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

April 28, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L181 - Mon 28 Apr 1997 / Lun 28 Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

THUNDER BAY DAYS OF ACTION

DAY OF MOURNING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ROAD MAINTENANCE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

DAY OF MOURNING

GEORGE JOHNSTON

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE EVACUATION PLAN

DAY OF MOURNING

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

AMBULANCE SERVICES

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

VULNERABLE ADULTS

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

HIGHWAY SIGNS

HEALTH CARDS

WETLANDS

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHARITABLE GAMING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

TEACHER-LIBRARIANS

FIRE SAFETY

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

FIRE SAFETY

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

THUNDER BAY DAYS OF ACTION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to address my statement today directly to the Premier. Premier, if you have any illusions about the people of northern Ontario losing steam in their fight against your attacks on our health and education system or against our seniors and Ontario workers or against your attempts to privatize everything in sight, I recommend you turn your eyes northward and examine what's happening in Thunder Bay today. The Days of Action have arrived in our city, and I can tell you and your Tory colleagues that the message is loud and clear. The people are as mad as hell and they aren't going to take it any more.

It's important, Premier, to understand that the people out in the streets today cross all boundaries. We have the employed and the unemployed, seniors and children, educators and students, health care workers and patients. We have the rich and the poor. Today they are all uniting in an effort to let you know that your vision of Ontario is not one they can abide. They want an Ontario that cares about all of its citizens and an Ontario that takes pride in helping those who are least able to care for themselves. They want a province back that includes everyone, regardless of their economic circumstances.

Premier, you can continue to bully Ontario workers and the rest of us throughout your term in office, but what you can't do is take away our ability to fight back, to stand up and proudly be counted as among those who believe there's a better way to do things. I salute all those who are taking

part in today's action and remind them, and remind you, the fight is not over.

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): April 28 is the day that allows all Canadians and people throughout the world to pay respect to those working people who have died or suffered injuries and diseases on the job. This has been recognized for almost 10 years now as that particular day of mourning.

In Kapuskasing this morning a special ceremony was held to recognize and respect those workers and their families at 11 at the labour council monument in Riverside Park. Kapuskasing Labour Council covers the area from Hearst, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls and Cochrane, and they've been doing a very good job in educating the workers in the dangers of being injured or killed on the job.

I want to send out congratulations to the new president of the labour council, Nicole Daggett, who has worked very hard on pulling together a number of the other unions to make sure that this continues to be a day of mourning for those who have been injured on the job.

Having worked in the paper mill at Spruce Falls for 21 years as a mechanic and eight years as an operator in the mill, I know the everyday dangers of trying to earn a living for your family and the risks involved in repairing machines or, as operators, making sure the machines run properly, so I just want to say that we should all take a moment's silence for today, April 28.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): This morning, Ontario's first restructuring commissioner announced the creation of a single municipality which includes the county of Kent and the city of Chatham. On January 1, 1998, the new municipality of Chatham-Kent will have a population of around 110,000 people and geographically will become the largest municipality in southwestern Ontario.

The new municipal government will be made up of 17 councillors and a mayor, replacing the current 141 politicians. This new government structure will provide the vehicle for more efficient delivery of government services, reduce costs to taxpayers, and make Chatham-Kent more competitive in the global marketplace.

Residents of the existing 23 municipalities should be assured that their individual sense of community and their particular culture can be retained, and should even flourish, within this new central government structure. The creation of this municipality will be of benefit to all its citizens by providing a more mature provincial-municipal relationship and a strong, self-reliant local government.

A transition team has been established to ensure a smooth and effective transfer to the new system of governance, and I want to wish them well and offer my services as they begin the task of leading the great new municipality of Chatham-Kent towards the 21st century.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I would like to remind the government and the Minister of Transportation today of the conditions of our roads. This is due to the many cuts which the government is applying in many areas. I'm not solely mentioning the hospital cuts or cuts to education; I'm mentioning the cuts to transportation services, those programs that are vital to the maintenance of our roads. I would like to remind the Minister of Transportation that our potholes are getting larger and wider and the road conditions very unsafe.

I mention to the minister and the government that downloading is not the answer, privatization is not the answer. Those are services that this government should take into consideration now and make the roads safe so that drivers don't have to skirt the potholes and cause more incidents.

I call on the government and on the minister to provide the necessary funding to repair the roads. There are many projects which have been approved five, six or seven years ago and today they still remain undone because of the cuts. Now the situation is even worse, and I would call on the government to provide the funding and make our roads safe and secure for people throughout the province, not only here in Metro. The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost, so I would implore the government to really fund those projects that have been approved so our roads can be again safe and secure.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Normally about this time each year the minister responsible for women's issues marches into the House to proclaim May Sexual Assault Prevention Month. Today the Coalition in Defence of Women's Anti-Violence Services demanded that the minister back up her rhetoric with -- get this -- some actual measures to safeguard women in this province from sexual assault and spousal abuse.

I can't say it better than Anne-Marie Aikins of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, who says, "We are all too aware at this time of the unspeakable violence many women are facing in Ontario, but we see little action to increase government support for independent women's groups who have struggled to intervene."

The coalition is asking that the minister announce three things:

(1) Guarantee annualized funding for rape crisis centres and guarantee that rape crisis centres and sexual assault treatment centres not be amalgamated.

(2) The government formally reject the McGuire report, which recommended, among other things, shorter stays at transition houses.

(3) Additional funding for a diversity of independent women's anti-violence services in the upcoming May budget.

There's your challenge, Minister, and your chance to finally be an advocate for women in Ontario. To the minister responsible for women's issues, I look forward in anticipation to that announcement coming later this week.

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): In my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and all over Ontario, eligible voters are being invited to get on the list for this year's municipal and school board elections. As I speak, over five million households in Ontario are receiving in the mail their 1997 municipal enumeration forms.

Every three years the province conducts a municipal enumeration in preparation for the autumn municipal and school board elections. This information is used to produce a preliminary list of electors for every municipal electoral district in Ontario. The information indicates a resident's school support and is also used to update the Ontario population report, provincial jurors' lists and property assessment records.

This year, part of the enumeration process has been contracted to the private sector. This one-time outsourcing will save the citizens of Ontario approximately $2 million and allow assessment staff to remain focused on the province-wide reassessment project. Provincial government staff continue to be responsible for preparing the preliminary list of electors and other statutory reports.

I am sure that my constituents will be pleased to find the 1997 enumeration has been simplified and made more efficient. Enumerators will not be troubling people by going door-to-door. When recipients receive their municipal election and school board support form in the mail, they should review the information, make any necessary corrections, and then drop it back in the mail by May 9, even if there are no changes.

I encourage every eligible voter in Ontario to get on the list for this year's municipal and school board elections.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Already reeling from the proposed implementation of a disastrous change in assessment of cottage wineries by the Harris government, people in the grape and wine industry will not welcome the news that the Conservative regime has taken another step towards widespread privatization of services for the people of the province, including the possible privatization of the LCBO.

With the reality of the impact of the Canada-US free trade agreement and the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the grape growers and wine producers of Niagara and southwestern Ontario need the LCBO more than ever to allow fair promotion of our product in their stores across Ontario, particularly when our wine faces stiff and often unfair competition from offshore producers.

The total sales value of wine from Ontario is $257 million. For every $10 million in wine sales, there's $14.8 million in economic activity in Ontario, according to a Deloitte and Touche study. Total wine industry related employment is 4,000; the value of grape purchases in 1996, $20 million; acreage for grapes in Ontario, 18,000; 200,000 visitors attracted to the Niagara wine region during special summer events.

There are dozens of reasons not to privatize the LCBO, and the future of our grape and wine industry, in which the government of Ontario in the 1980s invested tens of millions of dollars, is one of the most important.

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Today of course is the international day of mourning for workers injured or killed in the workplace. I have joined with a number of other people in Hamilton at the monument we have at city hall. Later on today we will, before question period, give unanimous consent for representatives from each party to address this issue and to pay our respects to those who have fallen on the job. It's the tradition of this place that we are not partisan at that time, that we speak to the issue.

The same is not the case, however, for members' statements, and I want to say to the government very directly that the workers I was with this morning -- and it's interesting; there wasn't a single Tory representative there -- know what this government's all about. They ought to hang their head in shames. On this international day of mourning, you have to answer for attacking and gutting the WCB, for killing the Occupational Health and Safety Act, for closing down the occupational health and safety agency, for gutting the Employment Standards Act, for gutting the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

That's the track record that you've got on workers' issues, and they didn't forget. Every speaker this morning talked about this government's anti-worker agenda. You should be hanging your heads in shame. That's why the local Tories didn't come: They were too ashamed to try and be there and defend your record. We will continue to fight for those workers even if you ignore them.

GEORGE JOHNSTON

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise today to ask members to join with me in thanking Sergeant George Johnston of the Ontario Government Protective Service for his hard work and commitment to the people of Ontario and Canada. We wish him well on the occasion of his retirement.

Sergeant Johnston served his country for 22 years in the armed forces, with tours of duty in Vietnam, Germany and Cyprus. He then went on to serve in the Ontario Government Protective Service for 24 years.

Sergeant Johnston has set an example of public service that is an inspiration to all. I know all members will join with me in congratulating him on a job well done and in offering our best wishes for the future.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Our government was elected with a mandate to make government work better for the people it serves. That objective may sound like a simple one, but it has required a commitment to completely re-examine the way in which government does business, and the political courage to change the way things have been done in the past.

Since we assumed office we have accomplished long-overdue changes never even attempted by previous governments, and along the way we have learned that change is never easy. In addition, quite frankly, we have learned other lessons as well. We have learned that you can never have too much public input, that better decisions are made when the advice of experts is taken into account, and that everyone benefits from an open process when plans and proposals of government are made public and made clear.

Now we are preparing to apply those lessons as we fulfil yet another commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution. We are taking the next step in a fundamental and long-overdue review of the businesses owned and operated by the government.

Our government over the years has grown in size -- in the past 20 years from a budget of less than $6 billion to well in excess of $40 billion today -- and so have the number and types of businesses and services that have been provided by government. At the time these businesses were established, there were probably good reasons for government to be involved. However, in many cases those reasons no longer exist, because times change and so indeed have the needs of the people of Ontario. Today people have different expectations of their government.

We owe it to Ontarians to review where, why and how they are provided with public services. They must also have confidence that government is using their hard-earned tax dollars for services they need and value.

It may be that today there is no longer a need for government to be directly involved in a particular business, or it may be that government can now work with the private sector in operating that business more effectively, efficiently and at less cost, or it may be that having government keep and operate the business is still the best idea.

However, we cannot know what is best unless we conduct a careful, step-by-step review of these business operations. Therefore, we have designed a framework for privatization review, a careful, case-by-case evaluation of the businesses that are candidates for change.

That review process will be fair, open and prudent. It will include extensive input from the general public and from the government employees of each affected business. We will also draw upon the expertise of outside advisers who will be chosen through a competitive process and from a panel of experts who will assist me. Ontarians can have full confidence that their ideas and recommendations will be heard and that the best possible decisions will be made.

In evaluating specific candidates, we will look at a wide range of options, including different forms of public-private partnerships, joint ventures, long-term leasing, not-for-profit corporations, divestiture of assets, and having government retain the business and improving the services and operations.

The financial dividend obtained from whatever option is ultimately selected will go directly to paying down the provincial debt, just as we promised in the Common Sense Revolution. This will free up resources which can be reinvested in priority areas such as health care, classroom education and community safety.

Today, in addition to setting out the privatization review framework, I am pleased to announce the first review candidates. They are the Province of Ontario Savings Office, the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, the Ortech research facility, and three government-owned and operated tree nurseries. I can assure you that in the very near future we will be looking at a significant number of other government services and businesses as well.

We are beginning a careful review of the government's business assets and the best way to use them on behalf of Ontarians. I am confident that this framework will provide a fair and open review of government businesses, thereby making a true contribution to our goal of making government work better for all Ontarians.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'll partially respond, and then my colleague Mr Kwinter will respond in more detail. Just to say on behalf of our caucus that this area has, we think, the potential for some serious problems. We understand the government is proceeding with it and we understand that it is broadly accepted across the country, but we want to begin to indicate some of the concerns so that the government will at least be aware of our apprehension about some aspects of it.

First, the biggest area of potential concern here, we are frightened, could be the health care sector. I just want to alert the government that we are extremely worried about that. You have decided to download onto our municipalities all of the responsibility for ambulances. People across this province should recognize that you now have to pay for ambulance services, or you will very shortly, off property taxes. That's our first concern, and we'll be watching the whole health sector very carefully as the government proceeds on its privatization.

The second thing is to recognize that much of the capital projects will now be funded through the private sector and leased by the government. Again, we worry about that because simply adding debt in a different way is still adding debt. Rather than paying for the debt through interest cost, we're paying through lease cost. So we worry about that.

The third thing is, there's no question that there are hundreds of companies out there just dying to get at this business, and what the government does, to use the jargon, is to sell off a stream of revenue. I will just say that the 407 is an example where the private sector was involved and so far, there are some concerns about it. So far, we are adding about $1 million a day to our debt on it. There hasn't been a single penny raised yet on tolls, although that was promised at the end of December, and so far, we're losing, I believe, about $1 million a week in revenue.

For all of those reasons, I just want to alert the government that this area has the potential for some significant problems for the public of Ontario and we'll be watching carefully.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I just want to follow up on my colleague and the concerns that I have: There is no question that there are probably areas where public-private partnership makes some sense. But, you know, right from the very beginning we have a situation where the government announces that they've appointed a coordinator. They're paying him $245,000, the highest-paid civil servant in Ontario. If you've got somebody who's getting that kind of a salary, surely his role is to make sure he justifies it, which means he sells off everything that he can possibly find.

What you have is the minister's statement, and it's interesting to say that people have different expectations of government. My concern is, whose expectations are they going to be looking at? Are they going to be looking at a very, very narrow expectation of their particular supporters, or are they looking at the expectations of the people of Ontario who demand a certain amount of service from this government, things that money cannot buy, but it's the role of the government to provide it?

We have a whole range of things that are on the so-called chopping block: our drinking water, our ambulance service, the Niagara Parks Commission, Old Fort Henry, TVOntario, Ontario Hydro, the LCBO, and anything else. You know, there's a maxim: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. My concern is we've already seen a government that has a history of deciding that things that have been working very, very well and have been acclaimed worldwide are suddenly deemed to be broken. They've gone out and without any consultation, without any contemplation and without any discussion, have changed it.

I want to make sure that that doesn't happen to some of the things that have made Ontario and made this jurisdiction one of the most attractive in the world. This can only happen if there truly is public input, public consultation. We have a situation where the minister has already identified four candidates, one of them being the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre. Again, I would caution this government and this minister that that was paid for out of public tax dollars.

I have no problem with looking at doing something with it as long as it's not a fire sale, as long as someone is not going to come in, get a sweetheart deal and walk away with an asset that has been paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, without any reasonable return.

This is the case in every other thing that they are looking at. We have to make sure that the process is open. We have to make sure that there is no conflict of interest. We have to make sure that there is transparency and, above all, we have to make sure that those people who are going to be impacted and affected by it are treated fairly and that anything that does take place is truly open to public scrutiny and debate before that decision is made.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): First, I'd like to say to the minister that there's a shocking lack of detail before us today, and I hope that this so-called Ontario privatization review framework is not all there is. I would ask the minister that he table with the Legislature today some more background material so that we have more of an idea of how this government is going about looking at this great undertaking.

I note that the minister's words were nice. He says that they're going to start talking to workers here. I note that postal workers, for instance, and some of the security workers have been trying to talk to the government for some time about their concerns about privatization. Some of the disabled we have working in both these areas are very, very concerned that their programs are going to disappear, and nobody's listening.

I also would like to note that this government has already started backdoor privatization. We've seen that with certain aspects of health care; ambulance services; in my area, the environment area, water privatization, which we're very worried about. We're starting the clause-by-clause this week of the beginning of the end of public ownership of water in Ontario.

For instance, one of the four areas mentioned today, the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, I echo my Liberal colleague's concerns about that. Why would the private sector even invest unless it knows there's a huge profit to be made? It was we, the people of Ontario, who made that huge investment, with every reason to believe that there's a good return for us, for the people of Ontario. I hope the government takes a very good look at that before moving ahead.

I would also say to the minister that I'm sure he did not mean to be a stand-up comedian today, but when he talked in his statement about consulting with the public and what they have to say is very important and they will listen, that was such a joke after what we went through with Bill 103 and Bill 104, where we had thousands and thousands of people object to what you were doing and saying, "No, no, don't do it this way," and you didn't listen. You rammed it through. You went right ahead with it. That is a joke. You haven't learned a thing. The minister said today that they've learned some lessons. You haven't demonstrated that yet.

I would say seriously to the minister that what you're about to undertake here is a huge change in the way we do business and the way we protect and invest for the people of Ontario, and that you should back up the fine words that you used today and make sure you consult and listen to the people of Ontario before you move forward in any of these initiatives.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The minister in his comments said that the people of Ontario today have different expectations. Surely they have the expectation, as they always have had, that the government will carry out its role to conserve and protect our natural resources and to manage them well. It is most unfortunate that this government has laid off so many people in the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment and Energy that it cannot monitor what the private sector is now doing, and now we're talking about giving over more of the management of these resources and the regeneration of our forests to the private sector.

Also, the government has stated clearly, despite the minister's words that he is going to consult with workers, that workers in these nurseries cannot bid to take over the nurseries and to operate them because the government considers that a conflict of interest. If the minister is shaking his head, then I'd like him to explain why this was done by his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources with a number of other nurseries.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): There's one thing worse than losing your job and that's to be left twisting in the wind. Your government last week was in Sault Ste Marie talking to the employees of the Ontario Lottery Corp, giving them their options and counselling them re the privatization of that very profitable corporation, and it isn't mentioned in here; it's not mentioned once. But I guess maybe we can ask, now that it's not mentioned, that you can rethink that.

Why don't you go to the people looking at the lottery corporation for privatization and tell them that it's a stupid idea? Give Sault Ste Marie back its future. This is a very profitable corporation that is working efficiently and has contributed to the life of my city in a very meaningful way. It was a sign of the future when it was opened in 1992. Today, Minister, under your leadership it is becoming a museum. Why don't you narrow-minded, ideologically driven bunch of carpetbaggers leave my city alone?

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the members' east gallery we have with us today the Minister of Health for Alberta, Mr Halvar C. Jonson. Welcome, sir.

LEGISLATIVE EVACUATION PLAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Further, you'll note on your desks today, because of the fine work of the member for Mississauga South, you've been supplied with an evacuation plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's a fire exit route. I can't resist this, but you will note that should there be a fire, you exit through those doors, those doors or those doors. Whatever you do, don't check under your seats.

It's now time for oral questions.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Speaker, I believe that we have unanimous consent to recognize this day of mourning.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Member for Ottawa Centre.

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Today I rise in recognition and observance of this day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace.

Canadian federal legislation designating a day of mourning to remember workers who have been killed, disabled or injured in the workplace and also workers afflicted with industrial disease received royal assent on February 1, 1991. Today, April 28, has particular significance since it is the anniversary of the day in 1914 when Canada's first workers' compensation legislation was passed in Ontario.

Last year 216 Ontarians lost their lives in the course of doing their jobs, and workplace injuries and illnesses accounted for millions in compensation claims. Although this figure is down from 233 in 1995, 244 in 1994 and 264 in 1993, we cannot rest until all tragedies are eliminated -- tragedies such as the death of Benoît Blanchet last week near my home community. The 29-year-old man was electrocuted after the boom crane he was operating to unload shingles off a flatbed trailer became entangled with hydro wires.

Earlier this month a 25-year-old miner, Terry Fairservice, was killed in a tragic accident when he was trapped in a rock slide in Schreiber, east of Thunder Bay, on the north shore of Lake Superior.

Deaths in Canada from traumatic injuries in the workplace are approximately 1,000 every year. This national figure does not include deaths which occur from industrial diseases. If this were done, the figure would jump significantly. The number of casualties at the moment is dropping, but with all statistics we must be cautious in how we interpret that. Are they dropping because they are doing a better job in terms of accident and injury prevention or because of the general drop in employment, particularly in those sectors such as construction and mining, logging and heavy industries where injuries and accidents have disproportionately taken place?

The quality of worker health and safety means healthier families and healthier communities. Employers and employees alike must ensure that proper health and safety programs are in place. When the people who are responsible do not take these matters seriously and do not act on health and safety issues, people can and do die, as we saw recently through the public inquiry into the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia.

The threat of job loss, coupled with privatization, restructuring and layoffs, has contributed towards the continuation of unsafe conditions in some workplaces. No one should be reluctant to speak out against unsafe conditions at a work site for fear of losing their jobs. On this day of mourning, I would like to underscore the need for employers and employees to work together to prevent workplace injuries and illness. All of us in our party join with our colleagues in the Legislature and our constituents in our communities all over Ontario as we observe a moment of silence and pay tribute to those who have died.

We especially pay tribute to their loved ones, their spouses, children, parents, colleagues and friends, who are living without them.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am proud and pleased to rise on behalf of my NDP colleagues to join in with members of this House in paying tribute to the day of mourning and recognizing and remembering those workers who have died or been injured on the job. The slogan of the day of mourning is, "Mourn the dead and fight for the living," and at this time it's traditional that all parties would commit themselves to this important goal.

I'd like to point out that there's a myth in this province that more workdays are lost because of labour disputes, whether they're strikes or lockouts, and that this is a primary concern in terms of production in the economy and therefore is the biggest issue to be faced in terms of time off the job. The reality is that last year there were 500,000 more workdays lost because of injury, illness and disease than any strikes or lockouts. That was in a year that we also had an extraordinarily high number of people on strike, as we recall the OPSEU strike and the CAW workers at GM.

In 1995, when we don't have those figures to calculate, we find that the number of workdays lost because of injury, illness and disease over strikes or lockouts is six times. In fact, last year there were 204 deaths and nearly 350,000 total claims. That does not include the nearly 6,000 workers who die from occupational disease. If that happened as one incident, we would declare a national emergency, so it's important that on this day we take time to remember and we take time to commit ourselves to making our workplaces as safe as they can be.

We recognize this day here in Ontario because it reflects the enactment of the first workers' compensation board act in Ontario, April 28, 1914, and it was Bob Rae, the former Premier of Ontario, who in 1988 introduced a resolution that was passed unanimously by the House that this Legislature would recognize a day of mourning.

On Friday in Hamilton I was at a news conference with Steelworkers who have committed themselves to a public campaign on educating young workers, particularly students who take on summer employment, in terms of their rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, in an effort to prevent our young people from being injured, because just like unemployment, their injury rates are higher than the numbers for the balance of the population that is working.

They're going right into the high schools, and I think we ought to recognize that the unions are playing the lead role in making sure that health and safety are a priority. I applaud them for going into those schools and talking to those young people about their rights and making sure their young lives are not ended as young lives, as happens far too often.

This morning I was at the monument that we have at city hall, the first city in the history of Canada to allow a monument on city hall property, and I was so proud to be a member of the council that made that decision. It sits right at Bay Street and Main Street, and every year we gather, as we did this morning at 10:30, to pay tribute to those who die or are injured or acquire fatal diseases on the job.

Greater workplace safety is achieved through workers being trained properly, and greater workplace safety is also achieved by following the basic principles of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The right to know about unsafe hazards in the workplace, the right to participate in decisions about health and safety in the workplace and, most importantly, the right of a worker to refuse unsafe work: That is how we make our workplaces as safe as they can be.

I close by, again on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, joining with all members of this House in recognizing the contribution workers make to the economy of this province, paying special tribute to those who have died on the job and recommitting ourselves to truly making our workplaces as safe as they can humanly be.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As has been mentioned, today is the national day of mourning. Today we have the opportunity to remember the many workers who have suffered injury or illness or lost their lives while on the job.

Today is a day when we are all reminded, and certainly examples have been given to us, of the terrible human, social and economic toll that workplace illnesses, injuries and fatalities can take. Today we join with workers, employers and others to express our sincere condolences to the families and to the friends of those killed or injured at the workplace.

Today also provides us as legislators an opportunity to reaffirm our shared commitment to the prevention of illness and injury and zero tolerance for fatalities, for health and safety is not a partisan issue but a human issue.

As we take a look at how we can truly make a difference in working towards the elimination of illness, injury and fatalities in the workplace, it is becoming abundantly clear that workplace partnerships and coordination are critical to developing and delivering health and safety programs that will enable us to achieve that goal. In recent months we are starting to see some of these partnerships and this coordination developing.

I want to congratulate those labour unions, specifically the Steelworkers, who are going into our schools. I want to congratulate the employers and the other organizations and individuals who are starting to focus on the need for education in the area of health and safety and on the need to focus on prevention of illness, injury and fatalities first and foremost.

I want to congratulate particularly the Safe Communities Foundation, as they celebrate their first anniversary, for the work they are doing with people in our communities to help us achieve our goals of safe communities.

I want to congratulate the Industrial Accident Prevention Association and the workers' centre for delivering the young workers' awareness program in our schools. They are going into our schools to educate our young people and raise awareness of the need to be able to identify workplace hazards, and they are teaching our young people not only about their rights but also about their responsibilities.

We are only going to be able to make a difference by continuing to work together collaboratively and by making sure that we not only raise the awareness of each and every individual; we need to make sure that communities become aware of the need to work cooperatively together to ensure they have safe workplaces. It's also important that each CEO of each company make a commitment to health and safety in order that each member within the organization will share in that commitment.

However, regardless of what has already been done, much more remains to be done in the future if we are to make the workplaces in this province among the safest in the world. Today we as legislators have the opportunity to renew our dedication to the task of eliminating future death, injury and illness. One death or one injury will always be one too many.

At this time I would ask everyone to stand for a moment of silence to remember not only those who have suffered injury, disease or lost their lives, but also to remember the families who have been so greatly impacted.

The House observed a moment's silence.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My question about the emergency taking place in this chamber was a very serious question and it was very seriously asked. I'm disappointed that I would receive a map or a drawing showing the existing exits to this place, because everyone who comes in and out of this chamber knows very well where our exits are. I'm probably a little insulted that this is the response, Mr Speaker. What I wanted to ask you was if you would give us --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Mississauga South, this isn't a point of privilege.

Mrs Marland: Well, how do I --

The Speaker: I suggest you call me. We could take it up privately, but it's not a point of privilege for the House.

Time for -- sorry?

Mrs Marland: With respect, you made an announcement in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the minister responsible for privatization. Minister, this morning you released your framework for privatization. It was completely without substance or definition. You offered us vague guidelines and even vaguer assurances that the friends of this government won't be the ones to profit. We already see them lining up at the trough, just as they did under Margaret Thatcher in England and Brian Mulroney in this country. We get the distinct impression that everything is on the table, that nothing is sacred, that Ontario is up for sale.

Minister, you talk about selling and divesting. Will you guarantee us today that you will not sell our natural resources, our cultural, heritage, historical or religious sites and areas in which taxpayers have made significant investments?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I can tell the member opposite that the process we've outlined is indeed a process that has resulted from some work we took and some consultation we had with other jurisdictions that have gone through an exercise of privatization. We looked at those jurisdictions because we wanted to make sure we designed a system here in Ontario that suited Ontarians' needs and didn't duplicate the errors and omissions other jurisdictions had in their process. I think we've done that with this process. This is a fair and open process to deal with the challenge we have in government in making sure government businesses keep up with the times.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, come on. Come clean with us. You're trying to hide your plans for privatization by citing examples like selling off convention centres and tree nurseries.

If you refuse to tell us where you'll draw the line in terms of privatization, then we'll give you a start. Take the Niagara Parks Commission off the table. Let's be clear about that. Some of us know that Disneyland wants to buy Niagara Falls and set up another theme park, the Disney Falls, to sell tickets to see the falls, the gorge, the Brock monument and military burial grounds.

Tell the people of Ontario today, Minister, is there a For Sale sign on Niagara Falls? Be clear about that. People in Ontario want to know. They have a right to be concerned. Is Niagara Falls up for sale, and is it going to Disney?

Hon Mr Sampson: What the people of Ontario want to know is that they have a role to play in this process. As I outlined in my speech today, in my delivery to this House today, it's quite clear from the process we've designed that there is indeed a role for Ontarians to play. We intend to have a full and open process so that people know how we are dealing with the particular challenges of making sure government is governing in the right areas, and second, that Ontarians can play that crucial and effective role.

Mr Cordiano: Disney isn't the only American company interested in scooping up treasured Ontario assets. Why don't you tell us, Minister, what else are you prepared to give away: the lottery corporation, the housing corporation, the LCBO, the clean water agency? By not telling us today what's off the table, you've just put one huge For Sale sign on Ontario. Everything's for sale. That's what you're telling people right across this province. The taxpayers have a right to know what's for sale and what's not, and you haven't come clean with that.

Will you take off the table what you are not prepared to sell? Come clean today and be clear about that, because the taxpayers have a right to know. Will you stand up and give us those assurances?

Hon Mr Sampson: Again, what the people of Ontario have a right to in this province is a government that is delivering on the services they need and require in a fair, effective and efficient manner. They're looking to government to make sure that government businesses have kept pace with the times in this province. They do not want government businesses that do not deal with the challenges of the times as we have them now and as they will be going forward.

I can commit to the people of Ontario that we indeed intend to meet our obligations to Ontarians in governing this province seriously, so that we will address those businesses that need to be changed for the future of Ontario in a fair, effective and efficient manner which involves all Ontarians.

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to bring you to your feet to respond to concerns about the standard of your Health Services Restructuring Commission, the one going around the province closing hospitals.

On Thursday last you seemed to have a hard time explaining to us whether or not the commission is arm's length from cabinet. When you started the commission, you said it was arm's length; when you hired people, you said it was arm's length; when you stand in this House to be accountable for this commission, you say it's arm's length.

At the same time, we have two letters from two different cabinet ministers, and I need you, Minister, as the person responsible, to tell us which is right. Is the minister responsible for francophone affairs correct when he says he is unable to intervene, that "Given that the commission is independent, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene directly," or is it the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he tells constituents that he has written to and received extensions on behalf of hospitals, one in his riding, for their sake? Tell us which it is. Is this commission indeed arm's length?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Yes.

Mr Kennedy: Your lack of interest in providing people with confidence leads us to wonder about the kind of double standard for your commission. Do you mean that people in your cabinet are also going to be talking to the securities commission, the Ontario Housing board? Where do you draw the line?

Minister, I want to know from you, are you aware today of contact being made by other members of your cabinet with the commission? Have you received copies of correspondence? The Minister of Municipal Affairs would not release copies of his letter to the media on Thursday last. You know this is a question of confidence in you and in your commission. As you're aware, the Environics poll released last week says that 66% of Ontarians are very concerned about what you're doing to hospitals, and they want you today to give them some assurance.

Is your commission open to all kinds of political interference or are there some safeguards, and are you aware of what's going on within your own cabinet? Tell us today, Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The only one who seems to be confused on this issue is the honourable member. The Members' Integrity Act, which you only quoted in

part last week, clearly states that a member must not attempt to improperly further his own private interest or the private interest of another. Within these parameters, the act does not prohibit a member from engaging in normal duties on behalf of his or her constituents.

Mr Leach was contacting the commission for an extension of time so that his constituents could have a little more time to prepare their briefs. It's perfectly within the law, and in fact it's a sign of a good MPP.

Mr Kennedy: Well, I hate to tell you in front of your colleague from Alberta, from whom you take much direction, that this is not the sign of a good cabinet minister looking after the interests of the health of Ontarians, because it is not acceptable that cabinet ministers should interfere with commissions for which they have a say on who sits on those commissions. In endorsing that, you're going against the advice, which you are apparently prepared to ignore, on the part of the commissioner which says that you are prohibited, if you're in cabinet, from intervening with commissions.

Minister, we want to hear from you today. You told your local newspaper that the hospital in your home town of Alliston was in no danger of closing. You provided that assurance, and last week you gave an assurance to the people of Meaford on behalf of one of the other members from your side of the House that there would be good news coming for them.

How is it you are in a position to assure the people of your home town that your hospital will not close when you've supposedly given these powers at arm's length to the commission? Think carefully before you answer, because it's very important to the trust of the commission and to yourself that you establish that there's any arm's length at all on the part of this commission.

Hon Mr Wilson: The commission is at arm's length, unlike perhaps some other agencies, boards and commissions. Its final decisions remain at its table. They do not go to cabinet, so Mr Leach or any other cabinet minister does not have the opportunity to change or review decisions of the Health Services Restructuring Commission. The law that we put in in January to set up the commission very intentionally was set up to take the politics like this out of health care. That's why your government failed to do anything about health care restructuring and it's why the previous government couldn't go as far as I think they wanted to go with respect to reforming the health care system.

People are concerned about health care in this province, I can guarantee you that, because they're reminded again today, with a phoney announcement by the federal government, that we have been cut by $2.1 billion in health and social transfers. That is a very powerful impetus for the health care people in this province to restructure the system, and that's what they're doing.

Secondly, the very quick answer to Simcoe county is that Simcoe county has already undergone a hospital restructuring. The previous government did that and then they flowed money to Orillia. The new hospital in Barrie is being built now, announced by the previous government, because of --

Interjection.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): That's not what you told the people of Alliston. It's not what you told them at home, Minister; it's not what you told people in Murdoch's riding.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister. Members for York South and Windsor-Sandwich, come to order, please. New question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, the Workers' Compensation Act currently lists as one of its main goals "fair compensation for injured workers." Why are you taking out the word "fair"?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would respond to the member opposite that we have taken a look at the Workers' Compensation Act. As you know, we have rewritten the act and we are going to be calling it the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. In the course of making the changes, we will be ensuring that the compensation that is provided will be fair. In fact, as you know, the compensation that is going to be provided is as generous as any that can be found in North America.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you didn't answer the question, which is the track record with you. I asked you a very specific question, and in your answer again you used the word "fair." Yet you are not prepared to commit to leaving the word there. You're deliberately taking out the word "fair." We have consistently accused you of saying one thing here, nice words that make people feel good, but then you pass legislation that hurts people.

I ask you again: If you truly believe in fair compensation for injured workers, will you commit today to put the word "fair" back in the legislation?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just indicate again that the changes we're making are totally refocusing the emphasis of the WCB. In fact what they're going to be doing is focusing on the prevention of illness and injury first and foremost, so we have rewritten our purpose clause totally and emphasized the need for healthy and safe workplaces. Our emphasis is no longer on compensation; it is on health and safety. I would also say to you that in the course of the deliberations, when this bill makes its way around the province, if indeed there are suggestions to change and to again include that word, that can certainly be considered in the course of the deliberations.

Mr Christopherson: I don't think anyone is fooled by those slippery answers. The fact is that you won't put the word "fair" back in because your new workers' compensation will not be fair for workers. You'll refocus all right -- to take care of your friends.

The fact of the matter is, Minister, you've also used the excuse of the unfunded liability being in such a crisis that that's why you've had to take away billions from injured workers. The facts are that the unfunded liability has dropped, since our NDP legislation, the last three years in a row. It has dropped by over $1 billion. Minister, will you admit today that you don't have any excuse to take money away from injured workers except that you have to pay for the $6 billion you're giving back to your corporate friends in your new WCB legislation?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind you that $10.4 billion is still a very high unfunded liability. In fact, it is three times greater than the combined unfunded liability of all the other provinces in Canada.

Mr Christopherson: Three years in a row, $1 billion.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton Centre, I ask you to come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If we had not taken the action we are going to be taking and if we had not introduced Bill 15 and reorganized the WCB, as we've already done --

Mr Christopherson: That's not true. Tell the truth.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I ask you to come to order and withdraw that comment.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, I asked the minister to tell the truth.

The Speaker: I ask you to withdraw the comment or I'll have to name you.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, I'm imploring the minister to tell the truth about this issue.

The Speaker: I name the member for Hamilton Centre, Mr Christopherson. I ask you to leave the assembly, please.

Mr Christopherson was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Minister of Labour.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I was just going to indicate that unfortunately our unfunded liability at $10.4 billion, which is showing some decline, is still three times greater than the total unfunded liability of all the other Canadian provinces. Without our reforms and certainly the action we're taking, the unfunded liability would have reached $18 billion by the year 2014. So we are trying to restore the financial integrity of the board in order that benefits will be secure for injured --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Attorney General, who was here a moment ago. I'll stand it down, I guess. Oh, here he is.

As the Attorney General returns to his seat, I would point out that whether or not there is a conviction in the case in Sarnia today, there has been no investigation of the role of the government in the Dudley George affair. The case before the courts will only deal with a half-hour of mayhem in the dark on September 6. Only part of the picture will be revealed by the results of the case.

The public deserves to know exactly who decided to deploy the large numbers of OPP in this matter. We know that meetings were held with political staff, including a personal assistant to the Premier. Why was there such a large buildup of force by the police if the only options the government was seriously contemplating, as the minister has said, were court injunctions or trespassing charges?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Wildman: These are serious questions that the government must have answered and they can only be answered by a public inquiry. Will the minister now, after this court case, agree to a full public inquiry into the Dudley George affair?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): There are a number of court cases that continue to go on, a number of them scheduled over the next couple of months. We have indicated very clearly to this Legislature that certainly it was the government's position to take steps to obtain a civil injunction. The government in fact did that and the record is clear that that is the approach the government took to end this incident peacefully. Quite separate from that, it has been made very clear in this Legislature that the Ontario Provincial Police had the discretion to deal with policing matters in the way they saw fit and received no political direction.

Mr Wildman: Unfortunately, that is anything but clear. The OPP has historically taken an approach of avoiding confrontation in these kinds of situations. I have a copy of a press release issued by the OPP on September 6 at 1:45 pm stating that "police will continue trying to establish a line of communication with the occupiers in an effort to negotiate a successful resolution." Something happened between the time that press release was issued and the evening when the police buildup started. We know that later that day the special committee had a meeting.

On the same day, we also know that Marcel Beaubien urged the government "not to back down" in the face of lawlessness: "If people are to be hurt, so be it."

The exact roles of the various people in these events that led to the fatal shooting of Dudley George are still unknown. I urge the minister, will he now agree to a full public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I've indicated earlier, there are a number of court cases that continue to go on. The issues in all of those cases are different. I only want to read what Commissioner O'Grady said in remarks that he put out. He was very clear. He said, "I do not take tactical or operational direction from the government." In fact, there was never any tactical or operational direction given, and certainly the government's position, as I indicated, was always to obtain a civil injunction and hopefully end this situation peacefully.

Mr Wildman: A public inquiry will deal with the chain of command, the decisions that were taken in response to the occupation at Ipperwash and what the role of the government was.

Obviously, the OPP doesn't take operational or tactical advice from the government. It does take policy advice and strategic advice, and that's what the meeting was about on September 6. It appears that some time between 1:45 pm on September 6 and later that day changes were made. At 6:42 pm the police log says, "Marcel Beaubien advised that he has sent a fax to the Premier advising of his intentions and that he wanted a return call regarding his intentions." What were those intentions? We must know what the government decided to do. We do know --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Wildman: -- that the policy direction appears to have been to get the expletive Indians out of the park as soon as possible, and the OPP decided how, not if. We need a public inquiry. We want to know --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, please come to order.

Hon Mr Harnick: It's quite clear what the government direction was. The government direction was to obtain a civil injunction, and the record speaks for itself. That is absolutely clear, and the government immediately took steps to begin the preparation of materials. The materials were filed with the court. There was an attempt made to ensure that there was notice given about the intention to obtain the injunction. The record and the actions and the words in court make that abundantly clear and speak for themselves. The government's position was to try and end this occupation peacefully by obtaining a civil injunction.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health. In Ontario today, if a person requires ambulance services, that individual can expect a quality service and a copayment of not more than $45. Your government is embarking upon significant changes to the delivery of ambulance services: the downloading of the cost of land ambulances to local government and, as we've been reading in the press lately, the significant incursion of major private operators like Rural/Metro and Laidlaw into the delivery of land ambulance services in Ontario.

Given all that, Minister, can you assure all Ontarians that as a result of these downloading and privatization initiatives every citizen in Ontario, regardless of where they live and regardless of their financial means, will have quality ambulance service with no more user charges than the current $45 copayment?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I should mention that there are two copayments: one is $45 for emergency transfers, one of the lowest in the country, and the other one is well over $260 for non-emergency transfers. Let's make sure that people understand. Those copayments have been in place for many, many years in this province.

Standards will be in place. In fact, people are going to get better ambulance services. We put $25 million into paramedic services; 99% of our ambulances by this time next year will have paramedic services. No other province in the country can brag about that. I'm going up this week, actually, to a native community to give out awards to their paramedics and to remind the public that we've reinvested some $15 million into the medications that are now being carried by our ambulances for bee stings and asthma and other medications. Frankly, it has been so successful around the province that many people don't need the ride the rest of the way to the hospital because our ambulances are so good.

The standards will be there: 69 of 172 of our ambulances are already run --

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

Hon Mr Wilson: No. We have no plans to introduce any new copayments. We said we wouldn't in the campaign and we won't. The NDP last raised the copayment by $3 in 1993 and we're not even looking at that at this point. The standards will be in place: 69 of 172 ambulance services now are run by the private sector. In fact, of 172 ambulance services, the government only runs 10, so I think the honourable member is trying to fearmonger among the public.

The fact of the matter is that municipalities, the private sector, the ministry and a couple of other organizations run our ambulance services, and we have the highest standards and the best ambulances in this country. We wouldn't want to do anything at all to destabilize that. In fact, we've been putting more and more money in to make sure that we continue to provide even better service in the future.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, your government's announcement today on privatization is really about trying to mask your underlying bias in favour of privatization, and your ministry has been at the forefront of this backdoor privatization.

This week Bill 107, on water and sewer services, will be up for amendment in committee. Earlier at committee you said you weren't in favour of privatizing water and sewage, but because of your government's download, municipalities won't have the money to take care of our water properly. They will be forced to sell it off to the private sector and we could see the kind of water disasters we've seen in England. Minister, will you put your money where your mouth is? Will you amend this bill today so that municipalities will not be able to sell off our water?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Bill 107 has nothing to do with privatization. It has everything to do with turning over the deeds to the water and sewage plants, which many municipalities have already paid for in the past and quite frankly are demanding the deeds for, and we have no alternative legally but to turn over those deeds to them.

That's what Bill 107 is about. Bill 107 is about giving to municipalities their rightful assets, which they have paid for in the past. We're transferring, as you know, 25% of the plants in Ontario from the name of the crown of Ontario to their rightful owner, the municipalities. I think municipal governments have done a good job in terms of water and sewage treatment for the people of Ontario in the past and I trust them to do so in the future.

Ms Churley: Minister, this is not a situation where "Trust me" is good enough. We want an amendment to this bill that shuts out any possibility that a municipality that is strapped for cash can sell off the water. I am not talking about the operation here. If you mean what you say, you will amend the bill because right now, as it stands, they will be able to do that.

I also want to bring up with you today that you've already started privatizing our water without any public process. Last week the Environmental Commissioner slammed the government for privatizing water testing labs. She said that privatization may put our water in danger, and it's costing five times as much for the private sector to do it. This is an example of privatization that's gone terribly wrong. It is something that should make all Ontarians fearful about your whole privatization agenda. Minister, will you bring water testing labs back into the public sector so we can be confident our water is clean?

Hon Mr Sterling: Let me be clear about Bill 107. Bill 107, for the first time in this province, discourages privatization with regard to municipal water and sewage plants, something which your government quite frankly didn't have the guts or determination to do. We have said that if a municipality wants to sell a particular facility, it must return all the grant money this province gave to them since 1978. There has never been such a discouragement before to municipalities to undertake any kind of privatization.

All we are doing is transferring the deed to the rightful owner, to the people who have been taking care of their people over the past 100 years and providing water and sewage services. We believe in municipal autonomy. We believe the people of Ontario are well-served by their local governments. They have been trusted in the past to give their people good water and they will do so in the future. We believe in the municipalities of Ontario.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I understand that last week, during Earth Week, you embarked on a trip to meet environmental officials of 11 neighbouring US states to promote clean air and water and cooperation among neighbouring jurisdictions in our fight to protect the environment. Could you please share with us some of the issues you discussed on your trip?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week I met with 11 different state directors, secretaries of environment and governors from across the midwest United States. It's important for us to have a close liaison with these particular governors and state governments because 50% of our ozone problem originates in the United States, and that is in the greater Toronto area; when you go down to Windsor, it's 90%. If we do not deal with these particular states, work with these states to reduce the amount of ozone they have in their area, we can't deal with our own problems.

States like New York, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania receive the same kind of transborder pollution as we do. They understand our problem. They want to work with us to solve this problem and that's what we're going to do.

Mr Froese: As you know, my riding is St Catharines-Brock, and in the Niagara-on-the-Lake portion of the riding they border along the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. In addition to air management, did you discuss other issues which concern both Americans and Canadians along the river and Lake Ontario, and in particular, those people in St Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake? Did you discuss issues like how best to protect the Great Lakes?

Hon Mr Sterling: You can't meet with these particular individuals without talking about protecting the Great Lakes. It is a very important concern of theirs because they receive much of their water from those Great Lakes. When I met with people from Michigan, Ohio, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, all the Great Lakes, they stated their concern over water quality. We have been meeting with them to improve the Great Lakes water quality, and I will work with them in the future.

I have been invited to go to the Great Lakes governors conference this July in Erie, Pennsylvania, to present our case. I would invite members like Mr Froese to go along with me, because of his concern over areas in the Niagara area.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sterling: While members of the opposition may treat this lightly, this is a serious problem. We are going to work together with these states to improve Great Lakes quality, and I believe together we can all have better quality water, both on Canada's side and the US side.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the minister for privatization. The LCBO employs about 5,000 people, transfers around $700 million to the coffers of the province of Ontario, distributes alcohol in a responsible fashion by turning away tens of thousands of under-age individuals and ensures that there remains a public voice in the selling of alcoholic beverages. Will you assure this House, the employees of the LCBO and the people of Ontario that you will not privatize the Liquor Control Board of Ontario?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I refer the question to the minister responsible for that.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We are currently taking steps to modernize the LCBO, as the honourable member knows, with the goals of better customer service, improved efficiencies, and strong health and social standards. We have been taking suggestions on how to improve the system and modernize it further from many of our stakeholders. Certainly we've had discussions with the OLBEU employees as well. Our goal simply is to make the system better for the consumer and better for the taxpayer of Ontario.

Mr Crozier: We're still not sure who's in charge. Can you privatize if only the minister lets you privatize, or does the privatization minister come in and tell you who he's going to privatize? We'll find that out later.

The Premier said last Wednesday on a CBC open-line program that we would never give up regulation of alcohol or control of alcohol. We know that 71% of the people of Ontario are opposed to the privatization of the LCBO and we feel you should heed those words.

You've said you want to improve the marketing etc of the LCBO and you said you've talked to stakeholders. Since last December you've had a document called Home Grown Solutions. I know the minister must have read it by now. If you have read this report, are you acting on any of its recommendations that have been given to you by the employees of the LCBO?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, I have had an opportunity to see the document from the OLBEU employees. They have made a number of, I think, very reasonable suggestions to us. We have looked further in terms of some of the kiosk suggestions they've made. We certainly have a very successful kiosk operation right now, to the honourable member, in Markham which services the Chinese population of my particular riding.

Our commitment has been to modernize the LCBO. We are continuing to do that. Certainly we are making specific reference to, once again, the interests of the consumer in this province; we're making reference to the interests of the taxpayer in this province. They must be better systems.

Certainly we have to pay attention to the special place the wine industry has and serves in Ontario and the employment opportunities that come of it.

Taking into account what we're doing, we are continuing to modernize right now. We are listening to suggestions as to how to improve the system.

VULNERABLE ADULTS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, there are some people in Sault Ste Marie who think you are planning to get out of the advocacy-for-vulnerable-adults business and that the first step is the amalgamation of the adult protective service worker program with Community Living Algoma. Do you think it's appropriate that advocates for vulnerable people be employees of the organization delivering the services to this targeted group?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. I'm not aware of plans for the amalgamation as he has described it. I will certainly be prepared to look into it.

Mr Martin: That certainly is good news and will be good news both for the people who are being advocated on behalf of and for the people delivering the service, who are very concerned about this move. Right now adult protective service workers provide advocacy for a large number of people in Sault Ste Marie and Algoma. When the amalgamation happens, their services will only be available to clients of Community Living Algoma. The question that would flow from that obviously would be: If in fact this amalgamation takes place, where would those vulnerable adults get the support they need?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Many associations and organizations in communities are conducting their own restructuring initiatives, where they're trying to share resources to try to do a better job. As I've said to the honourable member, I will certainly look into this situation, because we want to make sure that vulnerable adults are not harmed in any move if there is indeed a move going on in this community.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, as you're aware, Bill 98, the Development Charges Act, begins clause-by-clause today after extensive committee hearings. Could the minister please inform the House how the government has responded to the deputations and written submissions received during the committee process?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member from Scarborough for his question. As he knows, the development charges review has taken well over a year to put in place. We put a position paper out and left it out on the street for a year for the municipalities, the developers and the public to comment on. We then put the legislation together and, as you know, it has gone through this legislative process. It has gone through second reading, where again we listened to the numerous deputants, particularly from the development industry and from the municipalities.

As a result of those deputations, we've had an opportunity to refine the bill. The municipalities want growth to pay for growth, and we agree with that. The development industry wants to make sure that the cost of their product isn't put out of the reach of new home buyers. We believe we've reached a compromise that everyone will be able to live with: 100% of hard services will be paid for by the development; the services that serve the whole community, like city halls, museums and art galleries, will not be subject to development charges at all.

Mr Newman: I thank the minister for clarifying the amendments for the House. Could he please inform the House of how this legislation will help both the municipal sector and the development industry sector?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for the question. I think everybody realizes that growth should pay for growth. If there is new development taking place, the burden of providing that new development shouldn't rest on the existing taxpayer, so the development industry should be and is prepared to pay 100% of the cost of hard services that they require for their development. They had difficulties in accepting that they should pay for museums and city halls, and our legislation will ensure that they no longer have to do that.

We also have an agreement in introducing an amendment that would allow a 10% discount on services such as arenas, transit and other services that are required for development and are required for the municipalities but should be shared by everyone.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. In light of your colleague's announcement today about the framework for privatization, we thought we'd review with you an issue that's involved privatization already: principally the privatization of highway signs in Ontario.

I wonder if you could outline for me what in your view have been some of the benefits and where the status of that project is today.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Although the privatization of the signs comes under economic development, I'll certainly try and give the member whatever I can as far as an explanation. I feel it's an opportunity for businesses within the province and I think it's a step in the right direction. It's also going to bring on economic growth within that particular region, so I know economic development and MTO have worked together with the privatization people who are delivering that service and we're looking forward to expanding it even more.

Mr Duncan: In fact what is happening, and we think this is a perfect example of the Harris government's privatization initiatives, you have an American-controlled company that today in eastern Ontario is taking down perfectly good signs that were erected three years ago, highway signs, and then charging organizations like the Raisin River Conservation Area to have access to highway signs.

So what do we have? We have a situation in eastern Ontario, the test pilot in 1994, where all-new signs are replacing perfectly good signs, the costs are being downloaded to the local conservation authority, a conservation authority that has had a 70% cut in its budget, and the profits from this arrangement are going to an American-controlled company.

Can the minister tell us, will there be an opportunity to keep those perfectly good signs on the highway, signs that stretch from Brockville to the Quebec border, at least until such time as their useful life has been expended?

Hon Mr Palladini: I really don't share the same concern that the honourable member has mentioned. As far as the actual company that's delivering the services from a head office, so to speak, yes, it is American-owned, but the services are being delivered by Canadians, by people who work here in Ontario. I really want to assure the member that this sensitivity is certainly very much there.

As far as the honourable member's saying that we are wasting money because the signs we are taking up are still good, I agree, they are still good, but they're not giving the message that we want. That is the reason we've gone to the new text sign, where you're going to have visibility of actually seeing exactly what is available to the tourists, where they can get out, how far it is and so on. I believe we are taking a step in the right direction and I certainly would like to see a lot more of this and actually encourage businesses in Ontario to come forward and see how we can help them improve their businesses.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Health. With us today in the gallery is Mrs Maria Izzo. She's sitting in the members' gallery with her husband, Tommaso. She's here because her purse was stolen about a month ago, and with it her health card. The problem we want to bring to your attention is the fact that Mrs Izzo cannot get your ministry to issue her a replacement card.

Minister, you should know that Mrs Izzo has lived in Canada for about 38 years, a long-time resident, she has her passport documents, complete with a landed immigrant stamp, she has a driver's licence, a social insurance card, she's a CPP recipient, she has a statement from her doctor verifying her health number, and still your ministry will not issue her a replacement card.

In fact, her card was stolen. She reported the theft and your ministry refuses to accept her documents, claiming that what she needs instead is to provide a copy of the original stamp that was put on her passport, even though the information from that was translated into her current passport. The other side of the coin is that the current card is still in circulation. Minister, why does your ministry continue to operate in this way and deny Mrs Izzo a replacement card?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It's a good question the honourable member has brought forward and I'd be happy to look into the situation immediately. The rules with regard to eligibility and getting the card are the same ones your government put in place a few years ago. It sounds ridiculous, and I'll get to the bottom of it right away.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate that, Minister, and you're right that there were some rule changes that were made at the time that we were the government to try and deal with the question of eliminating fraudulent attempts to get into the cards. You yourself I think will recall that. In fact, I remember you making statements in this House to the effect that you believed that OHIP fraud amounted to some hundreds of millions of dollars. I think you said in fact it was a $691-million problem.

Yet with the strong conviction that you had, your first act as Minister of Health was to cancel the health card program that we had put in place. Now we have this kind of problem because you've cut staff, you've closed administrative offices and your ministry can't keep track, it seems, of the health cards in circulation. I guess the question to you again, Minister -- and I appreciate your commitment to look into this -- is, will you also take a look at the fact that there's a replacement card --

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

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is in error in some of the assumptions he has made about how perfect their re-registration system was. They were going to re-register the province and compare it to a database that still had dogs and cats on it, because the Liberals give us blank forms to fill out in the 1980s and some people, as a joke, put down children and the family pet, and the Liberal government sent them all out red and white health cards just before the election campaign in the mid-1980s, I recall.

The fact of the matter is, your constituents don't have to come down here. You could have called me and brought this to my attention. Everything that's brought to the floor here we get solved right away. It's the same bureaucrats who worked under you, and I'm sure they're not trying to mess people around intentionally. They're trying to do a big job in the second- largest health care system in the world with thousands and thousands of registrations every day. Every time we hear a problem like this, we're able to solve it, so we'll solve this one right away.

We have taken a number of other measures -- if I had more time -- to ensure that fraud is --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

WETLANDS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. All of us in this House, and especially those of us from the great rural areas of our province like Chatham-Kent, are aware of the great work done by Ducks Unlimited to promote the preservation and growth of wetlands. I understand that last Wednesday you were in Long Point Bay and signed an important agreement with the folks at Ducks Unlimited. Could you elaborate on the terms of that agreement for us, please?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Chatham-Kent for the question. I was honoured last week, as he mentioned, to be in Long Point Bay to sign this important agreement. The event marked the first-ever perpetual agreement between Ducks Unlimited Canada and a provincial government. Under the agreement Ducks Unlimited and the government will combine resources to implement a long-term wetland conservation program. The program will benefit waterfowl, other wetland-dependent species and ultimately the people of Ontario.

Mr Carroll: The benefits to waterfowl and other species will become obvious over time. You also mentioned benefits ultimately to the people of the province of Ontario. Could you share with us what you envision those particular benefits to the people to be?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Most people in Ontario realize wetlands are a critical component of Ontario's natural environment and part of our ecosystem. Wetlands are rich in animal and plant life and give us clean water. This agreement spells out clear roles and responsibilities for both organizations. We'll be working as partners in such areas as wetland-related policy, management, environmental review, resource planning and countless other areas. Ducks Unlimited has a conservation army of some 30,000 people. They have helped rehabilitate more than half a million acres of wetlands.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is firmly committed to managing Ontario's natural resources effectively and sustainably. We will continue to set standards of resource management and we will be rigorous in enforcing those standards. Together, Ducks Unlimited and the Ministry of Natural Resources will enhance the good work that has already started to protect Ontario's vital surface and groundwater resources.

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, I would like you to advise us what steps were taken to have the Health Services Restructuring Commission's chief executive officer, Mark Rochon, who is a former CEO of Humber Memorial Hospital, as you're aware, at arm's length when it came to the review of the restructuring of what has now been called the Humber River hospital corporation, involving the former Northwestern General Hospital, Humber and the York-Finch site. I wonder if you could share with us what kinds of things happened to make sure there was no conflict of interest involving Mr Rochon.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The commission operates at arm's length and, as such, it has developed its own conflict-of-interest guidelines. The member is very free to run across the street and review those guidelines, both for staff and commissioners.

Mr Kennedy: As we heard often, the main people running across the street are cabinet ministers who have untrammelled access to this commission, but I guess what we would like to hear from you is at least some awareness about how your commission operates.

I spoke to Mr Rochon and he advised me he did not see it necessary to distance himself from a decision around the site of Northwestern and Humber, even though he was the former president of the Humber hospital, even though there is a voluminous amount of material that was not submitted by the new corporation or not considered by the commission in deciding which site would close.

The Northwestern site was chosen to close, and he was involved in the decision. I wonder, Minister, if you would comment for us on the perception of conflict of interest that creates for a lot of people in the local community. Clearly you're unaware of the rules this commission governs itself by. This gentleman was directly involved in the decision. The decision was made to close another site. A lot of information was ignored. We'd like to know why this was possible in your commission.

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm not going to comment on that. If the member has a problem with Mr Rochon, he should take it up again with Mr Rochon.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Two weeks ago a group of municipalities from the districts of Cochrane and Timiskaming, all along Highway 11 from North Bay to Longlac, met to discuss the offloading of provincial roads to municipalities. The consensus was that the municipalities are getting shafted by the provincial government. The one-time grant given to municipalities simply will not cover the cost of repairs and maintenance. Some in the municipalities were even thinking about setting up tollgates to absorb the costs that you're unloading.

Municipalities are left with only two options: They will be forced to raise property taxes by a large amount or they will have to let the roads deteriorate. Minister, what is your advice for these municipalities in my area?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I would just like to say that we intend to transfer only highways that no longer serve a purpose as a provincial highway, that really serve the purpose of a local road. That should be up to the municipality, to make sure it takes on the responsibility. We want to utilize the minimum dollars that we have to protect economic development in the province and to spend those dollars we have on provincial highways that truly serve that purpose.

All I can say to the honourable member is that these municipalities have been getting the funding support for so many years, but now we can no longer do that. We must retain those dollars and utilize those dollars on true provincial highways.

Mr Len Wood: Minister, your answer doesn't make any sense. In a lot of those communities Highway 11 goes right through the community and it's the only road going through it. What you are doing is dumping or downloading the costs of these highways onto the municipalities when the province should be paying them. Thousands and thousands of transports and cars are going through. The only road to go through from east to west is Highway 11. When are you going to be prepared to sit down with these municipalities and discuss the issue?

They are very much concerned that they are being shafted by this provincial government, where the province should be paying the cost of this highway going through these municipalities. Will you sit down with these municipal leaders and discuss the issue very soon?

Hon Mr Palladini: I have given the municipalities my time and my staff's time, certainly, and we have addressed or looked at and listened to their concerns and tried to work with them as best we could to see how they can actually get through it. I also want to say that we have transferred, or we will be transferring, $5.4 billion from education off the residential tax, so I think these dollars are going to be utilized.

We have also transferred highways that are in good condition, and for the ones we are transferring that need the work, we're supplying monetary funds. We are working with the municipalities and I believe we're going to continue to work with them in making sure that we're going to help them get through this transition as best and as quickly as possible.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in regard to the recent appointment of the members of the transition team. What specific credentials and qualifications, sets of experience and other relevant criteria did you use in making your decision as to the people who were selected, what kind of reporting time are you expecting them to have in terms of some of the priority issues they will evidently raise with you, and how do you see them concluding in terms of a final report on some of these priority issues?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The qualifications of the transition team are impeccable. The current Metro Toronto chairman, a known Liberal, is chairing the transition team, and we have the confidence that even with that one slight flaw in his character he will do an excellent job.

Another member of the transition team is Mrs Lois Griffin from Etobicoke, who was the chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, is presently on the police services board, was the budget chief in Metro, was also a controller for the city of Etobicoke and is extremely well qualified.

Time is not going to permit me to go into the qualifications of the other five members of the team, but I can tell you that they all have excellent qualifications.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wanted to raise a point of privilege with respect to the evacuation route that you tabled earlier. With respect, I wanted to point out to you that when you tabled this, you referred to it as an evacuation route or an evacuation plan -- I can't remember which -- but you said, "Due to the very fine work of the member for Mississauga South." I think by in fact naming the member -- I think she actually did have a point of privilege earlier.

But I want to address that what we were given is a floor map which shows the three exits, which of course all members are very familiar with, and it suggests on the flip side that we make ourselves familiar with this information. I do believe that falls far short of the request that was made by the member for Mississauga South, the intent of which was for a protocol with respect to emergency plans and evacuation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Beaches-Woodbine, I know exactly what was requested from the member for Mississauga South and I'll be happy to take it up. If you would like to join us at that meeting, I'd be happy to have you there as well.

The fact is, what was requested and what was supplied are slightly different. If you would like to take the time to review it, I'll be happy to show it to you and you can bring yourself abreast of this information. When that happens, if you would like to stand on a point of privilege at that time, that would be helpful as well. But I think it's important to tell you that what has been provided here has been the information that was requested, minus another point that I said I couldn't accommodate. With the greatest respect, I know what I was requested. Frankly, I didn't realize you had that information as well, but if you do, I'll be happy to review it with you at that time.

Ms Lankin: Yes, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate that and I will say very directly to you that I did not have that information. I went to speak to the member for Mississauga South because I was concerned that the way in which you presented this information did in a sense ridicule her and her request, and it is on that that I rise on a point of privilege. I do enjoy very much your sense of humour, but I think in this case there was a sense of ridicule that many of us took when we saw the information.

The Speaker: I apologize. It was certainly not a sense of ridicule. I apologize to the members for Mississauga South and Beaches-Woodbine. Again, I will be happy to provide the information to anyone who would like it. At the time I was requested to do a couple of things, this was one of them, and I'm doing my best to provide the rest of the information to the members of the House.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I move that substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees:

On the standing committee on administration of justice: Mr Rollins for Mr Johnson (Brantford); Mrs Ross for Mr Hudak; Mr Flaherty for Mr Klees; Mr Ford for Mr Leadston; Mr Boushy for Mr Parker; Mr Young for Mr Tilson; Mr Wood (London South) for Mr Doyle; on the standing committee on estimates: Mr Beaubien for Mr Barrett; Mr Grimmett for Mr Brown (Scarborough West); Mr Pettit for Mr McLean; Mr Doyle for Mr Rollins; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Young for Mr Chudleigh; Mr Arnott for Mr Hudak; Mr Barrett for Mr Ford; Mr Carr for Mr Spina; on the standing committee on general government: Mr Tilson for Mr Maves; Mr Gilchrist for Mr Flaherty; Mr Froese for Mr Hardeman; Mrs Fisher for Mrs Ross; Mr DeFaria for Mr Young; Mr Doyle for Mr Tascona; on the standing committee on government agencies: Mr Baird for Mr Fox; Mr Guzzo for Mr Leadston; Mr Stewart for Mr Doyle; Mr Tascona for Mr Newman; Mrs Elliott for Mr Wood (London South); on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Tascona for Mr Arnott; Mr Fox for Mr Hastings; Mr McLean for Mr Boushy; Mr Tilson for Mr DeFaria; Mr Hardeman for Mr Grimmett; Mr Baird for Mr Stewart; on the standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Pettit for Mr Froese; Mr Leadston for Mr Jordan; Mr Johnson (Brantford) for Mr DeFaria; Mr Boushy for Mrs Fisher; Mr Ouellette for Mr Stewart; Mr McLean for Mr Vankoughnet; on the standing committee on public accounts: Mrs Johns for Mr Beaubien; Mr Grimmett for Mr Carr; Mr Murdoch for Mr Hastings; Mr Preston for Mr Boushy; Mr Tascona for Mrs Elliott; on the standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Beaubien for Mr Smith; Mr Hardeman for Mr Boushy; Mrs Johns for Mr Hastings; Mr DeFaria for Mrs Ross; Mr Shea for Mr Pettit; Mr Vankoughnet for Mr Arnott; Mr Clement for Mr Gilchrist; on the standing committee on resources development: Mr Hastings for Mrs Fisher; Mr Jordan for Mr Baird; Mr Spina for Mr Tascona; on the standing committee on social development: Mr Klees for Mrs Johns; Mr Newman for Mr Pettit; Mr Hudak for Mr Preston; Mr Parker for Mr Froese; Mr Leadston for Mr Jordan.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

It's the pleasure of the House that the motion carry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I move that the order for the committee of the whole House on Bill 41,

An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario, be discharged and the bill be withdrawn; and that the orders for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion to consider government business on the morning of Thursday, December 12, 1996, and for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for consideration of private members' public business be omitted from the orders and notices paper.

That Mr Morin and Mr Kennedy exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business; and that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 73.

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

PETITIONS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : «Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit à l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance dans toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord le l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

«Attendu que la fermeture de Montfort éloigne et diminue grandement l'accessibilité à une salle d'urgences pour plus de 150 000 personnes ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé en Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de la communauté.»

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control of schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

This is signed by people from Georgetown and Mississauga and Brampton and Milton, all kinds of wonderful and important communities in this province.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario that the residents of the city of Barrie do not want a charity permanent casino and video lottery terminals located in the city of Barrie."

I affix my signature.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature to it.

TEACHER-LIBRARIANS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition that has been signed by hundreds of people from various schools in the London area. The petition reads as follows:

"A school library information centre staffed by fully qualified teacher-librarians and rich in both print and electronic resources is crucial to a quality education in an era where management of information is essential to success."

These folks are petitioning the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that teacher-librarians continue to be present in the schools.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition of about 74 pages. If they average 15 signatures on them, it will be some 1,110. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I submit this on behalf of some 1,110 members of my constituency.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris has changed the designation of estate wineries in Niagara and in southwestern Ontario from agricultural land to industrial land; and

"Whereas the primary use of winery property is not industrial but farm and commercial; and

"Whereas most of the properties involved are zoned agricultural and therefore have no access to normal services provided to industrial properties; and

"Whereas the grape and wine industry produces millions of dollars in economic activity and employs thousands of people throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas this added tax burden presents undue hardships to estate wineries and may result in job losses and a halt to the development in this important sector; and

"Whereas this change may have broader implications for all value added farming in the Niagara region;

"We, the undersigned, support the wineries of Niagara region and call upon Mike Harris and the Conservative government of Ontario to show their support for farm-based wineries on agricultural lands and the economic benefit it provides all of Ontario by removing the industrial assessment factor that the Mike Harris government has now burdened this industry with and reinstate an assessment which more fairly reflects the nature of value added farming."

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

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition from a number of people in Middlesex county and the city of London:

"Whereas Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, is a threat to our education system;

"Whereas the Education Improvement Commission has far-reaching and unprecedented powers;

"Whereas outsourcing of non-instructional jobs such as school secretaries, clerical, custodians, maintenance, audiovisual/computer technicians, computer technicians, educational assistants and cleaners will result in chaos and poor service and limited savings, if any;

"We, the residents of Ontario, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly to limit the powers of the Education Improvement Commission and to guarantee successor rights for non-instructional jobs.

We support our local schools and education centre staff of the Middlesex County Board of Education who are members of CUPE Locals 1753 and 1170."

I am proud to affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a petition here from the greater Grand Bend area and it says:

"We, the undersigned, support the following:

"

(1) That the community commonly referred to as Grand Bend which includes the area of Bosanquet north of the Greenway Road and the Pinery Provincial Park, as well as the areas of Stephen township which are adjacent to the existing village of Grand Bend, be brought together as one single community, retaining the name Grand Bend;

"

(2) Where a newly amalgamated municipality is created that the unified greater Grand Bend area not be divided by municipal boundaries;

"

(3) That the amalgamated municipality even include this greater Grand Bend community to provide the best economic alternatives for supply of service and utilities and fair representation for our area;

"

(4) That the individual residential areas and subdivisions situated within this greater Grand Bend retain their identity and characteristics and continue to operate within their community associations."

I have over 100 residents who have signed this petition.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship, without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and failure to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of Ontario."

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have yet another petition regarding health care. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cuts to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

I affix my signature.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's appropriate that, as the justice committee considers Bill 84 in clause-by-clause, I can bring forward this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to the professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I am proud to affix my signature.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Substance Abuse Bureau has engaged consultants in each of the six health planning regions of Ontario to develop regional plans for the rationalization of addiction services, the consultants in the central east region have recommended that an integrated service delivery system be established, consisting of Simcoe Outreach Services, Seven South Street and the Community Care Centre for Substance Abuse. It is further recommended that the funding for the integrated service system flow through the Royal Victoria Hospital, which would have responsibility for overall governance and management of this new system;

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

"That if an integrated service system is required for Simcoe county that it not be funded through, governed or managed by the Royal Victoria Hospital. This recommendation does not appear to meet the project objective `to achieve cost savings.' We request that a review of the original proposals by the service providers of the county be initiated which detailed several alternative models."

I've signed my name to that.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further petitions; the member for Port Arthur.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Madam Speaker, as you know --

The Acting Speaker: Member for Port Arthur, I missed somebody in rotation. I regret this. It should be the member for Sarnia. Maybe tomorrow.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): "Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response poses a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I move government notice of motion number 17:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing May 1, 1997, and ending October 31, 1997, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Very briefly, I'm not going to talk at any great length about this motion other than to say that I'm pleased to put forward the motion for interim supply. As most members are aware, the motion for interim supply provides the government with authority to make payments to hospitals, school boards, municipalities, suppliers, civil servants and others. These payments are currently being made under the authority of a motion of interim supply which came into effect on November 1, 1996.

The motion for interim supply is required now as the authority under the existing motion expires on April 30, 1997, and payments cannot be made after that date. Scheduled payments in early May include, among others, payments for general welfare, transfers to hospitals, school boards and children's aid societies. To ensure that the province meets its obligations in an orderly fashion, I would encourage members to be supportive in passing this motion as promptly as possible.

The process to make these payments, especially those on general welfare etc, takes anywhere between three and five days. Of course today is April 28; a three-day time period would expire on April 30. If these cheques are to go out to the people who need them the most, the sooner this motion is passed, the better. Otherwise it is conceivable that persons would receive moneys owed to them after the end of the month.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The real question is why the government always delays the placement of interim supply before this House until the last minute, meaning the end of the month. The Treasurer -- he will forgive me for making this accusation; it won't be directed personally to him -- will ensure that people begin to phone the opposition if this is delayed. Every government I've seen has done this, Ernie, so I'm not making the accusation to you.

What normally happens, I'm told, is that the government that brings in the motion at a very late date then arranges on the last day of the month for people to phone the opposition and say, "If only you would pass interim supply, then all the cheques can go out in the province and people who have to be paid will be paid."

Hon Mr Eves: I wanted to deal with it last Thursday.

Mr Bradley: The member did, to his credit, want to deal with this last Thursday and have it wrapped up. I certainly agree that would have been preferable. I know that was his desire. Sometimes it doesn't exactly happen, for a variety of reasons.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Why would that be?

Mr Bradley: You don't want to know the answer to why that would be right now because I don't want to start a fight in the Conservative caucus. I try to promote harmony and continuity in the Conservative caucus as much as possible. I don't want to start an argument in the middle of the Conservative caucus because we're just trying to heal the wounds that are there now, let alone start new wounds.

The best thing that can happen -- this is a debate that should take two weeks, for instance, in my view, because then it would allow us to canvass all of the issues that are so important to members of this assembly, because it really deals with the expenditures of all of the ministries of the Ontario government. Heaven knows we need to go after those expenditures to see where they've been cut too much, what effect they're having on the people of this province.

The poor Minister of Environment had to head off to the United States and tell everybody he'd cut his expenditures by one third, cut his staff by one third. That's the kind of thing we have to debate in this motion. It's most unfortunate we have to do it so late in the month of April.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I too am somewhat surprised. I marvel at the lack of responsibility, speaking on behalf of the government, of the messenger, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. At the 11th hour he comes and says, "Beware that if you don't pass this supply motion in a hurry, the welfare recipients, those who have less, will not get their cheques, because it takes four or five days for finance to cut a cheque."

On the road to Damascus, indeed. There was no concern a few months back, a year and a half ago perhaps, when under regulation welfare recipients were cut by 21.6%. But suddenly the government says, "Yes, you must hurry and you must pass the bill so people can get their cheques."

I can understand why they are in a hurry to have the supply motion adopted and supported, because I'm looking at the Ontario Finances, the quarterly update, of December 31, 1996. It tells a pretty sad story. They need the money, they need it now, and they need it big time, because their expense