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

February 5, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L157 - Wed 5 Feb 1997 / Mer 5 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PELEE ISLAND FERRY SERVICES

HIGHWAY 560

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

FARM TAX REBATE PROGRAM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WIARTON WILLIE

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

CARDIAC SURGERY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

TEACHERS' PROTEST

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CLOSURE OF JAILS

REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

CLASS SIZE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

ABORTION

CLASS SIZE

ABORTION

CLASS SIZE

HIGHWAY 17

FIRE SAFETY

HIGHWAY 17

NATIVE RETAIL SALES TAX EXEMPTION

HIGHWAY 17

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

FIRE SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA FONDATION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PELEE ISLAND FERRY SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to inform this House and the government about my great concern over the recent elimination of provincial funding for the Pelee Island ferry service. It is a serious issue that requires the attention of the Minister of Transportation, who to date has not responded to my request for a meeting with the minister and local stakeholders.

The minister will know that the ferry service to Pelee Island is not only important for 250 permanent residents of the island but is of vital economic importance to the agricultural community on the island; the wine industry, where hundreds of acres of grapes are grown for the mainland winery; and for the tourism industry, where each year millions of dollars flow through the local economy not only from mainland Canada but from the United States as well.

Also, the economic impact of the ferry service is felt in the nearby mainland towns of Leamington and Kingsville, where infrastructure and jobs are reliant on the regular service of the ferry. Moreover, many aspects of business planning for the agriculture and tourism sectors must be completed up to a year in advance.

There are 250 permanent residents who are literally being left out in the middle of Lake Erie by this government. The island and its people are Canadians and Ontarians who deserve the same access to the rest of our province as all its other citizens.

I respectfully ask the minister to place a priority on this issue and meet with me and the officials from Pelee Island, Leamington and Kingsville as soon as possible.

HIGHWAY 560

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Highway 560 runs between Elk Lake and Highway 144 and is badly in need of rebuilding. The people of Shining Tree, Westree, Morin Village and Gowganda depend on this road and are very concerned for their safety.

Highway 560 is heavily used by logging trucks, which share the road with school buses and family cars, yet there are places where this two-lane highway is not wide enough for vehicles to pass in opposite directions. There are turns so sharp that trucks have to go in the opposite lane to get around the corner, and there are rock cuts so narrow that snowplows cannot get the snow off the road.

Over the past several years, parts of Highway 560 have been widened, straightened and repaved, but there is still a lot of work to do. At this time of year, when the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines are determining their priorities for road construction for 1997, I want them to remember the people who live along Highway 560 as they make their allocations.

Today I will be forwarding letters from more than 50% of the households in the area to the ministers involved, and I ask them to make sure that this highway is not forgotten simply because these communities are small. There may be bigger and busier highways elsewhere in the province, but I'm sure there are few highways in as bad a state as Highway 560.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to inform all members about another positive opportunity that has come to the riding of Peterborough. Last Friday my colleague and good friend Chris Hodgson, the Minister of Natural Resources, came to Peterborough to sign a cooperative agreement between the MNR, Trent University and Sir Sandford Fleming College. This agreement will create a watershed science centre at Trent University and a sustainable ecology institute at Sir Sandford Fleming College's Frost campus in Lindsay.

The ministry's expertise and the quality of the facilities at these schools will assist our government in developing greater environmental initiatives while providing students an opportunity to expand their skills and knowledge.

Now that the new MNR building is open in Peterborough, we are going to see positive things happen again in our community. New employees are moving to our great city and businesses in the downtown will reap the rewards of greater consumer traffic. The MNR move to Peterborough is a very positive relocation.

Many thanks to the presidents of Sir Sandford Fleming College and Trent University for their cooperation in establishing these new long-term partnership agreements, many thanks to the Minister of Natural Resources for attending last Friday, and many thanks to the people of Peterborough for welcoming the MNR and its employees to our great community.

FARM TAX REBATE PROGRAM

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): When the Minister of Agriculture announced changes to the farm tax system, he was very vocal about saving the farmers the time and inconvenience of applying for and receiving a rebate. But this is only half the story. What was not pointed out was that at the end of the day, farmers will pay more on their tax bill. The government's mega-week announcements dumped on to the farmers and other taxpayers of Ontario long-term health care, ambulance service, policing, welfare and roads, among other costs.

When the farm tax rebate was removed, the minister did not address the problems that rural municipalities will face in replacing this lost revenue. How can rural Ontario cope with the demise of this rebate, which creates a shortfall of $171 million? Some rural municipalities depend on the property tax rebate for 50% or more of their revenue. These municipalities have been holding the line on taxes for years. They cannot make up the 50% revenue reduction without raising the taxes on hardworking farm families.

We know that we will be competing for your questionable reinvestment fund with large urban centres. The government must commit to replace this money, the lost revenue, dollar for dollar so that rural Ontario can survive and be the engine of economic growth. Give them that guarantee, Minister. Give it today.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last night I held a public meeting in my riding to hear community concerns about the proposed merger of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. These hospitals have had very different mandates in the past. The Clarke Institute is primarily a research facility associated with the University of Toronto and Queen Street is a treatment facility run by the province.

People in the community to whom we spoke last night are very concerned because there has not to date been sufficient consultation with them. They are asking, is this merger really necessary and is it in the best interests of the community and the people they serve? They're concerned that the staff may be cut and that the most vulnerable people in our society, the severely mentally ill, may suffer as a result.

I believe the real issue here is the Harris government's cost-cutting agenda. The Minister of Health has already announced that there will be substantial cuts to hospital budgets this year. We've read that, we've heard about that. Hospitals feel threatened, so some of them, like Queen Street and the Clarke Institute, are rushing into mergers in a desperate attempt to deal with the cuts, without adequate time for public consultation. I ask, why the rush? Hasty decisions will not have good results. Hospitals must be given the time to plan for everyone concerned.

SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I am pleased to share with the House that the Minister of Finance announced yesterday an enhancement to the small business investment tax credit for banks. This tax credit will provide greater opportunities for Ontario's new and emerging small businesses to get the financing they need to grow, prosper and create jobs.

The government consulted with the small business and investment communities. The advice provided through these consultations has made the tax credit more responsive to the needs of small business. Small business asked the government to target the credit to smaller firms, those that often have the toughest time getting the money they need to expand, and that is what we have done.

In recognition of the higher transaction costs associated with smaller investments, the size of the tax credit will be increased up to a maximum of 20% for investments under $250,000. We are also extending the credit to include investments in unincorporated businesses. Small business investments made through qualifying small business investment funds will also be eligible for the tax credit.

Our goal is to create jobs and support economic growth. To create jobs, new and growing businesses need access to sources of capital that believe in their potential. Our government is taking action to help make that happen.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I want to revisit an issue that we talked about on Monday, and that issue is the Harris government's attempt to hoodwink the people of Ontario with a $57-million reinvestment announcement. I want to reiterate the point I made then, that our part-time health minister was announcing reinvesting money at the very same time, on the same day, that his ministry was advising hospitals of new and drastic cuts of $435 million to their budgets, the second instalment along the way to a $1.3-billion devastation of this province's hospitals.

We now have some of the details about how drastic these cuts will be. We have the evidence that shows in 1996-97, following that, a 7.7% cut for 1997-98 for North York Branson Hospital, a 7.9% cut to Windsor's Hotel Dieu Hospital, an 8.2% cut to Brockville's St Vincent Hospital, an 8.9% cut to Paris's Willett Hospital, and a 9% cut to Ottawa General Hospital. The list goes on, with cuts to individual hospitals of up to $10 million.

When we look at the two-year cuts, we now have hospitals contending with 14% cuts, like Etobicoke General; 14% cuts, like Kingston's Hotel Dieu; a 23% cut over two years to Peterborough's St Joseph's.

The Premier said yesterday that he has chosen to refuse the advice of OHA to hold off on these cuts taking place. We know who we can trust. We know we can't trust a Premier who wants to fund a tax cut on the backs of patients across this province.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, sometimes in this House it's really difficult for us to find the appropriate language when we're trying to describe the government's actions; you know, those days when they say that black is white and white is black, and we don't know how to express it adequately, like when the Minister of Health announced a $57-million reinvestment when he was actually cutting over $400 million, or like the day when the Premier was asked about the 40 million new dollars in child care that hadn't been spent and he said, "It's the municipality's fault; they haven't picked up that money," yet the minister admits she never offered it to them, that she had put a freeze on the money.

It is hard.

I have another example. Last night at a community meeting, there were over 200 people out fighting the megacity, and a constituent gave me this. He wrote it. It's called A Steve Gilchrist Story:

"On Monday morning, Steve Gilchrist was on Metro Morning, and he said he had to support the megacity because Ken Morrish, councillor in Scarborough, did a poll, and 80% of his constituents supported amalgamation, so he had to do it.

"Next day, Frank Faubert, the mayor, calls in and tells the real story. The poll that was done asked three things: (1) `Do you want lower taxes?

(2) Are you in favour of actual value assessment?

(3) Do you want fewer politicians?'"

The question, "Do you want Scarborough to be amalgamated into a unified city?" was never asked, and yet Mr Gilchrist touts it over. My constituent ends up saying, "What this says about Mr Gilchrist and, by extension, the facts of the Harris government, we leave to your musing."

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Unanimous consent to do it again.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to do it again? No.

WIARTON WILLIE

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): On February 2, every year since 1956, Canada's foremost weather prognosticator, Wiarton Willie, has emerged from hibernation to pronounce his winter weather report. Since his discovery he has delivered predictions on the remaining course of each winter with over 90% accuracy.

The famous albino groundhog was born in Bruce county. His mystique is enhanced by the fact that he was born precisely on the 45th parallel, the midway point between the equator and the North Pole. Rumour also has it that Willie maintains his trim figure with corn chips and salsa, and his hero is Red Green.

The annual festival that accompanies Willie's prediction draws thousands of participants, as well as international media that broadcast to all corners of the globe. In fact, Willie gets e-mail from more than 20 countries. Although Willie's predictions were a little shaky last year, many believe the leap year and his 40th birthday added too much pressure.

This year Willie's prediction was consistent with that of his Pennsylvania counterpart, Punxsutawney Phil. Neither groundhog saw his shadow and both predicted an early spring.

Organizers of the festivities are looking to municipal, provincial and federal politicians for their support in recognizing Wiarton Willie as Canada's groundhog and declaring Groundhog Day, or the first Monday in February, a Canadian national holiday.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): There are many lines I could use at the end of that, and I'm not going to.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: May I ask for unanimous consent to recognize February as Black History Month?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent to recognize February as Black History Month? Agreed.

Mr Curling: The month of February is celebrated as Black History Month. Many people have really asked the question, why Black History Month? What it does is that it provokes good debates and discussions on the contribution of the black people in our society in Canada, on the positive things they have done, and sometimes recognizes the struggles that have happened over the past years.

It brings pride to the people in our black communities when a successful black man or a successful black woman achieves. That person, that father, that mother, that aunt feels there is a role model which they can emulate. Because that person contributes to society as a whole, we as a society of course benefit overall on this.

February has been recognized in North America for over 72 years now as Black History Month. Since it started, Canada has come into that fold and itself has seen many prominent blacks who have contributed to our society.

What we have seen also with the achievements of blacks is many of the struggles and challenges that face them ahead. They are one of the most vulnerable peoples in our society that are still struggling to have equal access to jobs and of course to opportunities in schools etc.

Government plays a very important role for those people in our society to make sure that they can and do contribute, because contributing and having access to those situations helps us all.

Recently we saw a prominent black man who was the Ontario guardian pass away, and over 2,000 people attended the funeral to talk about his contribution. That afternoon we heard people speaking highly of those contributions. Today in this month, as we celebrate Black History Month and as we look to those who have contributed, I ask every parliamentarian to remember some of the struggles and challenges ahead for our people in our society. It is incumbent upon every one of us to make sure that access for those people is being seen.

We have seen employment equity in the past that did not see the achievement of those people who are still denied access to jobs and are still denied access to opportunities, and I ask this Parliament to take a very serious look at it.

Last year we were overwhelmed in Canada by Donovan Bailey's achievements as a Canadian. Many young people, as I speak to them in schools, tell me how proud they feel about Donovan Bailey. Of course, he's a black man, and those young people who feel they cannot contribute effectively in our society feel a part of that. Not only black people but all Canadians celebrated his achievements.

I say to you all, this month take the time in your constituency to visit some of the wonderful events that are happening; take time to look at the displays in the lobby of Parliament, because we have always had some displays there that recognize the achievements of blacks; take a look at the display outside where the coloured men who participated in the First World War are being recognized. We in Parliament have always recognized some of the black achievements that have happened. We want to sing those praises more. We want to make sure that we're sensitive to all the things we do in our policies and the directions we want to go.

I ask all my colleagues to join in recognizing February as Black History Month as a positive contribution to society.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to join in the recognition of February as the commemoration of Black History Month.

We note that this is a celebration that goes back a number of years. In fact this month-long event began back in 1926 when it was known as Negro History Week. It was started in the United States by Carter G. Woodson, a black educator and publisher from New Canton, Virginia.

Incidentally, February was chosen initially because it is the month of the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and emancipator Frederick Douglass, birthdays which fall on February 12 and 14 respectively.

It is a month which has grown over the years, which has taken root across many parts of the world and certainly here in Canada. We are proud to be part of this process and to recognize it today.

I think there's a fair question that people could ask: Why have a Black History Month? It is of course a time when African Canadians across this province and across Canada can look back to their African roots in North America with pride, but at the same time it is an opportunity for the rest of us to learn about the history and the involvement and the contribution of blacks to Canada and to Canadian history and the evolvement of this country.

In fact the celebration of Black History Month is indeed an attempt to have the important achievements of people of African descent in Canada included. I think we could list many a Canadian of African descent, of black descent, who has contributed greatly to this country in recent times, but I think it's worthwhile noting that those contributions and that involvement go back to the days before Canada even existed as a country.

The first known black to arrive in Canada was Mathieu Da Costa. He acted as a translator between the Micmac Indians and Samuel de Champlain, the French explorer who came here in the early 1600s as a discoverer of the New World. Clearly Da Costa had already been in Canada some time even prior to Champlain's voyage of discovery since Micmac is neither a European nor an African language, and he was here in the capacity of interpreter.

There are many others who can be cited in the years and centuries that followed. We know, as we look back at our own history here in Ontario, we can trace back settlements at least two hundred years ago in which blacks were prominent and made up a significant chunk of the community.

I think it's fair to say that while that celebration takes place -- and it should take place with great pride -- Black History Month is also an occasion for us to take stock of the differences that still exist. I think it would be incomplete to note the marking of this month if we didn't also note that there are many within the black community who feel justifiably that there are issues of racism, issues of injustice as they pertain to education, as they pertain to the justice system that still need to be addressed.

I know they and many others would tell us that the greatest day would come, in their eyes, when we did not have to use Black History Month as a way to note the contributions simply because those contributions of this formidable part of our community would and should be noticed and noted every day in our classrooms and every day in the fairness and practices that we want for all of ourselves, for our children and for our communities.

It's in that spirit too that I, on behalf of our caucus, mark this very important month and urge all my colleagues also to use it as a time of reflection to help us address the many inequities that still exist.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I am happy to have this opportunity today to echo some of the sentiments expressed by my honourable colleague from Scarborough Centre this past Monday. I'm also particularly pleased to have this opportunity to support the member for Scarborough North in his efforts to highlight this important event.

This is the second year since the federal government declared February Black History Month, and it's a pleasure to have this opportunity to rise in this House today to mark this special occasion on behalf of my party. We are fortunate to live in a province like Ontario. Our identity is based in a strong foundation of diverse cultural traditions. People from a wide variety of backgrounds have made significant contributions to this society, not the least of which are the accomplishments of our vibrant black community.

It is important that we mark this celebration and pay tribute to the many contributions this community has made in politics, the arts, education, medicine, sport, and the list goes on. But the important thing is to recognize that our society is made stronger and is defined by the varied contributions of all its members.

I am pleased to see that Black History Month has grown so much since its inception in 1926. Carter G. Woodson's dreams are kept alive by this growing annual tradition as more and more people become involved in the month-long celebrations here in Ontario and across North America.

This special session of the Legislature has provided us with a unique opportunity to recognize this important event. It is a privilege, as the Minister of Citizenship, to have this opportunity to recognize this event here on the floor of this Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. It has to do with integrity and it has to do with the standards you have set for your office.

About a year ago in your budget you promised that you would "establish procedures to require the registration of all persons and firms who lobby the government." You have not done anything in that regard to date.

In his last annual report the Integrity Commissioner expressed his concern that conflict rules did not apply to senior political staff. You have also failed to do anything in that regard.

You will know that the federal government has in place some extensive conflict rules for political staff. They are subject to a cooling-off period. In fact, they're restricted from directly lobbying the government for one full year. In Ontario there are still no rules governing the activities of political staff. Premier, can you tell me why you have not moved to regulate lobbying in Ontario, and particularly why you have not restricted the activities of your former staff members as lobbyists?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It is an area that obviously neither the Liberals nor the NDP moved on when they were in government and we felt was important, and we committed to do so. The proposals for bills are going through the legislative process of government. I don't think anybody in this House or in the province of Ontario would say that we haven't been a busy government and that we haven't had a lot of important items on the agenda. Such legislation is going through the process.

I expect that shortly it will be before the House, and actually, with the cooperation of all parties and less caterwauling and yelling and stonewalling on legislation, perhaps we could get it passed this spring.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let me tell you why this is so important. Ed Arundell, your communications director, just left to take on a position as senior VP at the lobby firm of Hill and Knowlton. Hill and Knowlton just received a lucrative contract as part of a $50-million Market Ontario campaign. Mitch Patten, formerly your deputy principal secretary, took a job with Canadian Highways International. Despite protests from the auditor, that company was allowed to bypass the tendering process for a huge contract involving the maintenance of Highway 407.

Premier, you will be aware, as I am, that senior staffers are privy to highly sensitive and confidential information. They not only know what you're going to do tomorrow, but they know what you're going to do next week and in many cases they know what the government is going to do next month and even what it's going to do a year away. That information can be exceptionally valuable to people who want to do business with the government. Do you not feel that there is a very serious problem here and that there ought to be some restriction placed on senior political staffers who were formerly employed through your office?

Hon Mr Harris: In spite of the fact that neither your government nor the NDP thought there should be, we do, and we are bringing forward comprehensive legislation. In the interim, in the absence of any legislation being inherited from either the Liberal government or the NDP government, and as we work on it, we have said to our senior staff, "We expect you to conduct yourselves as if legislation existed."

Therefore, Mr Arundell had absolutely nothing to do, no say and was not part of any award of any contracts that had anything to do with the Market Ontario initiative. Secondly, upon leaving the government, he can have absolutely nothing to do with anything at Hill and Knowlton in relationship to the government with any file he worked on. The same applies for Mitch Patten. The same applies for all my staff. In spite of the fact you left us no legislation, we have set those standards for our staff even without the legislation.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let's again lend some focus to what we're talking about here. These are some of the people who have left your office: Paul Rhodes, your senior media adviser, has left; Perry Martin, your senior justice policy adviser, has left; Ed Arundell, your director of communications, has left; Mitch Patten, your deputy principal secretary, has left. All have left to act as lobbyists and consultants for those doing business with your government. They are subject to no restrictions whatsoever at the present time.

You will know that ministers of the crown are subject to a cooling off period. They can't do business with you for a period of one year afterwards. If they don't abide by that rule, they are subject to a fine in the amount of $50,000. Again, political staffers are subject to no such restrictions.

In my opinion, the situation that exists is completely unacceptable. I want you to commit today, Premier, that you're going to take action as soon as possible to restrict your government's senior staffers to ensure they can't pass off and profit from secret insider information.

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate that the current leader perhaps does not recall when the Liberal government was in power and the current Premier and the current Deputy Premier lobbied to expand that bill to include senior civil servants along with the politicians. But no, the Liberals voted it down. They said: "No, no, we don't want to cover them. We want our staffers" -- I guess -- "to be able to go out here, we want senior bureaucrats." The NDP for five years did nothing as well. We committed to do it. We will do it. In addition to that, we expect our staff to follow those principles that will be in legislation even though the legislation is not there.

I might add, since you brought up Mr Patten, that you neglected to mention to the House and those who might be watching that the contract you referred to was one that was tendered and awarded when the NDP were in government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Come to order, the member for Northumberland.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): No, not me, it was him.

The Speaker: No, I don't think it was him. I think it was you, so come to order.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Premier as well. On the evening of May 15, 1995, during the leaders' debate, televised province-wide, Global's Robert Fisher asked you, "Can you guarantee us tonight that your pledge to protect health care will mean that you will not close hospitals?" Your response, Premier, was very clear and very, very unequivocal. You said, "Certainly, I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to close hospitals." When did you decide -- it's important for us to know this -- that you were going to break your promise made to voters on province-wide television?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm glad you brought it up, and you brought it up yesterday and you brought it up 10 or so times before, and I'm happy to answer it each and every time. Robert Fisher asked the question because Lyn McLeod said, "Yes, I'd close hospitals." Bob Rae said during the campaign, "We have a restructuring commission that's going about to decide which hospitals should be closed." The question was, did we have a restructuring commission, did we plan, did I have a plan? I said: "No, I don't. I don't have a plan. We don't have a restructuring commission --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Premier, order. I appreciate the question-and-answer time, but I want to hear the answer and I'm having great difficulty.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please, will the opposition come to order. The members for Cochrane South and Welland-Thorold. Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: So in 1995 the Liberals and the NDP I guess already had plans to close hospitals. We did not. We said we would await the local restructuring commission that the NDP had set up, and following election we awaited their report. We have asked local district health councils, we have asked locally developed reports prepared by local people to give us their recommendations and to give us their advice. I suggest to you that we have done exactly as we committed to do. We acknowledged --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier. Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: For the Premier's edification, I want to repeat my question. Robert Fisher asked --

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): What did Mike say, Mr Fisher? I'll tell you, it's Robert Fisher's fault.

The Speaker: Order. You can't heckle other members and you can't heckle reporters as well. It's out of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Well, let Fisher answer the question. He was there. He knows what the Premier said.

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. Thank you. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: On May 15, 1995, at about 6:55 in the evening, in Ontario, Robert Fisher asked of the Premier: "Can you guarantee us tonight that your pledge to protect health care will mean that you will not close hospitals?" The Premier answered, clearly and unequivocally, "Certainly, I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to close hospitals."

I want to ask you again, Premier: When did you first decide to break that promise?

Hon Mr Harris: On June 15, whatever it was, 1995, Robert Fisher asked me the question, do I have a plan to close hospitals? No, I do not. I said I understand that the Liberals will, I understand the NDP have a process but we do not. We had not studied hospitals or what should close.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the members for Sudbury East, London Centre and Riverdale to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That's out of order as well, member for Burlington South.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll wait.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to warn those three members, please come to order. That's out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: To date we've closed no hospitals. Upon taking office, along with an $11-billion deficit we inherited a report in progress, developed locally, on what should be done about hospitals and we have set up another committee to do that.

I don't know what your argument is. I understand that on December 13, 1996, well after the election, well after the restructuring commission that we inherited, that was there, Mr McGuinty -- this is the current leader of the Liberal Party, the one asking the questions, the one who brings forward all the kinds of information, like Mitch Patten, that had nothing to do with our government, that's the level of his questioning -- Mr McGuinty said, "Yes, I might close hospitals as part of a plan for better-integrated health care services across the province." We are saying, if that flows out of local communities, of local hospitals, then we will take a look at that.

Mr McGuinty: I am not the guy who said on May 15, 1995, at about 6:55 in the evening --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for London South, the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister for Community and Social Services as well, it's just as wrong for you to be heckling when the leader is up as well. Now, please come to order. I want to hear the questions and answers.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): He's reading it anyway, Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister, he can repeat the same question 25 times. Those are the rules. If he wants to, he can. If you choose to see it that way, that's your choice, but I want to hear him.

Mr McGuinty: I am not the guy who said at that time and on that date, "Certainly, I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to close hospitals." If the Premier has any doubt whether or not people in this province feel he has broken his promise, he should travel to Thunder Bay and ask them. He should go to Sudbury and ask them. More recently, he should go to Meaford, Walkerton, Chesley, Durham, Fort Erie, Port Colborne and he should ask them whether he is living up to his commitment. This is a very straightforward matter.

Premier, you said, "Certainly, I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to close hospitals." You have clearly broken that promise. But you also made another one. You said that if you were to break any of your promises, you would resign. Your word was your bond. That's how important your commitments were, that if you broke a promise you would resign. So now, Premier, I'm going to leave it to you. What do you think you ought to do in the circumstances?

Hon Mr Harris: Given that I acknowledge the quote you made, that's exactly what I said and that is exactly the situation in May, and given that actually I currently have no plans either, today, to close hospitals, but what we did --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: Well, I'm sorry, but I don't. What we did inherit, of course --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me be clear about what I said on health care, because I think this is very, very important. What we said on health care was that we would seek savings, we would try to find reductions in some areas of health care spending, and as we said in the Common Sense Revolution, we would reinvest every dollar that we could save by whatever means. We said we'd consult and we would study. Now, if that meant that in the future citizens felt we should close one building and reinvest those savings in another or in new programs, we committed to do that.

We acknowledged up front that we will cut some areas of the health care budget so we can reinvest in other areas. We pledged and committed that we would cut not one cent out of the overall health care envelope, and we have cut not one cent out of the health care envelope, exactly as we pledged.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. This week the Heart and Stoke Foundation of Ontario released a surprising report on fatal heart disease; it found that the rural areas of this province have a significantly higher rate of death from heart attack and stroke than large cities do. The findings raise a lot more questions for all of us, and those questions are going to have to be the subject of further research. One of those questions is very particular to rural Ontario: Is there any correlation between heart disease fatality and access to emergency medical care?

Minister, the Heart and Stroke Foundation has made it clear that it doesn't have the answer to that question at this point in time, and we're quite sure you don't either. Given that agricultural areas have significantly more deaths already due to heart attacks, how can you go ahead with closing small-town and rural hospitals and their emergency departments without really knowing what impact that may have on heart disease fatalities?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): This is a troubling question. It's one that certainly concerns me a great deal. The member opposite mentioned that further studies are under way and I certainly am very anxious to get the results of those studies. I know the Heart and Stroke Foundation is embarking upon a study this fall. The cardiac care network is reviewing this area; we're expecting information from the cardiac care network within the next short period of time. The ministry will certainly be taking a very close look at it and looking for ways and means of addressing this problem.

I will say that over the past year the ministry has invested a considerable amount in, for example, paramedic training in defibrillation techniques. Some $16 million is starting to flow in Kent county, for example, one area of concern; some 15 defibrillators have been announced in that area. The ministry is concerned. We'll be participating in these studies and anxious for the results.

Mrs Boyd: That's scant comfort to the people who live in rural areas who are seeing their hospitals threatened with closure. Last night the Grey-Bruce District Health Council received a report from its health and hospital restructuring committee, a report that recommends turning the Meaford, Walkerton, Chesley and Durham hospitals into primary health centres and downgrading the Wiarton hospital. About 300 concerned citizens attended that meeting despite a horrible rain and sleet storm. They know all about driving in weather and on roads that make a joke of your guidelines that residents be within 30 minutes of emergency care, care that could save a life when someone has a heart attack.

Many rural residents believe they are being denied their rights under the Canada Health Act, that in cities people generally have a 15-minute emergency response time. They're asking, does your hospital downsizing justify this double standard for emergency service?

Hon David Johnson: In Grey-Bruce, a subcommittee of the district health council did report yesterday with specific recommendations. The district health council, however, has not had an opportunity to deal with that particular report. There are a number of steps along the way. People are participating. The district health council in that area is participating. It is a recommendation that is being developed in that local area and will be coming forward.

Once it goes through the district health council, I would expect probably in March, then it comes to the ministry, then it goes to the restructuring commission. There is a good deal of work to do on any recommendations coming out in Grey-Bruce. I fully expect that through that process there could well be changes, but the net result and the goal of all this through community development, through the district health councils is to develop a better standard, improved hospital care for the people of that area.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you didn't answer the question. The question is whether the people in rural Ontario can expect the same kind of emergency response times that their sisters and brothers in large urban centres can have. We know the answer is no. Rural people all over this province are saying that as you go ahead -- and of course one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing and there's this denial of any responsibility on the part of the government -- what you are doing is exposing people in rural and northern areas to health care that is substandard under the Canada Health Act,

an act which, I remind you, you said you would observe. They are being treated differently than people in large urban areas. That's the question, Minister.

Would you please answer whether this development of standards is going to guarantee that emergency response times in rural and northern areas are the same as they are in large cities, and are you going to guarantee that those response times are going to end this horrible mortality rate for heart disease and stroke?

Hon David Johnson: What I will guarantee to the member opposite is that we will carry on with the process that your government began a number of years ago involving the district health councils. This was initiated by the NDP. Some $26 million was plugged into the process to get it going because I suspect your government recognized, as our government recognizes, that there need to be changes to improve the health care system.

By doing this on a community level through the district health councils, the commitment is to tailor and improve in those communities the services that are available. We have embarked on that process even as this is being undertaken by announcing some $600 million worth of reinvestments over the last year -- reinvestments in dialysis treatment, in cardiac care, in defibrillators, in cancer treatment, in drug programs as well as long-term care and all the components of the health care system.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Three weeks ago you announced your massive download of health and social services costs on to the municipal property taxpayer. Yesterday, using inaccurate numbers, you laughed off the catastrophic impact of a half-a-billion-dollar download on the property taxpayer of Toronto. But your mega-load is happening all over the province.

Minister, your comments lead a lot of people to believe that your $1-billion community reinvestment fund is a fraud. A lot of people believe that you've stuck property taxpayers with over $1 billion in costs and that the promised fund will quietly disappear. Without being flippant, if you can, will you guarantee that $1-billion fund will go to the municipalities every year?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In response to the member for the third party, the $1 billion is a real number. That number will be in the budget. That amount of funding will be available for redistribution to the municipalities for as long as it's needed. If it's needed for two years or three years or five years or 10 years, that money will be there. We've committed $1 billion to assist municipalities that need help and we live up to our commitments, as the people of Ontario know.

Mr Marchese: The municipalities and property taxpayers are very worried about that. That's why we're asking the question. You have dumped a huge cost on to the taxpayers of Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Niagara, Sudbury, Timmins, and the long list goes on. You want municipalities to come to you on bended knee, but worse, I fear the money will not be there. That is my fear, and it is the fear of many municipalities. You want to snatch $1 billion out of the hands of property taxpayers.

The region of Haldimand-Norfolk has a population of 94,000 people. You are dumping approximately $30 million in extra costs on to the property taxpayer in that region. That's about $750 a household. Are the good folk of Haldimand-Norfolk going to get that $30 million every year so that you can keep your promise of no property tax increases?

Hon Mr Leach: I know the taxpayers of Ontario know what we're doing. We're taking $5.4 billion off the education property tax, which is going to give them an opportunity to have the room on their property tax base to absorb the cost of the other programs that they rightly should deliver. That $5.4 billion will grow to about $6.2 billion by the year 2000.

What the people of Ontario know is that they can trust this party. They know that this party is not going to flip-flop like the Liberals did. They know that they can trust this party to carry out its commitments and its promises. That's why the people of Ontario know that if they need help in covering off some of the costs, that $1 billion will be there to assist them.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The people of the province can trust you like they trusted Mike Harris on health care. Let me tell you that in the regional municipality of Sudbury, the net cost of your dumping of social services and health care costs will be $105 million. That represents an additional cost of $1,600 per household across the region.

Jim Gordon, mayor of the city of Sudbury, former Conservative MPP and cabinet minister, has this to say about what you're doing: "Municipalities are forced to go after their taxpayers for money in order to support Premier Mike Harris's provincial tax break. It's just going to make people poorer, poorer and poorer because we're taking so much money out of their pockets when someone else is providing a tax cut. It's so much baloney," said Gordon.

Minister, will you assure the people in the regional municipality today that they will not have to foot this $105-million bill and that your reinvestment fund will cover that entire cost this year, next year and every year that we have to cover it?

Hon Mr Leach: The people of Sudbury know that if they require assistance, we will be there to help them with that assistance. But we know that by putting actually $2.5 billion aside to help municipalities that may require assistance -- $700 million for social services, $800 million to help with restructuring if they need help in rebuilding roads -- we will be there to provide some assistance to them. If they need assistance, that $1 billion in funding will be available to the municipalities of Ontario.

We intend to sit down with the municipalities very shortly. We're sitting down with AMO and other major stakeholders to work out the ways and means in which that $1 billion will be distributed to the municipalities that need it. That formula on distribution will be made known after we have full consultation, as we always do, with the municipalities.

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. I'd like to bring to your attention today another reason why the cancellation of the bail supervision program was wrong, and I think in this case dangerous.

In the past two weeks, you've been criticized about the cost-ineffectiveness of your decision, and of course that is because it's far more costly to jail somebody on bail rather than to supervise them in the community.

But I think you've also lit a time bomb here because the counts at jails have skyrocketed recently. Metro East currently has 358 beds, but Sunday night there were 517 inmates there. Metro west and the Don jail are in a similar mess. You know this is a recipe for disaster, and you have created it. When are you going to admit that your decision was wrong and very dangerous?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This member knows as a former Minister of Correctional Services that overcrowding is not a new problem. It's one that governments of all political stripes have had over the years, but this is the first government that is doing something in a meaningful way to address that situation, especially the crowding in the greater Toronto area. The first phase of our new infrastructure program will focus on the greater Toronto region so we can relieve some of the overcrowding pressures that have existed for a significant number of years.

With respect to bail verification, all I can say is that the research that has been conducted indicated that that program was not providing any real or meaningful impact in terms of the remand counts in our institutions, and that is a fact.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, it's because of your mismanagement that you're creating the overcrowding problem this time. You're adding to that because you're putting more people away than supervising them on the street.

The signs of pending disaster are really starting to show. This overcrowding is now explosive. One night last week at Metro east there was a severe assault and a beating in that area, and again this weekend. With 25% to 30% overcapacity and triple bunking in cells, not only are the violent acts among inmates becoming more common, but guards' lives are at greater risk now. You are creating a situation that could lead to a full-scale riot. When are you going to admit that the cancellation of the bail supervision program is costly and dangerous and that you are putting offenders' and guards' lives at risk?

Hon Mr Runciman: The member complains about us putting more people behind bars. I don't think the public at large would complain about that particular activity. In fact, I think they're tired of the record of past governments with respect to coddling criminals and are taking a much different perspective with respect to the criminal justice system.

There's no question about it: Our major concern is public safety. We are getting tough on crime. We're doing the things that former governments should have been doing but didn't do. I think if you check the public, if you gauge the public with respect to this issue, public concern with respect to criminal activities in this province and across this country, they're very much pleased with the approach this government is taking in terms of support for police and the number of initiatives we're taking in the justice area. I think we're doing all of the right things that should have been done many years ago, which your government failed to do.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to bring to your attention a situation that a constituent of mine finds herself in. Diane is suffering from a heart condition and has been needing surgery since June -- June 4, specifically -- of last year. She went to Sudbury Memorial in order to have her situation checked out and the specialists in Sudbury said: "Go home, go off work, wait for the call. You need surgery. You're in a life-threatening situation." That was June 4 of last year.

She sat at home in June, she sat at home in July, she waited for the call up to August. No phone call came. She finally decided to take the matter into her own hands because her condition was worsening. She started calling her doctor and the people at Sudbury Memorial every week to try to get admittance, to be able to get the heart surgery she needs in regard to valve replacement.

September, October, November, December, January -- no phone call. She sits at home. She waits in fear. She wonders if she's going to be able to see the next day. Minister, I ask you this: Is it acceptable for a citizen of this province to have to wait that number of months to get surgery in Ontario for a life-threatening condition?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Obviously I'm not aware of this particular case. If the member for Cochrane South would give me the details other than what he's given here in the House, I'd obviously be happy to bring it to the attention of ministry staff and look into it. I will say, though, that in cases like this, as we all know, the hospitals do a rating here.

If your question is, are the government and the ministry and am I satisfied with the existing situation in general, no, I'm not satisfied. I've indicated that. This government has put $16 million this past year into increasing heart surgeries. Indeed there are over 1,000 -- somewhere up to 2,000 -- more heart surgeries planned this year than in previous years. But is the situation acceptable? No, it isn't.

I can assure you that the ministry and I will be interested in the results of the cardiac care network review and the Heart and Stroke Foundation review.

Mr Bisson: The problem is that more and more people in northeastern Ontario are having to suffer, having to wait for surgery because of the cutbacks you've made in the health care system. Specifically, in Sudbury you've reduced the amount of money being spent in those particular hospitals so people are having to wait a lot longer to get into surgery.

The good news in this particular situation is that she finally got an appointment yesterday. She got confirmation from the specialist in Sudbury that they would

schedule her. But for her to do so, she had to threaten suicide to her doctor to get admittance to Sudbury Memorial for the surgery.

I ask you this: Do people literally have to threaten to take their own lives to get themselves moved up waiting lists so they can get surgery for what is a life-threatening situation? Is that acceptable?

Hon David Johnson: The information I have is that waiting time for elective surgeries is increasing somewhat. In the case of urgent situations, they're dealt with immediately.

The member opposite indicates that the spending and the investments are being cut in health care. That's not true in general. That is absolutely not true. This government is committed to $17.4 billion. In fact, in health care as a whole, this government will invest at least $17.7 billion. We spend more per capita, about 6% more, on health care than all the other provinces on average in Canada.

Second, in terms of cardiac care, we have invested some $16 million in paramedic training, defibrillation techniques -- $2.3 million in defibrillators -- $16 million in terms of increased funding for heart surgeries and $2 million for cardiac stents. This government is investing in health care and this government is investing in cardiac care in the province of Ontario.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Each of us knows the importance of our public libraries and our volunteer boards. Recently I presented a petition in this Legislature respecting library boards in Ontario. Furthermore, I've had contact with Cynthia Mearns, the library director of Clarington, and Tony Bonanno, director of the Scugog library. I also served as a library trustee myself for many years prior to coming to Queen's Park.

Minister, I was very interested in your response to the Who Does What recommendation from Crombie. Crombie recommended the elimination of boards. You did not take this advice. Could you tell the House today the reason for your decision?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you to the honourable member for Durham East for his question. The Crombie report is advice to our government and Mr Crombie did indeed recommend the total elimination of library boards. I spent over nine months in consultation with the library community, and that included municipalities, library workers and users. As a result of those consultations, there was almost unanimous agreement to retain library boards.

I wholeheartedly agree with that agreement, and under my proposed new framework, municipalities that now currently fund on average 85% of library costs will be given control over local libraries as well as the responsibility for establishing the rules and membership of local library boards. Who better than the local library community and the people that live in that community to make such decisions?

Mr O'Toole: I'd like to thank the minister for her answer and support of library boards in Ontario. What has been the reaction to the proposed new framework for local libraries?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I have some responses here that I'd like to read into the record.

Verna Ross, chair of the Aurora public library board, said in a personal letter to me in January, "I think you did a marvellous job of protecting the essential underpinnings of the system, and I want to thank you."

Barry Fowler, who's the acting chair of the Windsor library board, said on CKLW Radio, "Given the changes that are happening around us, we think it is a very reasonable response from the provincial government."

Finally, in the Ottawa Citizen on January 16, Terry Mundell of AMO said he welcomes the changes and does not believe budgets will be decreased as a result.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the role your office played in the Ipperwash event, where a first nation person was killed and an OPP officer faces charges. It now appears, based on the information we've got, that all the key files involving your office around the major meetings on September 5, 6 and 7 have disappeared. We requested, under freedom of information, all documents, memoranda and e-mails produced by your staff regarding these meetings.

We now have been informed, in a memo from the freedom of information office on January 29, that the Premier's office has neither custody nor control of any records, in response to our request for the memoranda. It is clear that the major files have disappeared.

My question is this, Premier: Did you or anyone in your office order the destruction of all the Premier's staff reports on the Ipperwash interministerial meetings of September 5, 6 and 7?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You make up imaginary files. You make up imaginary involvement. There were no files, there were no records, because we had no involvement.

Mr Phillips: Premier, you acknowledged on May 29 that your executive assistant was at these meetings. You have acknowledged that the reason the executive assistant was there was to prepare briefings for you, was to get the full information on the events taking place. These meetings took place on September 5, 6 -- the day of the shooting -- and 7. These were major meetings involving senior people of all ministries, you represented by your executive assistant -- major, significant meetings.

We can only assume, because you've indicated it was the case, that you were briefed on those meetings. We can only assume that your senior staff prepared briefing notes. We can only assume that those briefing notes have now disappeared. They're gone. Your office has informed the freedom of information office that they're gone. That is what the freedom of information officer says.

I will say to you, Premier, it is clear that you've acknowledged in the past that briefing notes were prepared. It is clear now that you are acknowledging that those notes no longer exist. My question is this: Who ordered those notes to be destroyed?

Hon Mr Harris: You have a wild imagination with no facts, and nothing's been destroyed.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Today in the papers we read that you fired Don Richmond as head of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. Don Richmond, as far as I know, was praised by politicians of all stripes when he was Metro social services commissioner. He even served as an executive officer in the Premier's office under Tory John Robarts. He later worked for Metro Chairman Paul Godfrey, another of your friends.

Mr Richmond, it seems, has a fatal flaw. He cared about the people who live in social housing. This is what he said: "Public housing was created to fill a gap. The private sector is not interested in housing people at the bottom end of society. I'm very concerned about the tenants."

Minister, are you firing this individual because he disagrees with you and because he cares for these tenants?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Richmond was not fired at all. Mr Richmond had a two-year contract, an assignment he took on for a period of two years. That contract expires on February 28 and Mr Richmond will be going on to other challenges.

As I mentioned in the article, Mr Richmond did extremely good work for us. We don't always agree on philosophy on public housing, but he did a good job and he'll continue to do a good job as long as he's there. But he was not fired.

Mr Marchese: His contract obviously did not continue because he disagrees with you fundamentally. That's really what's at stake here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Fort York, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Brantford, you're out of your seat, and the member for London South, it's not helpful. As I said before, I want to hear the questions and the answers. I can't hear that question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm sorry; London North. I apologize to the member for London South.

Mr Marchese: My view is the following: You did not extend his contract because you have fundamental disagreements about public housing. That's the real reason. Getting rid of Don Richmond, getting him out of the way opens the door to your downloading of social housing on to the municipalities. That's the agenda.

You make a big deal as well about the fact that you're going to phase in the downloading, but that doesn't change the fact that the cost to property taxpayers is going to be very high. It's just delayed.

Don Richmond says that public housing in Metro still needs over $200 million in urgent, essential repairs. That's money you haven't counted on in your statistics but it's money that property taxpayers in Metro will have to come up with. What the Metro taxpayers are looking for is this: clarity and certainty from you. Where is Metro going to find the $200 million it needs for essential repairs? Clarity and certainty, Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: There were two parts to the question. I'll repeat for the record that Mr Richmond is moving on to other challenges in the future, which is his right to do.

Mr Richmond is right. There is a tremendous need to rehabilitate much of the social housing in Metropolitan Toronto that was allowed to run down during your administration, allowed to go into wrack and ruin, with broken windows and broken pipes and everything else. We recognize that public housing has to be rehabilitated and we intend to do something about that very shortly. Stay tuned.

TEACHERS' PROTEST

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Education. There have been several reports today that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation is planning to take their protest campaign now into the classrooms of Ontario. Members on this side of the House are very upset about that kind of campaign going to the classrooms of Ontario.

There are many acceptable methods of political discourse: faxes, letters, petitions and phone calls, to name a few. But surely taking union politics directly into the classrooms in Ontario crosses the line. Parents tell me this method is an unacceptable politicization of the classroom, students have complained, and I suspect that the teachers I know are upset about this campaign and won't participate.

Minister, what is the ministry's position on using the classroom for union politics?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I regret to inform the member that we have information that the union has instructed its members that they should use union lesson plans to take their protest campaign directly to the classrooms in Ontario.

I want to assure the member that the teachers I've talked to over the course of the last few days have assured me they understand, and understand fully, their professional responsibilities and the trust and respect there is between students and teachers, and that the classroom is not an appropriate place either for a protest or to move a political argument.

I think that all parents and students and teachers in this province understand very clearly that we need to put in place clear standards and have accurate measures and work together to lift student achievement in this province to the head of the class so that our students are achieving better than any other students in Canada, and we are working together to do that. This sort of action flies in the face of our commitment.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I think this action is regrettable. I hope the union will give it some sober second thought. I will raise the issue with Mr Manners and suggest that the union reconsider this action. I have today written to school boards, the school board association and the directors of education and asked them to make sure that they have a look at lesson plans and do a thorough review of all materials that are going into the classroom, as is their responsibility.

I want to make sure that everyone in this chamber understands that the classroom has to be kept away from protest. It is just not appropriate to have bargaining take place in a classroom. I think all members of this chamber surely understand that. I have called upon the OSSTF leadership to respect our students, our parents and particularly the professional acumen of their own members.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. I'm glad to have the opportunity to ask you a follow-up question to the rather shameless setup you had from your colleague moments ago because the truth is that all supporters of the public library system in this province are devastated by the minister's decision to withdraw provincial funding support for our library system. I would recommend to the minister that she read some of the other letters that are coming in, the thousands upon thousands, decrying these cuts to the provincial funding system.

They're also worried because they already know we have an education minister who believes that school libraries aren't a priority either. So now we have the spectacle of a culture minister who's dumping all responsibility for funding libraries on the backs of residential property taxpayers. We have user fees which are going to mean that less-well-off children in our province are going to lose access to the new technology our libraries are developing.

This weekend the Ontario Library Association is meeting to discuss your shocking about face.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Gravelle: What they want to know is, where does it say in the Common Sense Revolution that the children and the millions of other library users in this province are to be deprived of access to our public libraries?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Mr Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege.

The Speaker: Okay, I'll deal with it after question period.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): What we said in the Common Sense Revolution was that we were going to eliminate duplication and overregulation and dual responsibility for the delivery of local services and were going to make government more accountable to the taxpayers. That's exactly what we're doing with respect to public libraries. These changes will actually result in more effective and simpler management, something that we committed to in the Common Sense Revolution.

Mr Gravelle: It's clear that the minister just doesn't get it. Your reforms are simply moving us to an underfunded library system in the province. You talk about our municipalities being responsible because of the new funding reality, but how can you expect them to do this when you've dumped over $1 billion in new financial responsibilities on local taxpayers? The representatives of the Ontario Library Association told me they tried to send that message to you last week in a meeting with you, along with many other concerns that they have, and they're the spokespeople for this, and you were oblivious to their warnings.

We all need to know how you're going to respond to the library association this year. Will you tell them that no community -- big, small; urban, rural -- will lose their library services and will you guarantee that no local neighbourhood library branches will be closed as a result of your actions? Will you guarantee it?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I will repeat exactly what the responses have been to our proposals. In an Ottawa Citizen story on January 16, 1997, Mr Mundell, the president of AMO, which is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, said that he welcomes the changes and does not believe that budgets will be decreased as a result. Jean Dirksen, who is the former chief executive officer of the Windsor Public Library, said on December 31: "The Crombie recommendations were welcome news. They are farsighted and will enable libraries and their municipalities to bring about seriously needed change within the fiscal authority of the municipality."

CLOSURE OF JAILS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. He has a superjail plan that just doesn't make sense. He talks about shutting down 14 correctional facilities in this province. He omitted from his list of 14 the old county bucket in Brockville -- 100 years old. That, from his own riding, happened to be omitted from the list of jails to be shut down and replaced. But he included the Ontario Correctional Institute, which has internationally acknowledged treatment programs. He included for shutdown the Vanier institute, the only women's correctional facility in the province of Ontario.

He also included the Niagara Detention Centre, one of Ontario's newest correctional facilities, built in 1973, one of the most efficient, with a per diem inmate cost of only $88, well below the provincial average. That's not common sense; that's just plain stupid. I put to the minister: How could he even think of including the Niagara Detention Centre, one of our newest and most efficient and cost-effective correctional facilities on his list of --

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

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): It's interesting that the member mentions the Brockville jail as not being part of this plan, suggesting, I suppose, that there's some political decision lying behind this. I want to point out for the benefit of this member and others that Brockville is part of phase 2 and is indeed slated for closure as one of the very old jails in this province.

We're not showing preferential treatment to anyone with respect to provincial representation, unlike, I might point out, the NDP government when it was in power. I want to point out that they realized they had a problem with older jails in this province. They had recommendations before them which they failed to act upon except in two ridings held by provincial Conservative members. Those are the jails they selected to close and they ignored all the other recommendations.

Mr Kormos: This minister --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Where were you then, Peter? They had you muzzled.

The Speaker: Minister of Agriculture, order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Okay, I didn't hear that, so let's continue. The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: This minister is obsessed with handing over the operation of our correctional facilities to profit-driven corporations, and the fact is that there's no conclusive evidence that that's going to save taxpayers a single penny. In fact, a Tennessee study -- the minister should know about it -- indicates that in a comparison of inmate costs between private and public facilities there is very little difference.

This minister is going to close down, as I have indicated, some of the most effective treatment programs, some of the most efficient and newest jails that this province has. He's going to hand the operation of corrections over to companies that make profits from filling jails which therefore will have little interest in avoiding recidivism, or people returning to jails. It will be motivated to have more people in jails.

Why is the minister risking community safety, the safety of correctional officers and the safety of inmates, and the accountability of the prison system, by handing over our correctional services to private corporations?

Hon Mr Runciman: If this government and this minister's obsessed with anything, it's bringing common sense back to government, and that applies to the corrections system as well, where we've had a system where we are paying far and away the highest costs in terms of incarceration of any province in this country, an average of $124 a day. It costs less to stay in a hotel in downtown Toronto than it costs the taxpayers of this province to house inmates across our institutions.

We have the oldest infrastructure in Canada, many facilities over 100 years of age. The member mentioned some facilities. We're also dealing with the federal authorities with respect to keeping some of those institutions open for alternative uses.

They raise the spectre of safety. The new institutions that we are building under phase 1 and phase 2 will be maximum security institutions. Public safety is priority number one.

REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the Twentieth Indemnity and Allowances Report of the Commission on Election Finances.

Motions?

Interjection.

The Speaker: I apologize; you're right. The member for Durham East on a point of privilege.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It concerns my attempt to ensure that I am not impugned. The member for Port Arthur, in his question to our Minister of Citizenship and Culture, implied somehow that my question was a setup or somehow illegitimate. This is the very point in these proceedings that all --

Interjections.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): O'Toole, what did they tell you? How stupid are you?

The Speaker: Members opposite. Members. The member for Welland-Thorold, please. All members have a right to raise a point of privilege, and I know when all members on this side stand, I insist that I hear the point of privilege. Please allow him to put it. Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: Really, this is the point in the proceedings every day where all members are allowed to ask questions of the minister. I just want the shallow attempt by the member to disqualify my attempt to ask a sincere and initiated question on my side -- I am working for my constituents of Durham East and I want my constituents to know that.

The Speaker: Just a moment, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

What is your point of privilege?

Mr O'Toole: Somehow the member for Port Arthur was impugning my motives or the legitimacy of --

The Speaker: All right. Did you want to rise on that? Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Just to say, in response to the member's point of privilege, I think he was referring to the fact that there had been an accusation that it was a setup question and that's what he was objecting to. I think there is an easy way to resolve that. If you'd just get the minister to stop reading the prepared answer to your prepared question, we wouldn't think it was set up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think that's just a comment the member for Port Arthur made. It's a comment the member for Port Arthur made --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think he was passing his opinion, and opinions are in order in this place. If it was his opinion that your question was prepared, I hardly expect you to have the Speaker start reprimanding members for suggesting some are prepared questions, some aren't. Although I understand what you're saying, I don't really believe it's a point of privilege.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition very relevant this week to the government of Ontario.

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of $44 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This petition is to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"Treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo has stated, the Ontario Correctional Institute is `a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques';

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Save victims and money by keeping what works open."

I've affixed my signature to that.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is the opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for a more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I affix my signature to this petition of several thousand names.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition signed by a number of East York residents, including John Withrow, Wayne Swallow and Shelley Davis. It reads simply as follows:

"We, the undersigned, residents of East York, are in favour of the borough of East York remaining as a separate municipality."

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here which is addressed to the Legislature and to the Honourable Robert Runciman, and it states as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"Treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo has stated, the Ontario Correctional Institute is `a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques';

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison.

"Save victims and money by keeping what works open."

They've requested that everyone who signs this petition respond as well to the Solicitor General, and I have affixed my signature to it.

ABORTION

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition from hundreds of the good citizens of Cambridge, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas induced abortion is the intentional medical killing of a pre-born human being before birth, and evidence that pre-born human beings of five to six weeks' gestation have the ability to experience pain has been reported as long ago as 1941 and corroborated as recently as 1994;

"Whereas a recent study reviewing all available research on the reasons for abortion in Canada concluded that, `As the procedure is not therapeutic, and as there is mounting evidence that it is harmful to women's health, funding by the government under health care cannot be justified';

"Whereas US studies have shown that where public funding for abortion has been removed, both the pregnancy rate and the abortion rate have dropped significantly;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require that `elective procedures' be funded, nor has any Canadian court ever found a constitutional right to publicly fund abortion;

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

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

"That the Ontario government remove induced abortion from its medically insured services; and

"That the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, endeavour to encourage an alliance between all groups offering crisis pregnancy support across the province."

Pursuant to the standing orders, I sign the petition on the face of it.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is an opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for a more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness; and

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic; and

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require `elective procedures' to be funded; and

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded 45,014 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

I sign my name to this petition.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is an opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for a more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I am proud to sign my name to it.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the town of Thessalon.

"We, the undersigned residents of the town of Thessalon in the district of Algoma, would like to extend our appreciation to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for their commitment to northern Ontario, and in particular to the district of Algoma, for road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"As part of this commitment to northern Ontario, we request that the road construction be continued in an east direction so that years of neglect to our highway system can be rectified."

It's signed by many petitioners from there.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition in response to Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

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

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

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

"Whereas we are concerned and we don't want to get burned by Bill 84;

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

I affix my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have now another petition from the township of Plummer.

"We, the undersigned residents of the township of Plummer in the district of Algoma would like to extend our appreciation to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for their commitment to northern Ontario, and in particular the district of Algoma, for road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"This is the first major road improvement in over 10 years in our area, and we, as residents of Algoma, salute the minister."

NATIVE RETAIL SALES TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition that's signed by numerous people from the Wikwemikong Unceded First Nation.

"Whereas the government of Ontario's list of PST-exempt purchases regarding native Indians presently discriminates against Ontario Indians living off reserves because of educational purposes, medical reasons or unsettled land claims;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass amending legislation to allow Indians living off reserves for educational purposes, medical reasons and unsettled land claims to be included in the PST exemption policy."

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here.

"We, the undersigned residents of the town of Bruce Mines in the district of Algoma would like to extend our gratitude and sincere thanks to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for the road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"This is the first major road improvement in over 10 years in our area, and we, as residents of Algoma, salute you both for your commitment to the north and our highway system.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here signed by 129 people on separate cards that read as follows:

"We support free public libraries as the foundation of a literate, informed and prosperous population.

"I am therefore opposed to the repeal of the Public Libraries Act, also opposed to the elimination of provincial conditional grants to public libraries and the eradication of library boards and the imposition of fees for the use of public libraries."

This petition is on 129 separate cards and I am glad to affix my name to it.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Kenora and the rest of Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

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

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

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

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I beg leave to present the 31st report of the standing committee on government agencies.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Laughren presents the committee's 31st report. Does the honourable Chair wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Laughren: No.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA FONDATION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Leadston moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act to establish the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation / Projet de loi 123, Loi créant la Fondation de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): The purpose of this bill is for the establishment of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation. The objects of the foundation are to solicit, receive and to manage money for the purpose of maintaining and restoring the Legislative Building and the Whitney Block.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

Mr Galt, on behalf of Mr Sterling, moved second reading of Bill 107,

An Act to enact the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997 and to amend other acts with respect to water and sewage / Projet de loi 107, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui a trait à l'eau et aux eaux d'égout.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly a pleasure for me to be able to speak on behalf of Minister Sterling on Bill 107, the Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act.

Ontario's water and sewage infrastructure ranks among the very best in the world. The people of this province have long relied upon top-quality services. They expect and will accept no less in the future. This government is committed to finding the best ways to ensure that this expectation is met by finding the most efficient way to run our water and sewage systems. This is indeed especially important at a time when all levels of government face the challenge of maintaining high-quality services without increasing the burden on the taxpayer.

Today I am pleased to move for second reading a piece of legislation, Bill 107, that will help to ensure that Ontarians continue to enjoy the highest quality of water and sewage services. Minister Sterling introduced the bill known as the Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act last month, pursuant to recommendations in December by the Who Does What panel, chaired by David Crombie.

The amendments it proposes serve the people of Ontario by both clarifying the role of government and improving accountability. Bill 107 proposes giving Ontario municipalities full title to provincially owned water and sewage treatment plants serving their communities. Bill 107 also proposes appropriately transferring responsibility to municipalities for septic system inspections and for their approvals.

Municipalities have already shown that they can deliver outstanding water and sewage treatment services to their communities. They currently own three quarters of the treatment facilities in the province of Ontario and, with the passage of Bill 107, they will be the sole level of government that holds title to water and sewage plants in the province.

It is very important to note that we are not forcing ownership on to unwilling recipients -- far from it. Many local governments have told us that they want us to move in this direction. About 50 municipalities have requested title to water and sewage facilities, and we are responding to this request, to this demand in St Marys, to give you one example, Waterloo region to give you a second.

Divested of title to plants, the province would no longer be in the ambiguous position of being the regulator, the owner, the operator and the funder of these very essential services. This legislation would allow municipalities to deliver water and sewage services, as most do now, and to have the flexibility to choose an operator that will best serve their needs. Fewer levels of government administration means increased efficiency and decreased cost to the taxpayer. It will make our water and sewage systems operate more efficiently so that safe, drinkable water will continue to be provided well into the future.

The provincial government would then be able to focus on its most important role, that of setting and enforcing tough performance standards for the operation of water and sewage treatment plants. As a matter of simple fiscal responsibility, municipalities that propose to sell part or all of their waterworks to the private sector would be required by this legislation to repay any provincial capital grants received since 1978. This would protect the taxpayers' best interests and investment and encourage continued public control of water and sewage works.

Under the amended legislation, municipalities would also become formally responsible on October 1, 1997, for septic system inspections and approvals. They would have the ability to include new or expanded septic systems with a one-stop approvals service. We intend to ensure that public health and the environment are protected through tough rules for septic system installation and for their operation. Those doing this kind of work will have to meet competency requirements that will be set through provincial regulation.

People need the assurance, for example, that the inspectors are knowledgeable and competent, that their advice can be relied upon. We will use the transition period between now and October, when the Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act would take effect, as a time for training to ensure that inspectors meet the highest standards of professionalism. The toughened training and certification requirements for installers and inspectors have added benefits for homeowners. I'd like to read you a quote from Aubrey LeBlanc, the CEO responsible for the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

He said, "The new requirement for training and certification of installers and inspectors will provide greater protection for both the environment and the homeowner."

Homeowners would be better protected through increased professionalism in the field. They would get better value for their dollar. More reliable septic systems mean lower long-term maintenance costs. This increased dependability is also expected to lead to reduced insurance rates for new homes built with septic systems. In addition, the government is exploring ways to help smaller municipalities with specific needs or challenges to continue to meet Ontario's environmental protection and public health standards. Details will be provided in the next few months.

Some water and sewage works service more than just one municipality, which means that they are jointly responsible for the debts. In the case of these arrangements, called area plans, the works will be transferred to the serviced municipalities by way of a shared ownership agreement. Shortly after promulgation of this bill, area plan municipalities would be provided with a proposed order specifying the terms of the management structure. They can work from these model agreements, or if they have alternative proposals, these will of course be welcomed.

By way of the proposed amendments to

part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act, municipalities or their agents would be responsible for the delivery of the septic system inspection and approvals program, beginning October 1, 1997. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would administer the program in the unorganized areas in this province.

This will mean that residents of all municipalities across this province will receive a seamless level of service delivery. To date, this has not been the case.

Just as the province will continue to set and enforce environmental and health standards for the operation of water and sewage treatment plants, so will we continue to set tough rules for septic system installation and operation to protect public health and the environment. Restructuring these services would improve the way that they are delivered so that the taxpayer receives value, the best possible service with optimum efficiency and least cost.

Higher-quality work would also of course mean better protection for the environment. This remains the most important goal of Bill 107.

Water and sewage services have to date had confused ownership and fragmented administration. Bill 107 clarifies and untangles the roles of provincial and municipal governments in water and sewage services. Clear and consistent assignment of responsibility will result in better delivery and increased accountability. It is a better deal for the taxpayer.

These initiatives are designed to save the taxpayer money by ending administrative overlap without compromising the quality of the services themselves. Municipalities have clearly shown that they are able and responsible in delivering quality services to their constituents.

This government is committed to ensuring that Ontario's high standards of environmental protection are maintained and, wherever possible, improved upon. I am confident that Bill 107 will enable the ministry to become more efficient and effective, while also ensuring that Ontarians enjoy the greatest protection possible of their health and their environment.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Comments or questions?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Certainly, listening to the parliamentary assistant you would think that this is all good news to municipalities. Unfortunately, it isn't so, because it's interesting what the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has to say about this. They say that the transfer -- and by the way, the transfer is not negotiable. Municipalities are going to get ownership of these older plants whether they like it or not, and some of these plants go back to the 1950s and 1960s.

This is going to be forced on municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario states that the high cost of servicing the plant debts will undoubtedly be a huge fiscal pressure on those municipalities that are forced to do so, in addition to everything else that's already been forced on them during the mega-week. Municipalities may now not have the resources to assume the cost of operating these plants and, I may add, of upgrading the plants as need be because, as I stated before, many of these plants were built in the 1950s and 1960s.

As a result, AMO feels municipalities may have to reduce services, allow plants to deteriorate and dramatically raise the cost of water and sewer services.

Let's hear what the Ontario Municipal Water Association, a group that represents about 220 drinking water plants already owned by municipalities, has to say. They are very concerned that municipalities will either want to sell off their plants -- and by the way, there's no provision in the bill that eliminates that. We will be moving an amendment at the appropriate time stating that municipalities will not be allowed to sell off these plants to the private sector.

The OMWA goes on to say that to cover the additional responsibilities, municipalities will either want to sell off their plants or be forced to sell them to cover the additional responsibilities dumped on them by the Tories. As a matter of fact, they released a poll showing that 75% of Ontarians supported public ownership of water systems. We want to make sure it remains that way. We also want to make sure that those smaller municipalities that will be forced to take over these systems will have sufficient resources made available to them by the province when capital repairs are required.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to get up today and support my colleague from Northumberland, Mr Galt, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, on second reading of Bill 107, the water and sewage improvement act, which will come into effect October 1, 1997.

Really, as Mr Galt said, the purpose here is to maintain the high quality of water and sewage access for the people of Ontario, which includes public health. The Ontario municipalities will receive full title to facilities. I think this is long overdue. It's another form of disentanglement. In fact, you might know that today about three quarters of them are already owned by municipalities, so there's a great opportunity here to streamline and clarify exactly how things are organized and run in this province.

Transferring responsibilities for the inspection and installation of septic tanks is long overdue. The bureaucratic way it is being handled today and the approval process itself are rather unclear. Again in that whole area we're going to improve the inspection. Installers will have access to new and tougher updates of training and certification, which is long overdue for those communities that use the private sewage treatment systems.

This bill allows a clear opportunity to disentangle the previous provisions of service and the operation of sewage and water treatment for the people of Ontario.

Just to wrap up, I think the member for Northumberland has clearly outlined an opportunity for Ontario to move forward in the most cost-effective, efficient way to provide high-quality water and sewage treatment for the people of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The bill of course is about two things: It's about dumping responsibility on municipalities, and second, it's about privatization. If there is a third, it would be about lessening environmental regulation rather than increasing it.

The government puts this in a little package and hands out the information to the members and tries to pretend that what is actually happening is that it's going to increase environmental vigilance. It's exactly the opposite. This government is moving in exactly the opposite direction and it's doing it to curry favour with those who have always hated the Ministry of Environment. There are people out there, I assure you, who dislike the Ministry of Environment intently because it used to get in their way of doing the kind of business they wanted to do that was detrimental to the province, detrimental to the people of this province.

Good corporate citizens never worried about that. Good corporate citizens supported the Ministry of Environment. It was a leveller, if you will. First of all, they were citizens who wanted a good, clean environment in Ontario, and second, they knew there were bad actors out there who needed some regulation and some supervision.

Anybody who saw the program on The 5th Estate about the privatization of water systems will recognize what has happened in Britain and all the difficulties that come with this privatization. I know this government worships at the altar of privatization. It's an ideological response in this case, not common sense, not practical the way the previous Conservative government would have been. In this case, it's strictly ideological. That's what this is all about, and what will suffer will be the environment of this province. Make no mistake about it; that's what this agenda is. This bill fits in to that particular agenda.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The comments made by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Northumberland, I think are appreciated by all sides of the House. One comment that I'd like to particularly comment on is that with respect to septic systems. I think this is an issue that a number of governments over the years have looked at, how to toughen up the requirements for septic systems. If you live in a rural area or you live in cottage country, that whole topic of the septic systems and how it affects the environment, how it affects the homeowner is long overdue.

So I congratulate the Minister of Environment and his parliamentary assistant for announcing that there will be tougher standards with respect to the installation of newer septic systems.

I can tell you that people in my riding, many of which are under septic systems, and areas in cottage country are certainly concerned as to the effect that faulty septic systems are having on our environment. I think the fact that there will be tougher standards will result in a number of things. Not only will it help the environment, but it will be an added boon to the homeowner with respect to tougher standards for the maintenance costs with respect to the septic systems.

There is a further area. There has been some indication that it's possible that insurance rates with respect to homes may have a downward climb or downward --

Mr Bradley: That's a real stretch.

Mr Tilson: I'm not so sure. You say it's a real stretch, the member for St Catharines, but it has been indicated by some insurance companies, particularly with the fear of the defective septic systems around the province, that if these standards are tougher and if the septic systems are going to be constructed in a more efficient and better way, the rates will fall. So congratulations to the member for Northumberland.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: Thanks to the member for Durham East and also the member for Dufferin-Peel for their kind comments. I also have to admit that, going back, I didn't realize that it was an MOE responsibility in my area of the ministry. The health unit looked after septic systems, and after joining as parliamentary assistant, I started to find out, heavens, it's conservation authorities, it's private, it's health units, and overseen by the Ministry of Environment. This is going to clarify and sort out an awful lot of that confusion.

I notice the member for Kingston and The Islands made reference to the good news. Certainly there's a lot of good news in this particular bill. I'd point out that he seemed to miss the point on the tax, that the provincial government is taking over the education tax on residential property and the intent is all about being revenue-neutral. They just seem to be missing that point and they want to talk about this downloading all the time. It seems a tough one to get clarified for them.

I do want to point out to them one of the comments that David Crombie made, and that was how much municipal politicians lobby to get money to build infrastructure. In the case he pointed out, they built such a large sewage treatment plant that in the end the municipality couldn't afford to run it. They had to come back to the provincial government to get grants and subsidy so they could actually operate the oversized plant that they so effectively lobbied for and got money for, and built it so big that they couldn't afford to operate it.

That's the kind of thing we want to get rid of. We want the local municipality to be responsible, to be fiscally responsible, and recognize the actual size that they need and build plants accordingly. This bill, by giving the ownership to the local municipality, making them responsible, will accomplish that, even though the member for St Catharines doesn't quite understand.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, your time is up. Further debate?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I would like to ask consent to split my time in response with the member for St Catharines.

The Acting Speaker: Is there consent? Agreed.

Mr Agostino: When you look at Bill 107 and you look simply at what the government has put out and you see it in isolation, it sounds like a neat, nicely packaged, innocent piece of legislation that, in effect, does what the government believes municipalities would like to have done. When you look at Bill 107 and the way it has been packaged and sold by this government, it seems like a great move. But this is all part of the approach that this government has taken in dealing with the environment. This has all been part of the strategy since this government took office to dismantle, destroy and reduce any government involvement in the environment in this province.

Bill 107 cannot be looked at in isolation. Bill 107 cannot be looked at simply in the context of the three or four or five pages that the legislation has in place. How Bill 107 has to be looked at is in the context of mega-week. It has to be looked at in the context of the most massive downloading that has occurred in the history of this province by this government in the last couple of weeks. It has to be looked at in the context of Bill 26 that allows municipalities now to take certain action regarding water and sewage plants that they could not do in the past.

When you look at Bill 107, it really becomes an issue of not simply transferring the other 25% of the sewage and water plants and works to municipalities across Ontario. What it becomes is a clear opportunity and endorsement of municipalities having the ability, the power and the need, I believe, to sell their sewer and water assets.

Let's distinguish clearly. There is a difference between municipalities that choose to allow a private company to come in and operate the facilities and one that will choose to allow a private company to come in and own the facilities and, therefore, have control, most importantly, of the rates and the standards that are being set. Bill 107 allows that clear opportunity for municipalities across this province to do that.

The downloading that has occurred on to municipalities, the dumping that has occurred on to municipalities in the last few weeks put many municipalities across the province in serious financial jeopardy, a financial situation that municipalities have never faced in the history of this province. My own municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth will face a shortfall of $121 million -- that is one example -- Sudbury $105 million, Metro Toronto in the range of $380 million, and the list goes on and on.

You have put municipalities in a state of financial crisis. You have put municipalities in a situation where their choice is going to be to increase taxes dramatically in most municipalities, and municipal politicians know that can't be done because taxpayers cannot afford to pay any more municipal property taxes. If municipalities don't take that option, they face the option of increasing user fees for everything: bus transportation, public rinks, swimming pools, golf courses, garbage pickup, every service being provided.

That's the second option. You can either increase taxes or you can put user fees, which are basically a back-door approach to taxation. Any way you look at it, this government has become an expert at that. They meant to use user fees across the board in many areas but claim that's not a tax. It is a tax, and people who pay those user fees, like senior citizens, $2 a shot for a prescription, know that, know it's a tax as a result of your government's efforts on their backs. You will see that same option being utilized at the municipal level.

The third option that municipalities have is to cut services dramatically. Again, many municipalities have bit the bullet in the last three, four or five years and not cut services, have slimmed administration, have cut services that were not seen as important although necessary. That effort has already happened.

What is left? When you eliminate the option of increasing property taxes, when you eliminate the option of bringing in user fees, when you eliminate the option of massive reduction in services, you're left with only one option, and that is to look at services or operations that the municipality now has that you can sell off and maybe allow the private sector to do them.

When you look at municipal services, there are not many that are revenue makers for the private sector. There are going to be very few companies interested in purchasing the Hamilton Street Railway or the TTC or many other subsidized transportation systems across this province. Bus service, transportation service is seen as an essential service in municipalities, and governments over the years, with the exception of this government, have realized the need to fund those essential services.

In most communities like Hamilton-Wentworth and others across Ontario, people who use the bus service don't use it out of choice. People in Hamilton often don't use HSR out of choice. They usually use that system as a result of necessity. They can't afford to run a car, they can't afford parking, they may not be able to afford insurance, they're seniors, they can't drive for whatever reason. So it's an essential service. We have seen that. Very few companies are going to be interested in purchasing from the municipalities or running a bus system.

Social services is out; health is out. There are very few moneymakers.

There is one potential moneymaker here. That is water and sewer. First of all, it is essential. No one in any community across this province can go on without water or sewer services. We need water; it's a necessity of life. Therefore, people will be forced to pay whatever is necessary or whatever is charged to them, because you can't do without that service. So when you look at all the options, municipalities will be faced with the opportunity, and possibly the lack of choice, to look at selling and privatizing their assets, their infrastructure for water and sewer services.

What does Bill 107 do to address that? It gives it a bit of a token effort to make it look good. It's all part of the spin, the public relations effort. The whiz kids in the Premier's office say: "How do we counter the reality now that municipalities will be forced to sell off water and sewer services and the assets in order to deal with the massive dumping that has occurred? We're going to state in legislation that the municipalities have to pay back to the government the grants that were given to them to build those facilities."

I can tell you that water and sewer service is a big business and there will be a lineup miles long for private sector companies to come into any municipality across this province and buy those facilities, and they'd be more than happy to pay the municipalities the cost of provincial grants, the funds that were given to municipalities. It's going to be a small cost of operation, the $30 million or $40