 2002. Constituents have likened this to your government's lack of process when you cancelled the spring bear hunt.

Minister, will you commit --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Minister?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question; I'm sure there was in fact a question

somewhere in there. I was distracted because Minister Tsubouchi was attempting to steal my jacket.

I can say, in seriousness, that I am pleased to hear that ministry staff continues to try to work with stakeholders across the province on very important

issues of how to use our natural resources. We have a long history of doing broad public consultations on how to use those resources.

I can also tell the member opposite that, in the case of pickerel fishing and other species, and in the case of all those consumptive practices of fishing or

hunting in Ontario, in accordance with the wishes of the angling and hunting community in Ontario, conservation and protection of species will always be job one for the Ministry of Natural

Resources.

Mrs Dombrowsky: To suggest that your ministry has engaged in broad public consultation, I'm sorry, is not an accurate description. In fact,

the memo that was sent out indicated they were contacting 20 resource users and stakeholders.

The mayor of Napanee, which is known as the walleye capital of Canada, was not even invited. Yet the impact of this decision will be devastating for many

private and commercial businesses and non-profit agencies in his community. He, along with other constituents, is concerned about the failure of your ministry to consult extensively with other

stakeholders about less drastic measures that could improve the health of the fishery. Aquaculture operators in my riding have indicated they could provide the ministry with reasonable alternatives

to improving the fishery.

Minister, is a closure of this fishery a done deal, or are you willing to engage the people in the community who will be most affected by a moratorium? Will

you commit today to broad public consultations as soon as possible with stakeholders to improve the health of --

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sure I join with the member opposite -- in fact, with all members in this chamber -- in supporting the work of volunteer

groups across the province in helping to keep the habitat for our fisheries in good order and also for some restocking efforts across the province. There are literally thousands of volunteers who

help us with fishing.

I can say in response to the member opposite, if this is her question, so that she will understand this very clearly, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the

angling and tourist communities in Ontario are committed to conserving species and, when they are at risk, they will set the angling limits at levels that respect the size of the stock and the

availability of stock. That's so we can preserve it for future generations. That was our case yesterday and it will be our case tomorrow.

SAVE PROGRAM

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Solicitor General. After a beautiful summer, we now find the days getting colder.

For many people in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, colder weather means one thing, and one thing only: snow and snowmobiling. People all over Ontario enjoy this outdoor activity with clubs and

trails everywhere.

Minister, last June you were in my riding to announce the SAVE program. Perhaps now is a good time to tell us more about this important new initiative, the

SAVE program.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): An absolutely excellent question. You're correct that in June I announced the formation of three new

SAVE teams. The OPP have these teams. SAVE stands for snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle and vessel enforcement. Ontario has the most recreational vehicles of any administration in the whole of North

America. In fact, of that we have some 365,000 snowmobiles. That's why the OPP formed these teams. The OPP covers 95% of the province's waterways and most of our snowmobile trails. The primary

responsibility is for search and rescue. Last year in Ontario, unfortunately 90 people were killed in accidents involving recreational vehicles. This is a tragic and absolutely unacceptable toll,

and often alcohol is a factor.

Mr Miller: As you rightly mention, often accidents to do with snowmobiles do involve alcohol. I will make my constituents in Parry

Sound-Muskoka aware of the fact that drinking and driving charges also apply to the trails. Would you tell the House and the recreational vehicle owners more about the makeup of these SAVE teams

and how they will make our trails safer?

Hon Mr Turnbull: The job of these teams is twofold: one is enforcement and the other is education. The government is now spending $2 million a

year on these new front-line teams. The investment provides the OPP with new equipment, including 18 all-terrain vehicles, 18 snow machines and nine boats. The teams are highly mobile and can be

moved anywhere in the province as needed. They will be dedicated to reducing injuries and fatalities.

Irresponsible and reckless operators are dangerous to everybody. I am putting them all on notice here and now. We will go after you and we will prosecute you.

I encourage everybody to have an enjoyable, safe winter.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the associate minister of health. You and the Minister of Health have both confirmed

that you're undertaking a review of community care access centres. What is the mandate of this review?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): Let me say, as I think I've said before, that there's a lot of

concern out in the public about community care access centres, so the government has decided to look into community care access centres. We've had a number of concerns raised as a result of a

number of studies that have been done about community care access centres. We have a Pricewaterhouse study. We have a study that was done with respect to Hamilton. We have a ministry-appointed

individual into Hamilton right now. We are looking to ensure that we strengthen the quality of care that is provided in the community and we will continue to work on that process to ensure that the

quality of care is available in communities all across the province.

Ms Martel: Minister, you know that thousands and thousands of seniors, the disabled and those being discharged from hospitals could be very

adversely impacted, depending on the outcome of this review. That is why the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, which represents about 130 seniors' groups in this province, has

written to you to express their concern about this review and to demand to know why they have not been invited for consultation. They have asked for a meeting with you as soon as possible to

express their concerns about community care and to understand the clear mandate of this review.

I ask you, Minister, are you prepared to meet with this coalition as soon as possible, and will you guarantee broad public consultation with respect to this

review of CCACs?

Hon Mrs Johns: I'm always happy to meet with individuals who want to discuss a policy decision that is being made. As the members opposite

will know, there's been a substantial amount of consultation done by each of the studies I've mentioned previously. But if anyone has information with respect to CCACs and how they work in their

community and changes that they believe should be made, I'm always happy to hear about those changes and I'm always happy to hear from seniors in Ontario.

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government's wholly owned Nanticoke generating station is North America's largest dirty coal-fired electricity producing plant and

Ontario's largest producer of the chemicals and acid gases which contribute to deadly smog and acid rain; and

"Whereas the Nanticoke plant, which has more than doubled its dangerous emissions under the Harris Conservative government, is now the worst air polluter in

all of Canada, spewing out over five million kilograms of toxic chemicals each year, including many cancer-causing chemicals and mercury, a potent and dangerous neurotoxin; and

"Whereas the Ontario Medical Association has stated that 1,900 Ontarians die prematurely each year and we pay $1 billion annually in health-related costs as a

result of air pollution; and

"Whereas the Harris government has the opportunity to make a positive move on behalf of the environment by proceeding with the Sir Adam Beck 3 generating

facility, which would produce air-pollution-free electricity in this province and would provide an alternative to the constantly increasing demands placed upon the Nanticoke coal facility; and

"Whereas the Beck 3 generating facility would also provide a major boost to the economy of Ontario through investment and employment in the construction and

operation of the facility and in addition would offer additional energy for the power grid of the province of Ontario;

"Be it resolved that the Mike Harris government, as chief shareholder of Ontario Power Generation, order the immediate development and construction of the Sir

Adam Beck generating station."

I affix my signature. I'm in full agreement.

HOME CARE

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

"Whereas the Ontario community care access centres deliver home care services to seniors, the disabled and those discharged from hospital so they can remain in

their own homes; and

"Whereas Ontario community care access centres need an additional $175 million from the Ministry of Health this fiscal year just to deliver their current level

of health care services; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has refused to fund this necessary increase and has further failed to provide the CCACs with equity funding last year and this

year, despite a 1998 promise made by the former Minister of Long-Term Care, Cam Jackson, to do so; and

"Whereas this deliberate underfunding by the government of the Ontario CCACs has forced the CCAC boards to adopt a deficit reduction plan which severely

reduces the home care services that can be provided; and

"Whereas this reduction has a dramatic impact on clients who cannot afford to pay for these services and will be forced to go without necessary home care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Conservative government immediately fund the additional $175 million requested by the Ontario CCACs this year and, further,

provide the equity funding that was promised in 1998."

This is signed by hundreds of Ontarians. I agree with them. I've affixed my signature to it.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty of animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

HOME CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition signed by thousands of Ontarians.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres (CCACs) to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond the control

of CCACs; and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), is inadequate to meet the growing need for

home care services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act currently before the Legislature, are forcing

CCACs to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government,

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

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational population-based

health planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to CCACs to support the home care services that are the

mandate of CCACs in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given

by the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of the fiscal year."

This petition is signed by a great number of constituents in the Little Current-Howland area.

OHIP SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by members of the special education advisory committee of the

Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's decision to delist hearing aid evaluation and re-evaluation from OHIP coverage will lead to untreated hearing loss; and

"Whereas these restrictions will cut off access to diagnostic hearing tests especially in geographic regions of the province already experiencing difficulties

due to shortages of specialty physicians; and

"Whereas OHIP will no longer cover the cost of miscellaneous therapeutic procedures including physical therapy and therapeutic exercise; and

"Whereas services no longer covered by OHIP may include thermal therapy, ultrasound therapy, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, electrotherapy, magnetotherapy,

transcutaneous nerve therapy stimulation and biofeedback; and

"Whereas one of the few publicly covered alternatives includes hospital outpatient clinics where waiting lists for such services are up to six months long;

and

"Whereas delisting these services will have a detrimental effect on the health of all Ontarians especially seniors, children, hearing-impaired people and

industrial workers; and

"Whereas the government has already delisted $100 million worth of OHIP services,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately restore OHIP coverage for these delisted services."

I agree with the petitioners and sign the petition as well.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada considers animal cruelty to be a property offence; and

"Whereas those who commit crimes against animals currently face light sentences upon conviction; and

"Whereas those who operate puppy mills should, upon conviction, face sentences that are appropriate for the torture and inhumane treatment they have inflicted

on puppies under their so-called care;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government petition the federal government to move forward with amendments to the cruelty of animal provisions in the Criminal

Code as soon as possible."

I affix my signature to this petition.

AUDIOLOGY SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's entitled,

"Listen: Our hearing is important.

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total;

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions;

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario;

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario;" -- like northern Ontario --

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned," -- from Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, North Bay and Cochrane -- "petition the Ontario Legislature to

demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in agreement with it, and give it to Amy to bring to the table.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here from the people of Timmins, Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Porcupine and different

places, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas services delisted by the Harris government now exceed $100 million in total;

"Whereas Ontarians depend on audiologists for the provision of qualified hearing assessments and hearing aid prescriptions;

"Whereas the new Harris government policy will virtually eliminate access to publicly funded audiology assessments across vast regions of Ontario;

"Whereas this new Harris government policy is virtually impossible to implement in underserviced areas across Ontario;

"Whereas this policy will lengthen waiting lists for patients and therefore have a detrimental effect on the health of these Ontarians;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to permanently fund

audiologists directly for the provision of audiology services."

I sign the petition.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. Steve Risebrough and his

wife Gloria are just two of many.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial Durham riding, including Clarington, Scugog township and portions of north and east Oshawa comprise one of the fastest-growing

communities in Canada; and,

"Whereas the residents of Durham riding are experiencing difficulty locating family physicians who are willing to accept new patients; and

"Whereas the good health of Durham riding residents depends on a long-term relationship with a family physician who can provide ongoing care; and

"Whereas the lack of family physicians puts unnecessary demands on walk-in clinics and emergency departments;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the government of Ontario will:

"Do everything within its power to immediately assess the needs of Durham riding and the Durham region and work with the Ontario Medical Association, the

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, local health care providers and elected officials to ensure there are enough family physicians available to serve this community;

"Make every effort to recruit doctors to set up practices in underserviced areas and provide suitable incentives that will encourage them to stay in these

communities;

"Continue its efforts to increase the number of physicians being trained in Ontario medical schools and also continue its program to enable foreign-trained

doctors to qualify in Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign this and support it, not just for my constituents but because it's the right thing to do.

EDUCATION PEACE PLAN

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition signed by a number of residents from Davenport and addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It

reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario students are experiencing a disruptive learning environment and currently do not have access to a full range of extracurricular

activities;

"Whereas extracurricular activities are an essential part of a quality, well rounded education for our students;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has put forth the Students First Education Peace Plan as a positive, viable option in restoring goodwill and extracurricular

activities for our students;

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal plan is a reasonable compromise creating benefits for all partners in Ontario's education system, particularly students,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to immediately adopt the Students First Education Peace Plan to restore goodwill, quality education and

extracurricular activities in our schools."

Since I agree with it, I sign this document.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe that universally accessible, publicly funded health care is sacred and must be protected;

"Whereas Mike Harris intends on turning his back on working families and transforming our system into an American-style two-tier system, where only the rich

will get quality health care;

"Whereas we believe that Mike Harris had a secret agenda to promote two-tier health care in Ontario and now the secret is out;

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

"Do not turn your back on Ontario's working families. Fight Mike Harris's agenda to destroy medicare and fight his plan to create a two-tier health care

system."

In support of this, I affix my signature.

LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre is a world-class academic health sciences centre serving people throughout southwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has forced the London Health Sciences Centre to find $17 million in annual savings by 2005; and

"Whereas the London Health Sciences Centre has agreed to cut 18 programs in order to satisfy directions from the provincial Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas these cuts will put the health of the people of southwestern Ontario, and particularly the children of southwestern Ontario, at risk; and

"Whereas these cuts will diminish the London Health Sciences Centre's standing as a regional health care resource; and

"Whereas these cuts will worsen the continuing physician shortages in the region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government take immediate action" -- and

keep blinking -- "to ensure that these important health services are maintained so that the health and safety of people throughout southwestern Ontario are not put at risk."

I am in full agreement with this petition, signed by people from Aylmer, St Thomas, London, Strathroy -- the list goes on and on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Hodgson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to revise the Municipal Act and to amend or repeal other Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 111, Loi révisant la

Loi sur

les municipalités et modifiant ou abrogeant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne les municipalités.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore

and the member from Oak Ridges.

It gives me great pleasure today to speak to second reading of Bill 111, the Municipal Act, 2001. As I said when I introduced it, this has been a long time in

coming.

Many members will know that I got my start in politics at the municipal level. I know from personal experience that municipalities play a vital role in the

day-to-day lives of everyone in this province. As municipalities have grown larger and the list of services they provide has grown longer, the task they face has grown more challenging.

As recently as the 1950s, there were more than 1,100 municipalities in Ontario. They provided some hard services -- roads, water, sewer pipes -- and very few

of the so-called soft services. By the 1980s the number of municipalities had shrunk to fewer than 850, and the list of municipal services that people expected, both hard and soft, had begun to

grow. Today there are 447 municipalities in Ontario, and each one provides a complex web of hard and soft services in a fast-changing and challenging world.

Governing these municipalities is a body of legislation that has its roots in the Baldwin Act of 1849. At that time, Upper Canada was still being settled and

built. The Baldwin Act created municipalities as democratically elected bodies with powers to levy property taxes, mainly to fund the construction of infrastructure -- roads and schools, for

example -- to serve a largely rural society.

Times have changed and, as I said earlier, the municipal role has gone through huge changes. But the philosophy at the heart of municipal legislation remains

the same. Since the beginning, municipal legislation has spelled out exactly what municipalities are permitted to do. If the legislation does not say they can do something, they can't. Whenever a

municipal council wants to take on something new or respond to some local need, the municipal lawyers have to look through hundreds of pages of laws to see if the authority is there. If it isn't,

they have to come to this Legislature to ask for a change or an addition.

The result, after more than 150 years, is a body of legislation that is large and unwieldy. Parts of the current Municipal Act are redundant, referring to

municipal duties that have long since disappeared into history. It is little wonder, then, that municipalities have for many years been asking for a comprehensive overhaul.

That's why this government, back in 1995, made a commitment to bring forward a new Municipal Act. We promised

an act that would be modern, streamlined and easy

to use. We wanted to introduce

an act that sets out areas of responsibility for municipalities but doesn't tell them in great detail exactly what they are permitted to do and how to do it. At the

same time, we wanted to make sure to maintain the fine balance among competing interests that has been established over the years, a balance that gives municipalities the authority they need to

meet local needs while ensuring a dynamic, barrier-free economy in which Ontario towns and cities can maintain their competitive positions. After several years of discussion with all affected

stakeholders, I can assure my colleagues that this legislation continues that balance.

The government released draft legislation in 1998, under my predecessor, Al Leach, and it generated a lot of discussion. Since then, the government, under the

leadership of Steve Gilchrist and Tony Clement, has worked with key stakeholders, including both municipal and business groups, to find common ground and achieve a consensus.

Over the last seven months, I've had the honour of steering these discussions. Earlier this year, an understanding was reached among key stakeholders on most

of the fundamental issues. At the conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in August, I released an outline of the government's proposed direction. The reaction from all

stakeholders was very positive. It was with this high level of support from municipalities and the business sector that I introduced this legislation on October 18.

Let me go over the highlights of this new Municipal Act. If it is passed by the Legislature, it would give municipalities the tools they need to tackle the

challenges of governing in the 21st century. It would allow municipalities to organize and deliver their services as they see fit, involving the private sector where appropriate, in keeping with

local needs. It would give municipalities broad, flexible authority in 10 areas of jurisdiction. These 10 areas are public utilities; waste management; public highways; transportation systems;

culture, parks, recreation and heritage; drainage and flood control; parking; economic development services; structures not covered by the Building Code Act, including fences and signs; and

animals. It would also give them natural person powers, to be used in areas in which they have authority to act. Those are the same powers a person has to conduct day-to-day business without the

need for specific legislative authority.

As well, this proposed legislation would maintain certain municipal governmental powers such as the authority to tax or to regulate or license certain

activities. The legislation proposes some limits to these general municipal powers. For example, a municipal bylaw would not be permitted if it conflicts with a provincial law. Some matters are of

significant provincial, as well as local, interest. They include natural environment, health, safety and nuisance. In these areas, the proposed act sets out municipal powers in more detail.

Provisions governing these powers would be streamlined.

This broader authority would be balanced by a substantial accountability framework. Municipalities, as you are already aware, Mr Speaker, are subject to a

great many accountability measures including, of course, elections every three years. The proposed legislation would add a few more. For example, licensing and user fee processes would be made

tighter and more transparent. Municipalities would be required to report to taxpayers on improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of their service delivery. They would be required to pass

bylaws setting out procurement policies and procedures. These measures are already standard practice in many municipalities.

The proposed new act also includes measures to give municipalities more authority to make their communities safer. It will respond to municipal requests by

enhancing municipal powers to deal with crack houses, body-rub and adult entertainment parlours and other problem properties as public nuisances by allowing municipalities to pass bylaws on matters

that, in the council's opinion, are or could become nuisances, or ask the courts to close down these problem properties. Such a request would have to be made after giving notice to the Attorney

General and with the agreement of the police in order to avoid the possibility of jeopardizing an ongoing police investigation related to the property.

The proposed new Municipal Act would give municipalities the authority to better manage raves and body-rub and adult entertainment parlours by clarifying that

municipalities can seek community views before making related licensing decisions. Community input could help identify conditions to attach to the licence and determine whether the conditions are

being met. The proposed act would also help municipalities deal with heavily fortified buildings used as clubhouses by motorcycle gangs or by others, by allowing municipalities to enact bylaws to

address excessive fortification of buildings.

Although the proposed new Municipal Act would take effect on January 1, 2003, the community safety measures would take effect when the legislation receives

royal assent.

The proposed Municipal Act would also contribute to Smart Growth by giving municipalities more authority to set up corporations and involve private sector

partners in financing and undertaking public projects.

The proposed new act would also formally recognize the importance of consultation between the province and municipalities that directly affect them. This new

Municipal Act, if it is approved by the Legislature, would become the cornerstone for a new, more mature, more productive relationship between Ontario's municipalities and the provincial

government.

I talked a few minutes ago about the long consultation process leading up to the introduction of this act and the support we have received. Let me just tell my

colleagues about some of the reaction to the legislation when it was introduced on October 18.

The president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ann Mulvale, called the day of introduction an historic day for municipalities and she predicted

the proposed act would improve provincial-municipal relations.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion noted that her city staff have been working with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the province for years on

Municipal Act reform. She said she was pleased with the results.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce said in a news release that Ontario businesses had been worried that municipalities would have greater access to use user fees

and licensing fees as a source of revenue; however, spokesperson Ron McNeill said in the release, "The new act strikes a balance on these issues." Today's announcement indicates that the minister

is listening to the concerns raised by the business community.

The president of the Toronto Board of Trade, Elyse Allan, noted in a news release that the board has been involved in the discussions on Municipal Act reform

for several years. "We welcome the introduction of the new Municipal Act," she said.

This legislation clearly has the support of people who will be most affected by it. It's a big step forward for Ontario municipalities and the people they

serve, and that's good news for all the residents of Ontario who depend on and need these services. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Further debate?

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill 111, the Municipal Act, 2001. I

would like to focus my comments on how the passage of a new Municipal Act would allow Ontario businesses to remain vital, to remain competitive and to prosper.

As part of this government's commitment to deliver a new act, we consulted extensively with those who would be most affected by this legislation. This included

the business community. We needed to make sure that a new act wouldn't upset the delicate balance that has been achieved over the years among various competing interests. Many business

organizations, through their input into our consultation process, helped shape the new Municipal Act. This government expresses gratitude to those organizations for their involvement in this

important process. These organizations include the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the Toronto Board of Trade,

the Retail Council of Canada, the Ontario Trucking Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel

Association, just to name a few.

I believe this legislation provides more clarity to the business community in their dealings with municipalities, and I believe we have maintained the

essential balance between good municipal government and service delivery and the need to ensure a dynamic, barrier-free Ontario economy.

Allow me to briefly outline a few of the proposed provisions that I think will be beneficial for Ontario's business community. Under this proposed legislation,

municipalities would continue to be able to licence businesses; however, this legislation includes increased accountability measures, with emphasis on greater clarity and transparency. First of

all, the proposed legislation specifies that licensing only be used for the purposes of health and safety, nuisance control or consumer protection. Municipalities would be required to link any

conditions they impose on licensing to one of three areas. This would ensure that there is a clear focus on why a municipality may choose to licence.

If this legislation is passed, municipalities will also be required to hold public meetings before establishing or amending a licensing bylaw. The Ontario

Chamber of Commerce has publicly stated that establishing the principle that business licensing must be related to health and safety, nuisance control and consumer protection is a very positive

step. The OCC supports the proposal which ensures that the most contentious user fees receive the greatest public scrutiny before being enacted. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, by

regulation, would be able to preclude municipal business licensing of self-regulated businesses and to prohibit municipalities from imposing conditions related to testing on the subject matter of

certification for trades or occupations that are provincially certified.

Municipalities would also be required to keep a list for public inspection detailing the classes of businesses being licensed, the fees being charged and how

the licensing fee has been calculated. This would provide better transparency.

On the issue of licensing fees, this proposed legislation sets out a clear framework for how these fees would be established. If this legislation is passed,

licensing fees would be based on directly related costs. These costs must be justified to the public as being directly related to administration and enforcement.

During the consultation process, the calculation of licensing fees was something the business community raised as a concern. I think what's in the proposed

legislation goes a long way to address their issues on this topic. Calculation of licensing fees would be up to municipalities and would be appealable to the courts. The cost that would be allowed

in calculating a licensing fee includes costs related to the preparation of the bylaw and enforcement of the bylaw, including inspections. Also included would be the costs associated with

prosecution and court proceedings and enforcing the bylaw against businesses operating without a licence.

On the issue of user fees, the proposed act includes enhanced accountability requirements, and if the act is passed, municipalities would be required to

provide a public list of all user fees. Requiring municipalities to publish a list of fees and provide notice before establishing certain fees or limiting fees to cost recovery would ensure

accountability and fairness. User fees would be divided into categories, with different rules applying to each category. The categories and the rules would be established through regulations, and

we will continue to work with interest groups on their development. The government believes this is essential. It will foster disclosure and accountability.

Fees that are often disputed would be in a category that would be subject to more process requirements. This could include different notice requirements,

sunset provisions and cost recovery limitations.

The proposed act also deals with procurement procedures. We all know that in municipalities procurement procedures have an important impact on the way both the

general public and vendors and suppliers perceive the operation of many municipalities. Right now, many municipalities have these kinds of policies in place, while others don't. I believe this

creates uncertainty for the business community.

If this legislation is passed, it will be mandatory that all municipalities put in place procurement policies and procedures. We believe this will encourage

all municipalities to function in the most fair and open manner when it comes to allocating municipal funds. I believe these proposed changes to licensing, user fees and procurement policies will

lead to a greater accountability to the business taxpayer.

In closing, if I may quote from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's federal director, Mr Robinson, "Citizens, taxpayers, businesses and local governments all

stand to benefit from these proposed changes."

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to participate in this debate. I want to first of all commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing for bringing this bill forward. I also want to remind members of this House of the amount of work that was done as well by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is in the House this

afternoon, the then Honourable Steven Gilchrist, who I know took a great deal of interest in this legislation. We can't forget the work that was done by him.

Of course, the former Honourable Minister Al Leach, because of his extensive experience in this area, also contributed a great deal.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Mr Clement.

Mr Klees: The honourable member mentions the Honourable Tony Clement, and we can't, of course, forget his work as well on this portfolio. So

we can see that this is a subject that has had a great deal of input from many people.

For years, we have heard about the need for a new Municipal Act. Successive governments have attempted, and failed, to bring this act forward -- not for lack

of trying, and we understand that. This is not meant in any way to slight members of the opposition, whose efforts we respect but certainly disagree with how they would have gone about this.

Somehow, by divine intervention perhaps, they were kept from also interfering with this important piece of legislation.

I want to address some of the structural aspects of this bill. At the heart of the proposed Municipal Act is a new flexibility for municipalities, which we

know municipalities have been asking for for many years. It is also balanced with a strong accountability framework that ensures that while on the one hand the municipalities have the flexibility

to go about and do the work that they need to do, they also are held accountable not only by other levels of government but by the public.

This framework includes several new accountability measures, and many that are already in place in the current act. It should be very clear that this act is

not a full replacement of the existing act. There are many substantive portions of the existing act that will be continued, but there are significant changes that are being made that are well

overdue.

I'd like to speak for a few minutes about the various types of powers that are being proposed under the new Municipal Act that would in fact give

municipalities considerably more latitude to do the work they are expected to do by their constituents and how all of these components would work together.

As the members may know, the current act is very prescriptive. Municipal powers are set out in detail in the act, to the extent that if there isn't a specific

piece of legislation that actually prescribes that the municipality can do a certain thing or take a certain action, they are prohibited from doing so. So whenever anyone has in the past, whether

that be perhaps a councillor on a particular council who comes forward with a new idea or perhaps someone from the business community who comes forward and suggests a new way of doing something

that would save money, that would be more efficient, that would be more effective, it immediately sent the lawyers for the municipalities scurrying, checking the various statutes of the act to

determine whether they can find the one line in the act that would allow them to do it. If it's not there, then the lawyers' advice -- after many, many costly hours of searching the records,

searching the statutes -- would be, "Sorry, we can't do it because it isn't specifically prescribed."

This act will solve that problem, and it's well overdue. In fact, I know that there have been a number of occasions when I've heard from my colleagues at the

municipal level, as I'm sure you have, saying it's time the provincial government stopped treating the municipal council or the municipal level of government as an immature child, that we have to

somehow get rid of this parent-child relationship between the municipality and the province. This act has taken that very important step. It means that when municipalities want to do something new,

something that hasn't been thought of before, this statute allows that municipality to move ahead.

The general spirit of the new act is that it would give municipalities certain areas of responsibility and general authority to deal with those areas of

responsibility. At the heart of that approach is the concept of natural person powers. Natural person powers are the powers that any ordinary person has the ability to do.

Many corporations also have those powers. These are the powers that municipalities will need to conduct day-to-day business, like the power to enter into

agreements, to purchase and sell land and equipment, to hire employees and to delegate administrative responsibilities to committees, staff members or other bodies, such as boards of management.

Municipalities would only be able to use those natural person powers that are being conveyed through this act to carry out the duties assigned to them through the spheres of jurisdiction that also

will be set out in the proposed act.

I'd like to just take the time to itemize those spheres of jurisdiction for you and for members of the public. They will include highways, and that will

include parking and traffic on highways; transportation systems other than highways, and that means things like transit, ferries and airports; waste management, which also includes collection,

recycling, composting and disposal; public utilities such as sewage treatment facilities; culture, parks, recreation and heritage, and that takes care of things like arenas, parks, museums and art

galleries.

It will include drainage and flood control except storm sewers, things like floodways and the purchase of wetlands; structures, including signs and fences, and

this would include things like requiring fences around swimming pools; parking except on highways, and that means parking lots and parking garages within the municipality. There is a category that

relates to animals, including licensing pets, operating spaying clinics and regulating the keeping of exotic animals. We're hearing a lot of that, more and more, and I think municipalities need the

power to deal with these issues. Finally, there is the area of economic development services, including the establishing of industrial parks or the promoting of tourism.

I want to make it very clear that natural person powers would not give municipalities the authority to deliver services or to get into businesses for which

they do not otherwise have the legislative authority to do so. It is the intention of this government in setting out these natural person powers in the areas of jurisdiction that they should be

interpreted broadly. This would give municipalities more flexibility to govern within these areas.

The government's intention is also that all existing municipal powers should be continued. There should be no concern that this is an initiative or an effort

on the part of the provincial government to somehow restrict municipalities and take away authority that they have had to date. That simply is not the case.

The proposed new Municipal Act would provide, in addition to the natural person powers I've just mentioned, governmental powers. These are things like

licensing, regulating and the prohibiting of certain activities. Municipal jurisdictions would be able to use these governmental powers only in order to act within their own areas of jurisdiction.

There is not an opportunity here for a municipality to take initiative beyond its own municipal borders unless of course there is, as I said before, some other jurisdiction in legislation for them

to do exactly that.

The proposed Municipal Act would place some limits on these general powers. For example, municipal bylaws would not be permitted to conflict with the

provincial statutes or existing federal statutes that are already in place.

Bill 111 includes specific provisions to govern the actions of municipalities in certain areas, such as incorporating a corporation, making investments and

borrowing or lending money.

All municipal powers would also be subject to geographic restrictions. Municipalities would only be able to exercise the authorities conveyed to them through

this bill within their own geographic boundaries except where Bill 111 or other legislation specifically exempts them or specifically authorizes them to do otherwise. They would be able, for

example, to deliver services outside their boundaries only under specific circumstances.

Now, while the areas of jurisdiction relate to things that are primarily of local interest, there are areas in which the provincial government also has a

substantial interest, and these include of course the natural environment, health, safety and the area of nuisance. In these areas, municipal powers would be set out in detail in the proposed act,

as they are in the current act. Provisions governing these powers would be streamlined.

A number of specific powers would be set out in the proposed act. These include, for example, the power to require landowners to clear refuse and debris from

their land. This is an area that I've had a number of constituents appeal to me on in the past. You know, while most people are responsible citizens relative to their neighbours, it does happen

from time to time that people don't take care of their property, and so it negatively affects the value and quite frankly the good enjoyment of their own properties, whether that be farm machinery

or whether that simply be other refuse that is kept on this property. This act will empower municipalities to move in on that landowner to force them, effectively, to do whatever is necessary to

bring that piece of property into order.

There are other powers with respect, for example, to the relationship between the local and county or regional levels of government in Ontario's two-tier

county and regional systems.

The proposed act would maintain the existing division of powers between the upper and lower tiers of government. This

summary that I have provided you with

attempts to outline the broader structure of this bill that, as I indicated previously, is really something that successive municipal governments have asked that the provincial Legislature take

initiative on.

I think it is high time, particularly given the complexity of our society today, where there are many creative ways in which local governments could deal with

issues that are facing them, it's only appropriate that our government provide them with the structure, with the framework to do what has to be done, at the same time ensuring that the appropriate

accountability is in place. There are other areas that I don't have the time to deal with here, but I know that as we continue to debate this issue, they will be raised by members of the House.

One of those areas, just in closing, is the ability of municipalities to deal with businesses in their jurisdiction where members of the community have a

particular concern about the nature of the activity that may take place. I'm referring to things like bars, which may create noise within the community and activity within the community that is

inappropriate. We've had examples where there is drug trafficking that reportedly takes place, and there are all kinds of activities into all hours of the morning that interfere with the use of

people's homes and other properties or businesses in the area. To this point, municipalitie