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

December 9, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l135 - Mon 9 Dec 1996 / Lun 9 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

PARKING FOR DISABLED

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

CHILDREN'S LETTERS TO PREMIER

KIDS HELP PHONE

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

HEALTH CARE REFORM

TORONTO ARGONAUTS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

HUNTING AND FISHING

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

GO TRANSIT

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

MARKET ONTARIO

PETITIONS

CLOSURE OF VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

TVONTARIO

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

EDUCATION REFORM

ST MARYS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

EDUCATION FINANCING

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

CLOSURE OF VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

OC TRANSPO

TVONTARIO

EDUCATION FINANCING

LONG-TERM CARE

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It's important today that we speak about what the health minister has done to communities across Ontario, and especially the community that I come from in Essex county.

The minister has continued to bully major organizations that deliver health services across Ontario. He's doing it in Thunder Bay, he's doing it in Sudbury, he's certainly done it in Windsor. He has put the test to the local hospitals, to our boards, to come up with massive ways to save money. In fact, he is forcing local hospitals to make decisions to cut programs, to deny services, to extend waiting periods, all because they must reach cost targets. Why? Because this minister has cut $1.3 billion to health care, to hospitals. This has to stop.

The most recent example was the area of cardiac catheterization. When we learned that our hospitals would have been forced to reduce the number of days of lab time available for our local people to get the kinds of services required to prepare them for bypass surgery, we said no. We said that our hospitals can no longer afford to be bullied by this health minister. Again this weekend we have seen perfect examples of bullying. I look forward to question period today, when this will come to light.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Minister of Energy and Environment seems to have too full a

schedule to meet with environmentalists. On November 28, environmental groups went right to the minister's office to meet with him. He refused to attend. He said his

schedule was too full. One has to ask just whom this minister is meeting with.

It's been almost two months since the Minister of Environment and Energy assured the standing committee on social development that he would be meeting with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. CELA is second to none in its objective to use and improve laws that protect the environment and conserve natural resources.

On October 16, 1996, the minister recognized that fact, telling the committee that CELA is "a significant player in this business." The minister assured the committee that day that he would in fact be meeting with CELA. I am sending over copies of two letters from Mr Lindgren and an excerpt from Hansard to refresh the minister's memory.

The minister has now written to Mr Lindgren, saying, "My

schedule is heavily booked and my commitments will not permit me the time to meet with CELA." His letter indicated no willingness to meet with CELA at a later time. He simply ruled out any meeting. A first letter of Mr Lindgren's asking for a meeting was never responded to. This reversal is insulting, and I would ask the minister again today to commit at once to meeting with CELA.

PARKING FOR DISABLED

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to bring to the attention of all members an important issue facing an organization in my riding. A local group known as Disabled Against Discrimination has expressed concerns that too many people are parking in spaces designated as handicapped.

The Ministry of Transportation implemented the permit program in May 1990. To assist in the development of this program, the ministry established a working group comprised of stakeholders and other ministries. The group called for consistent municipal parking bylaws through the development of a parking guideline package and a push for unified and standard fines. I am calling for stiffer fines for those individuals who park in these restricted areas and are directly taking advantage of the physically challenged.

I would like to encourage the working group, municipalities and all other stakeholders to continue working together in order to resolve this issue. Disability parking must be protected for those who need it. People who do not obey and recognize the significance of providing disabled parking are jeopardizing those who need the parking most. I encourage all players to find a solution to this problem as soon as possible.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today and hold in my hand the infamous Bill 26, which was introduced in this House on November 29, 1995, and passed on December 12, 1995, almost exactly one year ago. We called this the "bully bill," and what we have seen to date is bullying from this government. I say today that the bullying tactics of this government must stop.

The province of Ontario has witnessed a dramatic deterioration in its relationship with doctors because of the bullying of the Minister of Health. This latest disaster is yet another example of how this government will go to any length to ensure that their mean-spirited agenda is enforced and that anyone who disagrees with it may be punished by them.

We've seen the Minister of Health try to bully the Ontario Medical Association, we've seen him try to bully the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but the questions go far beyond the behaviour of the Minister of Health.

Bill 26, the bullying bill, suggests that the tactic of this government is one which says, "If you do not agree with the government, then you had better beware." Your information is subject to the whim of the ministers, and there are many questions that this government, Premier Harris and his ministers must stand accountable for and many questions that must be answered.

CHILDREN'S LETTERS TO PREMIER

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today I had the opportunity to meet with a class of grade 2 and grade 3 students from Lord Dufferin Public School. As you can see, they are in the public gallery here today.

They came here because they wanted to deliver a message to the Premier. They've written those messages out in letters, and I think the words of children are often the most poignant, so I want to take this opportunity to read some of their letters into the official record.

"Dear Mr Harris:

"Mike Harris I dont like what you are doing to the community takeing people's money. People work hard and what if that happen to you. How would you feel if you were working and you lost your job and you get money from welfare and somebody took some money from you. You would not be able to pay all your bills or pay for clothes or enough food for your family." That's from Yemi.

"Dear Mr Harris:

"I think you're very rude. It is not just your comunity it's our comunity. Please stop trying to shut places up like day cares.... Don't take money from the poor. If you want to have friends you can't treat us like this." That's from Ciara.

"Dear Mr Harris:

"If you want me to get a good educaton, do not take money from my school. And my mom is still in school and she is trying hard to get a job but she can't get a job. If you take more money away from her school, she won't be able to." That's from Brandon.

Letter after letter is a testimony to how children in our communities are feeling the impact of the cuts, how their families are feeling the impact. I thank the students from Lord Dufferin for being here today and I promise them that I will deliver their letters to Premier Harris.

KIDS HELP PHONE

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Last Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending the launch at Central Technical secondary school of an important new stop on the information highway that is designed specifically for Canadian kids. The new Kids Help Phone and Bell Online is an important new source of information people can turn to when looking for advice on the challenges of growing up.

Produced in a unique charitable partnership which will see Bell Canada and MediaLinx Interactive Inc contribute $500,000 annually for the next three years, Kids Help Phone and Bell On-line was launched into cyberspace to help kids cope with life's complexities in an immediate and timely manner. Kids Help Phone and Bell On-line on the Internet is an innovative add-on to the 24-hour Kids Help Phone service.

This important new stop on the information highway extends the national service's ability to help kids grow up safe and sound. The expert, user-friendly content encourages anyone -- youth, parent or educator -- to go on line with confidence, knowing there's a great destination for youth-focused information. The Kids Help Phone and Bell On-line is a safe and confidential place to access and share information that is important to youth and concerned adults.

MediaLinx is hosting Kids Help Phone and Bell On-line on its Sympatico service.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): One of the greatest fears people have is that the government will use its immense power and its access to privileged information to bully them. If they choose to disagree with the government, the government has enormous powers that it can bring to bear on them. The people of Ontario now are beginning to fear that very much from this government.

I experienced it first hand from the government. There was a school principal in my area who chose to send out a memo to her community outlining her concern about cuts and who received a phone call from the Minister's of Education's office saying, "Stop it or I will get someone from the Toronto Sun to write an

article about you and I'll report you to your board."

Another community group hired a lawyer to represent them. The government members phoned the principals of that law firm, the senior people in that law firm, to complain. That lawyer no longer works for that law firm and quit as a matter of principle.

On the weekend we had perhaps the most chilling bully tactic imaginable: the government accessing private, confidential medical records to try and bully some group that chooses to disagree with the government.

I would say to you, Mr Speaker, there is nothing as chilling as the government using its force and its power to attempt to bully people into silence.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Being government is always a question of choosing, and choosing whose side you're on. I have a letter here from a Dr Freundlich, the chief of staff of Bingham Memorial Hospital, cc to Dr Ron Laing, a local physician in Matheson. They write the following:

"In an attempt to help the doctors already established in very isolated and remote places in Ontario, the Minister of Health provided a program through which it assisted these physicians financially with very valuable medical textbooks as well as in attending conferences and upgrading courses." All these programs "are under the umbrella of `continuing medical education'....

"It is with considerable sadness that I have to bring to your attention that this program is about to be discontinued `perhaps because it was a good one,'" the letter goes on to say.

As I said, being government is always about choosing, and it seems to me that this government more and more starts to choose. Rather than working with the people in the medical community and working with northerners to establish a good health system in northern Ontario and across this province, we stand instead to get into a fight with doctors such as we've seen escalated over the weekend. I say to the minister he'd be better off spending his time, rather than trying to figure out how to discredit doctors, to start working with them directly in trying to find ways of finding solutions to the problems we have within our health care system.

The letter goes on to say:

"Since only a relatively small number of physicians could benefit of this program, the savings obtained by discontinuing this program would be...negligible."

I urge the Minister of Health, rather than engage in a fight with doctors, to work with the doctors of this province in trying to find some solutions to the health care problems.

TORONTO ARGONAUTS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I rise in the House today to extend my sincerest congratulations to the members of the Toronto Argonauts football team for winning the 84th Grey Cup in Hamilton's Ivor Wynne Stadium on November 24 before 34,000 cold yet enthusiastic fans.

After a dismal 4 and 14 record in 1995, the Argos placed overall first in the 1996 season, with a 15 and 3 record thanks to the off-season acquisitions of all-star quarterback Doug Flutie, runningback Jimmy Cunningham and the reassigning of all-star receiver Paul Masotti and Toronto's favourite runningback Mike "Pinball" Clemons.

It was the first Argos Grey Cup win since 1991, and Toronto fans showed their appreciation for the hard work and determination of these athletes by setting a CFL season-high attendance record at the SkyDome.

Congratulations go out to head coach Don Matthews, his coaching staff and the players for an excellent season. The best of luck in defending the Grey Cup in the 1997 CFL season.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I rise today on a point of personal privilege. Last week I was informed that a member of my staff had inappropriately disclosed information relating to a member of the medical profession to a member of the media. Upon learning of this allegation, I requested the resignation of the staff member and it was provided immediately.

This morning, the secretary of cabinet formally called upon the Information and Privacy Commissioner to investigate this matter and report back as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, I support this move.

It is critical that the confidentiality of information in the Ministry of Health regarding any individual be maintained and protected. This is of the utmost importance to me personally, the ministry and this government. Therefore, to ensure the integrity of the investigation by the privacy commissioner, I believe it is both honourable and appropriate that I step aside as Minister of Health until the investigation into this matter is complete.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. This resignation can hardly be the end of the story. What we have here was that late last week we had the disclosure of highly confidential information from a senior staffer who worked with this minister day in and day out, and in a deliberate effort to undermine the credibility of and to intimidate a representative of the physicians who had been negotiating with this government, that information was disclosed. This is hardly the end of the matter.

There are some other questions that need to be answered: How did that confidential information get into the minister's office? Why was it brought into the office? Who else knew about it? What other files were in the hands of the minister, and why did Brett James disclose that information?

My question: Minister, given the seriousness of the situation, will you agree here and now for an all-party legislative committee to get to the bottom of this matter?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The leader of the official opposition is quite correct when he says that there are a lot of unanswered questions here. That is exactly why the secretary of cabinet has referred this matter to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I am certainly confident that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will launch a thorough investigation into the matter and make his report public in due course.

Mr McGuinty: I am convinced, as I'm sure the minister is, that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will not, for instance, consider the issue of ministerial accountability -- that does not come under the jurisdiction of his office -- and that's something we're very interested in.

There are some more questions that need to be answered. On whose direction did Brett James get the confidential OHIP information? How did he get the confidential OHIP information? On whose direction did he release the confidential information? Has anyone in the minister's office requested information on any other doctor's billings? Did anyone else in the office know that Brett James had this information? There are many, many more questions that we feel ought to be answered, and for that reason once again I'm asking that you allow this House, through an all-party legislative committee, to subpoena witnesses and have them answer questions under oath.

Hon Mr Eves: In terms of ministerial responsibility, I don't think you can see any higher standard than the one displayed by the Minister of Health a few moments ago.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Did he authorize it? That's what we want to know.

Hon Mr Eves: I hear the interjection of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt saying that the minister authorized it. That kind of speculative innuendo and conjecture on the part of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt does him a disservice, does his party a disservice and does the entire parliamentary system a disservice. The Minister of Health has acted in a most appropriate fashion here today. Too bad that the members of your government, sir, didn't have the same sort of courage and integrity when they were in government.

Now to answer the question very directly to the leader of the official opposition: I have every confidence that the privacy commissioner will look into exactly the matters you have enunciated in your question as to how Mr James found this information out, how he came about it and for what purpose he was using it etc.

Mr McGuinty: Let's understand that the only reason this resignation took place was because the minister was caught. This confidential information had been circulating for God knows how long inside that office. The only reason he's resigned is that it happened to come to the light of day.

There was a practice going on in the ministry, for some reason, whereby confidential information was brought into that office, that information was circulated -- we don't know how far it went -- and ultimately it was disclosed. There is every indication that the only reason it was disclosed was to undermine the credibility of a perceived enemy of the government, somebody who deigned to disagree with government policy. What kind of accountability is that? What kind of responsibility is that? You take it only when you have to.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner will go only a short distance by way of asking the questions that we feel ought to be answered by a legislative committee. Once again, will you agree to have this House, through an all-party legislative committee, look at those questions?

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the leader of the official opposition that he is prejudging what the Information and Privacy Commissioner will or will not do, what his investigation will or will not show. If he has some reason to believe that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will not behave in an appropriate and responsible fashion, he should say so if that's what he's suggesting, that he won't launch a thorough investigation.

The other matters he talks about are pure conjecture and innuendo on his part. Why don't we find out the facts through an independent party? I think the Information and Privacy Commissioner is more than competent to carry out this investigation to get to the bottom of the matter of who knew, how they knew, why they knew, and then we can look at his report and see what it has to say.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McGuinty: I wish this were a unique incident in the history of this government, but in fact it's merely part of a broader pattern, and it's clearly the pattern that has emerged here over the last 18 months of this government. At one point in time the Franklin school in Riverdale --

The Speaker: I need a question and who you direct your question to.

Mr McGuinty: To the same minister. The Franklin school in Riverdale was called upon by Al Leach's assistant. The law firm that had been handling a case against the Crombie commission was told to back off by that minister. There was a Scarborough principal whose board received a call from an assistant to Minister Snobelen as a result of that principal's complaint about this government, and that principal was told to back off.

Minister, will you now admit that this minister's behaviour is typical behaviour for your government, that there's a clear pattern of intimidation and bullying here? Will you not admit to that?

Hon Mr Eves: No, I will not. That question almost doesn't even deserve an answer.

Mr McGuinty: Just to bring it closer to home, it was just a short while ago that this very Minister of Health went to the College of Physicians and Surgeons demanding that those doctors who stood against this government through job action be disciplined. That was the request, the demand, made by this minister of doctors in this province.

You can't govern with a sledgehammer and an axe, and if you want the ultimate example, it's Bill 26. If that doesn't embody everything this government stands for, I don't know what does.

Minister, this makes it all the more important for us to have an inquiry into the actions leading up to this minister's resignation. I ask you once again, how about that inquiry?

Hon Mr Eves: The Information and Privacy Commissioner is an officer of the Legislative Assembly. He is responsible to the Legislative Assembly. He will report back to the Legislative Assembly, and every member of the Legislative Assembly and the public in the province of Ontario will be able to see the result of his investigation.

Mr McGuinty: This has everything to do with political standards. It has to do with what this government sees as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

The minister resigned because he was caught. That information had been circulating for a significant amount of time, and when it was brought to light of day, then the minister decided he had no choice but to resign. This is a sad day for government in Ontario. It's a sad day for democracy. We've got a minister resigning in disgrace because he was caught in an effort to undermine the credibility of an enemy of the government. The minister wanted access to these records through Bill 26. He got the records. Now we know why he wanted them in the first place. This was a power grab, it's clear.

Minister, I think it's important that all the members of this House have an opportunity to go through, in detail, all the events leading up to the disclosure of this information and the resignation of this minister. I ask you once again, will you not consent to an all-party legislative committee reviewing this?

Hon Mr Eves: I would say to the leader of the official opposition that the member should have his facts absolutely straight before he starts accusing people of things that he is conjecturing and surmising, in his own political mind, have occurred.

Mr Wilson resigned today or stepped aside today as the Minister of Health because he has some respect for the integrity and the confidentiality of the Ministry of Health, of the health system in the province of Ontario, and understands some degree of responsibility when a member of his staff did something very inappropriate.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'll ask the Deputy Premier this: Is Mr Wilson stepping aside or is he resigning?

Hon Mr Eves: My information is that the Minister of Health has stepped aside as Minister of Health. He is no longer a member of the executive council in the government of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: If he has stepped aside and he is no longer a member, does that mean someone else is going to be appointed Minister of Health so someone else can be politically accountable for the breach of the law and the breach of someone's privacy? Is someone else going to be appointed, and when?

Hon Mr Eves: It is my understanding that the Premier has asked the Chair of Management Board to assume the responsibilities of the Minister of Health.

Mr Hampton: I ask the Deputy Premier, what is problematic about what you're proposing? You say the privacy commissioner can look into this. But as I read the Premier's statement, he doesn't mention looking into the ministry. He doesn't mention looking into all the ways this information could have been released.

Is the Deputy Premier aware that a chain of events would have to happen before this information is released? It's illegal for the minister to have this information; it's illegal for anybody on his staff to have this information. For this information to be released, the general manager of OHIP would be the only person with authority to release this. Once he receives that request, he has to inform the deputy minister. Once the deputy minister is informed of the request, the deputy minister has to inform the minister.

You're proposing that the privacy commissioner look at Mr James. That's not good enough, Deputy Premier. What we need to know is, when did all these officials of the ministry and when did the deputy minister find out? When did the deputy minister give approval? When did the deputy minister inform the minister? We need an inquiry to get to the bottom of this.

Hon Mr Eves: It is my understanding that the investigation that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will undertake will be of the fullest and widest possible parameters. It will not be limited strictly to Mr James.

Obviously a lot of questions have to be answered here. I think that the Minister of Health and the Premier of the province are aware of that, indeed that the secretary of cabinet is aware of that. That is why (

a) the Minister of Health has stepped aside; and (

b) the Information and Privacy Commissioner is going to investigate the matter in the fullest possible way.

Mr Hampton: Can the Deputy Premier tell us, does the privacy commissioner have the capacity to order people to appear by way of subpoena? Does he have the capacity to order people to appear and give evidence under oath? Does he have those powers? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm not aware of that off the top of my head. However, I have every confidence that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will get to the bottom of this issue, and if he's unable to do so, in his own mind, will say so and report back to the government.

Mr Hampton: It's our information that the privacy commissioner does not have the capacity to order someone to appear by way of subpoena and does not have the capacity to order someone to appear and then take the oath. If the privacy commissioner does not have the power to order appearance by subpoena and does not have the power to order people to take the oath and require them to give information under oath, how are we going to get to the bottom of this?

This is such a serious matter, given the context in which it occurred -- a negotiation under way and then, conveniently, information is dropped to the media by someone on the Minister of Health's staff, information he is legally not supposed to have -- we need to be sure that we get to the bottom of this. We need to be sure that people can be subpoenaed.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Hampton: We need to be sure that people appear and give evidence under oath. That is how we get to the bottom of this.

Deputy Premier, will you commit to an inquiry so that people will be ordered, by subpoena, to give evidence under oath?

Hon Mr Eves: I have every confidence that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be able to conduct as full an investigation as he needs to solve this situation and report back to the Legislative Assembly.

As I already indicated in my response to the leader of the official opposition, he is an officer of the Legislative Assembly and he is responsible for the Legislative Assembly. If he feels that he is not appropriately equipped to conduct this investigation, he will so notify the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Hampton: Some of us might take solace from the words of the Deputy Premier if the government hadn't already shown disrespect for the privacy commissioner last year in the context of Bill 26. You wanted, in Bill 26, to have the right to collect everyone's medical information, to have the minister and his staff members have the capacity and the legal right to collect everybody's private health care information.

The privacy commissioner said to you that it is not the government's information, that the government is merely the custodian of the personal information that an individual has entrusted to it, that there needs to be this comfort, this trust in this place.

We had to sit in this House literally overnight to force this government to show some respect for the privacy commissioner. I don't think you have any respect for the privacy commissioner.

I believe we need either a public inquiry or an all-party committee. Will you commit to this now? Will you commit to a process that will allow people to be subpoenaed, that will require people to give information under oath?

Hon Mr Eves: The very comments that the leader of the third party just read out with respect to the Information and Privacy Commissioner surely speak to the integrity of the commissioner, to the seriousness with which he undertakes his responsibilities, and surely, having read the quote he just read with respect to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, he would be more than satisfied with that individual looking into this particular situation.

The Speaker: New question. Member for Renfrew North.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to go back to the acting Premier. We have today the resignation of the Minister of Health about a very sensitive matter, namely, the release of highly confidential and sensitive medical information into the public domain. This comes five years to the day from the beginning of the so-called Martel affair. I have in my hand, Mr Eves, a copy of a minority report that you and I and the now minister of justice signed expressing our concern that this could happen and that it would never happen again.

My question to you, Minister, is: Four and a half years after this report was tabled and the gravity of those issues canvassed by this assembly, how is it possible that at the highest levels of government very sensitive, confidential information, gathered apparently for the express purpose to attack an innocent citizen of Ontario, came into the possession of a senior government official, a political assistant, and was used to attack an innocent Ontario citizen?

Hon Mr Eves: In my opinion there are several differences between the situation he alludes to, five years ago, and the situation the Minister of Health today found himself in. First of all we're talking about the actions of one of his staff members as opposed to his own actions. That's point number one. Point number two, the minister --

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): We don't know that.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Remember Mike Farnan.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Dovercourt, Lake Nipigon.

Hon Mr Eves: The second point: The minister in this instance, unlike that instance and unlike several other instances, has voluntarily stepped aside because he understands the integrity of the system, ministerial responsibility and accountability, and he understands the confidentiality of facts and information in the health care system in Ontario.

Mr Conway: I agree with my colleague the member for Parry Sound, the Deputy Premier: There are differences. This extraordinary behaviour comes after the Martel affair, after we all pledged that it would not and could not happen again, and Jim Wilson was around for that. You know and I know that under the new provisions, post-Martel, the kind of information that Brett James threw at this innocent doctor last Friday could only have gotten into the minister's office on the advice and with the agreement of the Minister of Health and the Deputy Minister of Health.

I want to know how, in the post-Martel world, it would be possible for that information to get into the minister's office and to be used so viciously against an innocent victim.

I've got to tell you, I don't expect some bureaucrat to give me all of the answers I need to know and the public deserves to know, because in the Martel affair you were right when you said five years ago this week, quoting Ernie Eves, "This entire issue here goes to the root of integrity of government." You were right then. I want to know what you're going to do to restore the integrity of your battered government today.

Hon Mr Eves: With all due respect, the honourable member is assuming a lot of facts here. He's also imputing some motives here on the part of certain individuals. I think the difference, as I tried to point out in my first answer, between five years ago and today is that the minister today has understood the seriousness of these particular actions of a member of his staff. He has voluntarily stepped aside. He has understood and appreciated the confidentiality, the integrity of the health care system and, more important, the integrity of ministerial responsibility by his actions today.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: There are several parts of this that create a real problem. First of all, it's our understanding that Mr Wilson, who until a few minutes ago was the Minister of Health, will not be required to submit to the privacy commissioner by means of subpoena and will not be required to give information under oath. It's our understanding that the Deputy Minister of Health will not be required via subpoena to give evidence and will not be required to give evidence under oath.

It's our understanding that the manager of OHIP will not be required to attend by means of subpoena and will not have to give evidence under oath. It's our understanding that Mr James, and that anybody else on the minister's staff, will not be required to come by means of subpoena and give evidence under oath.

I want to ask the Deputy Premier, if nobody here has to submit to subpoena and if no one has to give evidence under oath, how do you honestly believe that we will get to the bottom of this matter, given the kinds of shenanigans that have gone on already in the Minister of Health's office?

Hon Mr Eves: The member is assuming that the only way that anybody is ever going to cooperate with the Information and Privacy Commissioner is if he or she is subpoenaed to appear before him. I can tell you that, demonstrated by the minister's actions today, some people take their jobs responsibly enough to voluntary do the right thing.

Mr Hampton: I want to talk about the former Minister of Health and his record: December 18, 1995, Jim Wilson opened the committee debate on Bill 26 with an attack on Ontario doctors. In his statement to the committee Wilson accused doctors of defrauding the system and doublebilling. In the context of Bill 26, the privacy commissioner had to go after the said Mr Wilson. When Ontario doctors launched their bargaining campaign with the ministry, the Minister of Health wrote to the college of physicians and tried to order them and tried to bully them into something.

Do you understand that it is exactly the conduct of the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, that makes us so uneasy about this? He has accused doctors of being frauds, he has accused doctors of doublebilling, he has attempted to intimidate the college of physicians, and then you want this person to appear, without being subpoenaed and without being under oath. Given the record of conduct here, given the fact that this information is totally illegal for the minister or anybody else to have, don't you think it is appropriate that these people appear by means of subpoena and give evidence under oath?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, let's go over the facts as we know them today. The Minister of Health has asked his staff member to resign, and that took place immediately. The Minister of Health himself has voluntarily stepped aside. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has been asked to launch an investigation into this entire matter with the broadest possible parameters. I am convinced that officer of the Legislative Assembly, if he feels that he has inadequate tools to conduct this investigation, will so notify the Legislative Assembly.

HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. I recall the campaign promise to dedicate all hunting and fishing revenue back into the resources and to the creation of the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board to advise the minister with respect to the use of these funds. Could the minister explain what the board has been doing?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'm pleased to answer that. This is a campaign commitment that goes back to the spring of 1994 that all the licence revenues and royalties of fishing and hunting go back into a special purpose account to give accountability to how these dollars are being spent for the betterment of fish and wildlife.

The board is made up of 11 people, capably led by a biologist and lodge owner, Mr Phil Morlock, and they've met three times this fall. They're giving advice on how the money should be spent in some programs specifically related to fish and wildlife management in the province.

Mr O'Toole: In my riding of Durham East there are many sports enthusiasts who are anxious to see the progress that's been made. I understand you've received recommendations from the board relating to fishing in Lake Ontario. Could you indicate what these are and how you have responded.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The board recommended a new study and public consultation on the fishery in Lake Ontario, which I have accepted and the MNR is now implementing. The recent open houses that have taken place have been described in a recent

article in the Toronto Star by John Power, who noted: "Unlike the façade of 1992, the current sessions could be fruitful. There's a new and improved attitude in the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is marching to a different drummer than it was four years ago." This is just one example of improving the natural resource management in the province.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to highlight for members of this House the double standard that exists between the approach taken by members of the government during the course of the Piper affair and the approach they wish to take now.

The Piper affair, as you recall, was where the press secretary for Premier Rae -- my question is to the Deputy Premier -- released information to discredit someone then who was causing the government some problems. I want to quote:

"I suggest to the Premier that we're disappointed a committee is not being set up. We're disappointed, quite frankly, that the police are not reporting to a legislative committee of this Legislature. That's where the findings really ought to be reported so that we can give assurance that there's nobody else who is involved."

Those words were uttered in this House on November 24, 1992, by Mike Harris. Deputy Premier, again I ask you, will you consent to a legislative committee looking at this issue?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the official opposition, I'm sure he'll refresh my memory if I'm incorrect, but it seems to me that in the Piper matter, the Premier of the day took absolutely no action whatsoever. He didn't have the matter referred to any independent individual, let alone an officer of the Legislative Assembly, to report back to the Legislative Assembly. That is the difference.

Mr McGuinty: Perhaps it'll be more helpful for the deputy Premier if I quote his words on November 26, 1992, in this House:

"Mr Deputy Premier, your Premier has insisted in hiding behind an OPP investigation of the Piper matter, but you know very well that an investigation will not probe the political ramifications of what the Premier's office has done, it will not determine how widespread Mr Piper's smear campaign against Judi Harris extended and it will not determine how many other times Mr Piper or others in the Premier's office may have attempted to quash other political opponents."

I continue with the quote: "Deputy Premier, what we need to determine these facts is an all-party committee looking into what was going on in the Premier's office during Mr Piper's tenure. Is your government going to allow that or not?" I ask the very same question of you today, Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: There are several very important differences between those circumstances and these here today:

(

a) The minister has asked for and received the resignation of a staff member who acted inappropriately.

(

b) The minister has voluntarily stepped aside as Minister of Health.

(

c) There is no police investigation going on. We are not hiding behind anything.

(

d) We have actively asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an officer of the Legislative Assembly, to look into this very important and confidential matter.

I say to you, as I've said to the leader of the third party, I have every confidence that if the Information and Privacy Commissioner does not feel that he has the tools available to him to enable him to get to the bottom of this and make a worthwhile report and disclosure to the Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario, he will so inform us.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: In the media reports we've received so far, Mr James said to the reporter in question that he saw the piece of paper months ago, the piece of paper referring to the information which it would be illegal for Mr James to have. I want to ask you, when was this information requested? The manager of OHIP would have known when it was requested, the Deputy Minister of Health would have known when it was requested. When was that information requested?

Hon Mr Eves: I have absolutely no knowledge of how Mr James came to possess any information he possessed. I don't know what information he possessed; I don't know how he came to possess it. That is exactly why the matter's been referred to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Mr Hampton: This is quite unbelievable. One of the first things you would expect of a government, the Deputy Premier especially, is that somebody would have called the deputy minister and would have said: "How did this information become available? When was this information requested of you? When did you learn of it?"

Let me ask the Deputy Premier something else. Mr Wilson would have had discussions either with yourself or the Premier over the weekend. What has Mr Wilson told you or the Premier about this incident? As a minister, he must have made some inquiries, he must be trying to hold the ministry accountable. What did the former minister tell you or tell the Premier about when this information became available and how it became available?

Hon Mr Eves: I have had absolutely no discussions with the Minister of Health with respect to this matter. The member is assuming several things. You're assuming information was requested by certain people, you're assuming the information was received. Why won't you let the Information and Privacy Commissioner look into the matter and report back to the Legislative Assembly? Why don't you have any confidence in the Information and Privacy Commissioner who you were just quoting a few moments ago?

GO TRANSIT

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to respond to a question put to me by the member for Cochrane South on December 3.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to first correct some inaccuracies through the question.

He said that unionized employees of GO Transit accepted concessions to save money. This is not correct. No significant savings resulted from the ATU contract. Any concessions were balanced by gains on other issues. For example, the union agreed to changes in work rules and step wage rates for new employees. In exchange, they received job security during the three-year contract and a card system for prescription drugs.

The member also suggested that workers are taking pay cuts. In fact, the unionized employees of GO Transit will be receiving a raise of 2.4% over the next three years. The savings the member referred to were in fact achieved on the management side of GO's operation.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Palladini: Four million dollars are being saved through 80 layoffs that took place in 1995, one third of GO's management and supervisory staff. There have been no increases --

The Speaker: Thank you. Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to thank the minister for coming back with the answer, but I think we go back to the point where we were last week. The point is that the employees did take a concession in order to help GO Transit in the situation. The minister is trying to dress this up for what it's not. It is a concession and the savings have allowed the GO Transit managers, quite frankly, to get themselves an increase. I say to the minister he should try to do something about it because it's not right for workers to have to take a cut but managers to take a raise at the same time.

Hon Mr Palladini: Four million dollars annually are being saved through 80 layoffs that took place in 1995. That's one third of GO's management and supervisory staff. There had been no increases for these employees for the last five years. Effective January 1, merit pay averaging 3% will be reinstated to these employees for one year, similar to the merit pay to other OPSEU workers in their agreement earlier this year.

Finally, I have been in this House for about a year and a half and I have learned many things from many members in this House, but I can assure the honourable member for Cochrane South he is not one of them.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier. It has to do with the resignation of the Minister of Health. The Deputy Premier today said that the resignation took place because a member of the staff did something wrong. What we're interested in is what the minister did. We believe, Deputy Premier, that you can now answer that question.

The question is this: The Premier, I assume, has talked to the Minister of Health about this episode. Can you inform us about the conversation that the Premier must have had with him? I assume the Premier asked the minister if he did anything wrong. Can you answer this question? When was Mr Wilson aware that the confidential information was available in his office and can you determine -- have you determined -- whether Mr Wilson was at all involved in authorizing that information being made available to his political staff?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I understand the members are referring to him as "Mr Wilson." He's the member for Simcoe West from now on.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, I have no knowledge of that. I can say to you that you alluded in your question to the minister stepping aside because someone on his staff did something wrong. I believe the minister is stepping aside because he believes that the integrity of the system must be maintained.

Until we get to the bottom of this matter, with respect to a full investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and find out exactly what the facts are, we won't be in a position -- nobody will be in a position -- to be able to attribute or assess blame, if there is any that's due, and exactly what the facts were: who knew what; when they knew it; who requested what; when they received it, if in fact any of that is true.

Mr Phillips: I can hardly believe, Deputy Premier, that you would allow yourself to come to the House without asking that question, because surely that's on the minds of all of Ontario. What in the world was the former Minister of Health doing?

The Premier talked to him. You said, by the way, that the reason he resigned was that a member of his staff did something wrong. But the question is this: When did the Minister of Health become aware that confidential information was in his office, and did he authorize that? Will you, if you do not know the answer to that today, undertake to come to the House tomorrow and give us an answer?

This does not need to await an inquiry. The people of Ontario are deserving of an answer to this from a minister of the crown who clearly has been sitting on a very, very serious situation: confidential medical records in his political office being used to abuse people in this province. Will you commit today, Deputy Premier, to come to this House tomorrow and inform the House when Mr Wilson was aware of this and whether he authorized it?

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, he is assuming and imputing a lot of motive and actions. The purpose of an investigation is to get to the bottom of every circumstance surrounding this situation. Surely it is best done by an independent individual, who in this case happens to be an officer of the Legislative Assembly.

I say to the honourable member, if the Information and Privacy Commissioner does not feel that he can get to the bottom of this issue and he doesn't have the ability or the tools at his disposal to get to the bottom of this, I'm sure he will so inform the House and other people.

Mr Phillips: The Premier knows the answer. I wish he would show up here.

Hon Mr Eves: If I may take exception to the comment just made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the Premier today is at a public function that he was committed to some time ago. You know very well that it is improper and inappropriate, and quite frankly unbecoming of you, to refer to another member's absence in these premises.

The Speaker: New question. Third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I think the government's strategy is becoming obvious here. If we try to get answers in the House, if we try to hold them accountable in a political fashion, they're going to say, "We don't have any of this information." We've asked four or five questions and any Premier or Deputy Premier would have come to the Legislature today with that basic information. All they would have to do is phone up the Deputy Minister of Health and say, "Tell me the story," or phone up the manager of OHIP and say, "I want to know the details," or ask the minister.

But the government has done none of that. On the other hand, we're going to have a privacy commissioner who doesn't have the power to subpoena and doesn't have the power to get information under oath.

It's very clear that neither avenue here is going to get to the bottom of it, so I ask the Deputy Premier again: We want either a parliamentary committee, a legislative committee, or an inquiry. Either one must have the power to subpoena and the power to get at information under oath. If you want to get to the bottom of this, that's what we need to have. Do you agree that we have either a public inquiry or a legislative committee to get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Eves: I will say to the leader of the third party very directly that I can certainly remember a Premier, in fact at least two of them in the last 10 years, who did absolutely nothing under similar circumstances, whose ministers did not resign voluntarily under similar circumstances, except for one who did have the integrity of the system at heart. She, as the then Minister of Health, the member from Ottawa, did have the integrity and did respect the system enough to resign, and I believe what happened in that case -- you can check the facts -- is that the Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated that case as well.

Mr Hampton: The Deputy Premier tries very hard to miss the point. The point here is this: You refuse to come to this Legislature with the answers and I think it's your duty to come to this Legislature with the answers, and the privacy commissioner is not equipped, either in law or in process, to require people to give evidence under oath or to require them by means of subpoena.

You are setting up a process here where you refuse to answer the questions in the House and you refuse to give us a process that will get to the bottom of this. You know the privacy commissioner does not have the authority, the power, the legal capacity to ask some of these questions and to subpoena people. You know that technically it will be impossible for him to get this information.

The issue is, this is a matter of important public policy, this is a very important matter legally, and we at least have to have the capacity to subpoena and the capacity to question people under oath to get to the bottom of it. It seems to me if you're interested in the truth we have to have that. Will you agree to either an inquiry or a legislative committee to get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know why the leader of the third party would question the integrity or the independence of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Why do you not feel that he is competent to deal with this issue? And if he's not, I'm sure, you knowing him as I do, he will be the first one to say that he does not have the tools or the methods available to him to get to the bottom of the issue.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. As the minister knows, the Great Lakes and the Niagara River play a very important social and economic, recreational and health role in the Niagara Peninsula and, importantly, in my riding of Niagara South. In fact, bordering to the east is the Niagara River and to the south Lake Erie, and then just 20 minutes to half an hour away from any part of my riding is Lake Ontario.

I understand there have been recently some public meetings to discuss the Niagara River toxics management plan, and at the same time the Lake Ontario lake-wide management plan. I'd like to know from the minister what the government of Ontario has accomplished to date on the Niagara River toxics management plan.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I really appreciate the question from the member, who is from the Niagara area and pretty much interested in this matter. I want to tell the member that recently there was a committee meeting with regard to administering the plan. There were over 100 people at that meeting. On December 3, we signed a renewal of our declaration of intent signifying our continued commitment to work with our American counterparts and to encourage efforts to remediate hazardous waste sites on the US side of the Niagara River.

I am pleased that over the past 10 years the ministry has monitored 21 point sources along the Niagara River. This monitoring has focused on 18 chemicals of concern and indicates reductions of toxics loading of as much as 99%.

Mr Hudak: As the minister and the members of the House know, there are many areas of jurisdiction over the Great Lakes and the Niagara River, especially with the border states. Could the minister explain who is represented on the Niagara River and Lake Ontario coordination committees and what other significant developments have resulted from these committees to date?

Hon Mr Sterling: The committee consists of senior officials from Environment Canada, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, my ministry and the New York State Department of Energy and Conservation. Another significant accomplishment which has arisen from the work of these committees has been the international partnership agreement to develop and apply an innovative computer model for predicting groundwater flow and contamination migration at a former PCB storage site in Smithville.

This agreement offers an opportunity to review and exchange information on emerging waste site technologies and is a collaborative effort between Environment Canada, Ontario's Ministry of Environment and Energy and the EPA in the United States. We are working together to improve the environment of this area and we continue to do so.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Deputy Premier. I see that he's here and I'll proceed with my question. People in this province are very concerned. They're concerned because government has all kinds of sensitive and confidential information about them. It has all of their medical records. They are concerned, and you have an obligation to address those concerns.

The Minister of Health must request and have good reason for requesting confidential identifying information about people in this province. The people have a right to know why he makes those requests. I would suggest to you, sir, that only a legislative committee with the authority to subpoena people under oath can get to the bottom of that, as my leader has suggested.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I think the member for Oriole is quite correct when she says people have every right to be able to have some confidence -- in fact, the utmost confidence -- in their information with respect to their health records, with respect to health expenditures. I think if she follows the actions of the Minister of Health today -- the former Minister of Health, I should say -- he obviously took this matter very seriously himself or he would not have stepped aside.

The important thing here is to get to the bottom of the facts: who knew what, how they knew it, why they knew it. I have every confidence that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be able to do that under these circumstances.

Mrs Caplan: I hope you'll reconsider that answer, because in fact the Information and Privacy Commissioner is not the appropriate person to be conducting this kind of legislative inquiry. If the people of this province are going to have confidence that the sensitive information that you hold is properly protected, they must have the confidence of a full and open public hearing of this matter. I ask you, sir, to do as our leader has requested and assure the people of this province that their confidential information is and will be protected. You can only do that if you hold a legislative committee of inquiry into this important matter. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Eves: The Information and Privacy Commissioner is an individual of the utmost integrity. We have heard comments supporting that from the leader of the third party today. I think everybody in this House agrees. He is an officer of the Legislative Assembly. He has some very interesting and sweeping powers under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and I'm sure that if he is not satisfied that he has the tools and the authority at his disposal to do a complete and thorough investigation of this entire matter and report back to the Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario, he will let us know that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Here is the situation. The person who was the Minister of Health has now stepped aside, and so he cannot be asked questions in this Legislature about the Ministry of Health any longer. The Deputy Premier comes to the Legislature today and says he knows nothing. The Premier, who we assume should know something, doesn't come to the Legislature today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Folks, government members, I'm on my feet. I heard the comment. Government members, please.

Leader, you can't comment on people's absences. I wish you would --

Mr Hampton: Speaker, this is a very serious matter, and yet no one in the government is equipped to or they have conveniently been put aside so that they can't answer questions on this. Then we're told that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will ask the questions, but the Information and Privacy Commissioner can't subpoena people and he can't take evidence under oath. This doesn't look to me to be an exercise that is aimed at getting to the bottom of a very serious issue. The government refuses to answer any questions in the House, and frankly, the Information and Privacy Commissioner doesn't have the capacity to get answers to these questions.

I say to the Deputy Premier, because I think your integrity is on the line here, if you want to get to the bottom of these questions, you have to have a legal process that allows you to subpoena witnesses and allows you to --

The Speaker: Thank you. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I can only reiterate what I've already said. First of all, we have to find out what the facts are: who knew what, how they knew it, why they knew it, if they knew anything at all. I think the last thing is a very important thing for the honourable member to keep in mind. "If they knew anything at all" would be a very appropriate thought for the honourable member to keep in mind.

I think the only way we're going to get to this -- we have had a minister who has asked a staff member to step aside. We have a minister who has, out of respect for the integrity of the system, stepped aside himself. And we now have an Information and Privacy Commissioner who has been asked to conduct an investigation into this matter and get to the bottom of it.

If in fact what the leader of the third party says is so and if the Information and Privacy Commissioner does not have the tools at his disposal to get to the bottom of this matter, I'm sure that he, being a respected officer of the Legislative Assembly, will let us know that so the appropriate action can be taken.

Mr Hampton: What was obvious about the former Minister of Health's statement today is that he provided no information at all. It's incumbent, I believe, in a democratic government that the minister stand in this House and provide some explanation. He studiously avoided giving any explanation whatsoever this morning. He simply said, "I'm stepping aside so that I can no longer be asked questions in this Legislature about this."

I say to the Deputy Premier, you ask us to assume that this information was not requested by Mr Wilson. You ask us to assume that Mr Wilson had no knowledge. If we make those assumptions, then the only possible conclusion is that the Ministry of Health is operating completely outside the law. If the Ministry of Health is operating completely outside the law, we need to have either a legislative committee or an inquiry, because the privacy commissioner will not have the tools, the power or the authority --

The Speaker: Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: I didn't say that you should assume anything. I said that what we need to do is get to the bottom of the matter to find out what the facts are. I note that the minister appears to be satisfied. He supports the investigation into this matter. I think that the honourable member should wait and see what the Information and Privacy Commissioner has to say.

Mr Hampton: He doesn't have the power. He doesn't have the authority. He doesn't have the capacity. It's a whitewash.

Hon Mr Eves: If he feels that he does not have the authority or the power to get to the bottom of this, as he did in the case of a former Minister of Health who stepped aside under somewhat similar circumstances, then I'm sure that he will say so.

MARKET ONTARIO

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. A key element in our job creation strategy is to lure offshore investment and boost exports. This is crucial if we are to create jobs.

Minister, you recently announced the Market Ontario initiative, which is designed to achieve these objectives. My question to you is, what strategies and approaches are you using to let the rest of the world know that we truly are now open for business?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): In response to the question from the honourable member for Norfolk, I would like to draw his attention to our new business ambassadors program, which is part of our Market Ontario initiative.

We've had over 150 volunteers to date to be ambassadors for us. What we want to get is Ontarians who travel not only around the world but to other parts of Canada to speak on behalf of Ontario. There are no better ambassadors than people who are doing business in the province.

I might say we're very pleased with the response that we've had of highly qualified men and women who have volunteered to serve their province. We've over 100 volunteers to date and we would like to know of any people who would like to do this for us, who travel, to speak on behalf of Ontario.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just to put the government on notice, we'll be asking for an emergency debate today on the issue surrounding the former Minister of Health and how confidential information could be disclosed and was disclosed.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Are you asking for it now? Are you seeking --

Mr Hampton: We're asking for unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I haven't even put the question, but I can guess the answer now, actually. Is there unanimous consent for the third party's request for an emergency debate? I heard some noes; there is not unanimous consent.

PETITIONS

CLOSURE OF VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition to the Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, insist that you continue to operate the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton.

"This institution provides a wealth of services" --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for York Mills, I would ask that you withdraw that comment. It's out of order.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Government members and others, please come to order. It's time for petitions and I'd like to be able to hear them.

Mr Ramsay: "We, the undersigned, insist that you continue to operate the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton.

"This institution provides a wealth of services to a unique clientele that would otherwise not receive the proper rehabilitative programs and counselling that are exclusive to this facility. Perhaps the per diem cost is greater than an American facility, but in the long run the finished product is much more conducive to the wellbeing of the community at large.

"A properly rehabilitated client is the true measure of a cost-effective system. Once again, one gets what one pays for. A women should have access to her specific needs.

"Women should be not tucked away in the basement of a men's prison."

I will affix my signature to this.

TVONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I would like to present a petition today signed by more than 500 individuals and organizations across northern Ontario. It reads as follows.

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I affix my signature to this list of names which includes over 500 people.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"His Honour Peter Grossi's judgement in the case of Signe and Robert McMichael against the government of Ontario will completely change the direction of the McMichael Art Gallery. We would like to capture and reflect developing Canadian art from the Group of Seven, Inuit and first nations right up to the present. If this judgement is allowed to stand, the McMichael will become a static museum, frozen in the early part of this century.

"We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario government to appeal this decision so that all aspects of this trial of Canadian art may be exposed before a full three-judge court."

This petition is signed by 361 people, and I affix my signature to this petition.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have petitions that are expressing concerns about the process that's being used for secondary school reform and concerns about the consultation paper. I got approximately 4,000 signatures on Saturday and a couple of thousand signatures in previous petitions, and I submit them now.

ST MARYS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from St Marys Memorial Hospital in the town of St Marys:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the Huron-Perth District Health Council, the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the Minister of Health to support continuation of St Marys Memorial Hospital with acute and chronic beds and 24-hour emergency services to effectively serve the St Marys and area community."

It's signed by about 4,000 people.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the students and staff of St Francis Xavier Catholic High School in Hammond, Ontario, are firm in our commitment to maintain our separate school system,

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

"To work towards the preservation of our constitutional right to a Catholic education and to impress upon the current government the impact of additional cuts on every student in every school."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by 1,813 citizens of Lambton county. It's addressed to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Since publicly funded education is a key investment in the future of all Ontario citizens;

"We, the undersigned residents of Lambton county, wish to state that we believe across-the-board funding reductions are having a negative impact on the quality of education for students in the classrooms of Lambton county, and that we believe full, open and ongoing consultation between the government of Ontario and its citizens on publicly funded education is absolutely necessary."

I'm signing the petition.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have some more petitions with regard to the Barrhaven high schools in my constituency.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas the National Capital Commission's greenbelt severs the community of Barrhaven from Nepean, forcing many students to take potentially dangerous, unsupervised, hour-long trips on public transportation in order to travel to school;

"Whereas Nepean's high schools are significantly overcrowded;

"Whereas both the Carleton Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board have undertaken significant cost-saving measures to help reduce the construction costs of these high schools;

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

"We strongly urge the Minister of Education to recognize the unique educational needs of Nepean and provide the funding required to build both of the proposed high schools for Barrhaven."

I put my own signature thereto.

CLOSURE OF VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "The government's proposed closure of the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton and the placement of all provincial women prisoners into a superjail is both foolish and costly. The Vanier centre is a dedicated facility for women, which has developed programs specific to the needs of women.

"A woman's reality is substantially different from that of a man, due in large part to her perceived secondary status in society. Female offenders are almost invariably victims of male violence. They experience low self-esteem and have not developed the ability to act on their own behalf. Women offenders typically have depended upon men or society to maintain themselves economically. They're often caught up in destructive lifestyles that lack purpose and reason.

"Vanier is a unique facility which provides specialized programs to deal with issues like physical and sexual abuse, lack of trust in relationships and low personal aspirations. Based upon compassion and understanding between staff and offenders, the Vanier program provides support, role modelling, behaviour modification and problem-solving skills. Offenders in the Vanier program are 15% less likely to reoffend than offenders who receive no treatment.

"The Vanier Centre is a facility whose success in preventing recidivism is proven. The cost of effective corrections at the provincial level must be balanced with the cost of recidivism if specialized programs are not provided.

"How shameful for the government to even contemplate destroying this facility and its program with a move to the proposed superjails, where the ratio of prisoners to specialized staff will be lowered --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Sault St Marie, that was a petition, was it? Okay, thank you.

OC TRANSPO

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition from Jodi Page of Nepean which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We think that OC Transpo should not be allowed to go on strike."

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

That's signed by many of my constituents from Webequie, Sandy Lake, Sioux Lookout and throughout the northwest. I attach my name to that as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Minister of Education promised that cuts to education would not hurt the classroom;

"Whereas the cuts to education have resulted in many of our very young children being housed in inadequate, poorly ventilated portables;

"Whereas the children who are housed in portable classrooms that occupy crowded school yards are educationally at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current moratorium on capital expenditures makes it impossible for some school boards to provide safe, comfortable learning environments for our children, thus adversely affecting the quality of their education;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed that $250 million be spent on building a superjail while withholding funds for necessary school construction;

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

"Remove the freeze on capital expenditures to ensure that our children are educated in buildings appropriate and conducive to learning, comfort and safety."

I attach my name to that petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the quality of care for residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged is being directly and adversely affected by the funding policies of the Mike Harris Conservative government;

"Whereas the funding deficiencies are forcing these institutions to reduce available staff assistance to residents to unacceptable levels;

"Whereas the user taxes placed on prescription drugs unfairly discriminate against residents of nursing homes;

"Whereas the residents of these institutions are the very people who built this great province and country;

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

"To provide adequate funding for long-term-care institutions and eliminate the user taxes on prescription drugs for seniors."

This is signed by my constituents mostly from the Manitoulin district.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Wildman has moved adjournment of the House. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1502 to 1532.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Wildman has moved the adjournment of the House.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): They ayes are 27, the nays are 63.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Mr Speaker, I move that we do now proceed to orders of the day.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1534 to 1604.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the members take their seats.

Mr Hudak has moved that we proceed to orders of the day. All those in favour please rise and remain standing. Please take your seats.

All those opposed please rise and remain standing. Please take your seats.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 63; the nays are 24.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr Runciman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm proud today to speak about this government's Fire Protection and Prevention Act, Bill 84. This bill will enable municipalities to provide all Ontarians with the best possible level of protection from fire.

Bill 84 makes Ontario a fire safety leader in Canada and it is long overdue. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the issue of fire services is finally being brought forward to legislative debate. Previous governments have launched reviews but have consistently declined to take action. Our government, on the other hand, is demonstrating our fundamental commitment to fire safety in Ontario through the tabling of this bill.

You will hear from the opposition that the Ministry of the Solicitor General did not consult with firefighters prior to the introduction of Bill 84, but a brief history of this issue should address those concerns.

The Fire Departments Act was last amended in 1949, just after the end of the Second World War. Since that time, as we all know, the province of Ontario has grown substantially in size and complexity, and yet Ontario's fire legislation has remained unchanged.

The need to update fire legislation first emerged in 1969, and the Attorney General of the day received submissions for amendments.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General began its review in 1973. Specific action wasn't taken at that time, I'm told, because a workable consensus among all the stakeholders could not be reached.

That review was reinitiated in 1983, but once again consensus could not be achieved among the stakeholders in the fire community. They failed to agree.

The most recent round of consultations began in 1989 under the former Liberal government when the Fire Services Review Committee was established. This committee included representatives from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, which represents Ontario's 18,000 volunteer firefighters, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That was in 1989 under the former Liberal government.

The committee met on a number of occasions in 1990, and then in 1991 under a new government, the New Democratic government. The staff report on the committee's work was distributed for comment in the spring of 1993. All stakeholders, including the professional fire fighters' associations, provided written responses to this report. I do not know why --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This whole bill is a result of our consultation.

Hon Mr Runciman: Many, many years of consultation, and I'm addressing that whole question with respect to opposition contentions that consultation did not take place. There's been consultation over a significant period of years with all of the stakeholders involved and all of the various governments involved, both the earlier Progressive Conservative government, the Liberal government and the last government, the NDP government. That report, as I said, was distributed for comment in the spring of 1993.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): So your bill is the same bill that we would have introduced.

Hon Mr Runciman: Well, you had an opportunity. The member interjects that this is legislation they would have introduced. I'm sure he was not sincere in that comment, but the point I wish to make is that following receipt of that report in 1993, the NDP remained in power until June 1995 and had ample opportunity to respond to that report and introduce legislation that perhaps was more in keeping with their philosophical inclinations. They declined to do so, for reasons known best to them -- perhaps that will come out during the course of this debate -- but certainly they had ample opportunity, following those consultations, to introduce legislation, and declined to do so.

Instead of introducing legislation, the former government chose to initiate yet another round of consultations, which began in the summer of 1994 -- every several years a round of consultations -- hoping to achieve consensus. We're dealing with legislation almost 50 years of age, and over the course of numerous governments, numerous consultations --

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The thing I liked about Bill Davis on separate schools was that consultation was short and brief.

Hon Mr Runciman: By the minister who introduced the legislation, as a matter of fact, although we still get the flak for it.

After the 1995 election, when our party formed the government, and prior to the election as well, we indicated quite clearly that we were prepared to take action on this matter, which had just lingered, lingered and lingered for decade after decade, consultation after consultation.

In 1995, I distributed the fire marshal's report on legislative reform to all of the fire stakeholders for comment. That's called consultation. The fire marshal's report on legislative reform was circulated to all of the various stakeholders, and all of those participants, including the professional firefighters' associations, provided written responses. Follow-up meetings were held -- again, ongoing consultation. Meetings were held to clarify the positions of all of the organizations on legislative reform.

Once again, I think we all recognize there may not be a consensus, and we have been unable to achieve consensus. All governments have been unable to achieve consensus, and we have not either with respect to all of the items in Bill 84, but our government feels strongly that it is important to bring this matter forward so that members of the Legislature can fully debate fire services reform.

While there may not be a total consensus, I want to indicate to all members that I have received a large number of supportive letters from fire chiefs, municipal governments and favourable editorial comments that have urged the government to modernize the framework for fire protection and prevention in Ontario.

Mr Conway: What did the Prescott Journal say? They have been hard on you lately.

Hon Mr Runciman: I don't know, responding to the interjection, whether or not the Prescott Journal has commented on that. I doubt that they have, because I am a dedicated reader of that particular newspaper, fine journal that it is.

Mr Conway: They've been complaining about not seeing much of you on the main street lately.

Hon Mr Runciman: That will be corrected shortly, I assure you.

In my own riding of Leeds-Grenville, the Brockville fire chief, Harold Tulk, said to the government, "The government deserves credit for taking the initiative to bring in a balanced approach." That's according to Chief Harold Tulk of the Brockville Fire Department. Duane Foshay, the city of Trenton's fire chief, said: "The old acts served us well but were designed for another time. These revisions have been needed for many years."

A recent editorial in the Sault Star -- I'm not sure what the political editorial leanings of the Sault Star are --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Conrad owns it now. Conrad's for this legislation.

Hon Mr Runciman: In any event, the Sault Star editorially said, with respect to Bill 84, "A commendable initiative by the Ontario government."

I have yet to be made aware of any editorial complaint of any of the dailies or weeklies in this province with respect to Bill 84. But if there is one, I'm sure it will arise in the course of this debate.

Mr Bisson: Here it is, from the Enterprise out of Iroquois Falls.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'll look forward to reading that. Our goal in creating this bill is that it be a well-considered piece of legislation which sets the foundation for making Ontario a fire safety leader by ensuring that fire prevention and fire safety education are balanced with fire suppression capabilities that meet the needs of every corner of this province. I want to be perfectly clear. We have listened to the concerns of municipalities, of fire chiefs, of firefighters and their unions about Bill 84, and we are still listening, because we want this bill to be the best fire services legislation possible.

I've indicated on a number of occasions this legislation is not etched in stone. I've indicated a clear willingness as much as I can to participate in the hearings process, and if indeed we hear proposals that will improve this legislation, we're very receptive to hearing that and making those changes if indeed they come forward.

With respect to this matter as well, that is why the Ontario fire marshal, ministry officials, my staff and I have met with both the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters and the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association on a number of occasions. We recognize the enormous contribution that professional firefighters make to our communities in keeping all of us safe.

I just recently indicated to the firefighters' association that I will be meeting with them early in the new year to once again discuss their concerns. I spoke to the professional firefighters on November 21, and at that time I let them know that the government was supportive of public hearings on Bill 84 and that we wanted to provide an opportunity through the legislative process to hear their concerns about this important new legislation. The message of this government to firefighters is clear: We want your input.

This includes the province's volunteer firefighters. Approximately 18,000 of Ontario's 25,000 firefighters are volunteers. They represent a $1-billion asset for this province, and we intend to ensure that the volunteer system is supported and enhanced through this bill. A number of members of our party have served in volunteer fire departments. I believe, Mr Speaker, you may have served in a volunteer service. A number of your colleagues have; I'm well aware of that.

One I can mention is the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, Mr Fox, a fine gentleman and an outstanding member of this Legislature, a founding member and a former chief of the Sophiasburgh township volunteer fire department, a department that the member Mr Fox served on for, I understand, 23 years. I know that other members of our caucus -- I believe Mr Danford, the member for Hastings-Peterborough, has also served on a volunteer service.

I can also indicate that one of my daughters, my youngest daughter, also serves as a volunteer firefighter in the Front of Yonge township and has served as a firefighter in the past for the Ministry of Natural Resources in fighting forest fires, including when the member for Algoma was the minister. In fact he was introduced to her on one occasion. I'm not sure when he was introduced and she mentioned her name, Runciman, he did give her a second look, but beyond that, she kept her job so we're pleased with that.

Mr Conway: In the old days this would raise the hint of patronage, but not in this new world.

Hon Mr Runciman: Absolutely out of the question.

So I have certainly some understanding, a number of volunteer fire departments in my own riding, wonderful people who have a real, true commitment to their community, the finest citizenship with respect to their contribution and their voluntary contribution, in many instances putting their lives on the line for their fellow community residents. We're very, very proud of all firefighters, but I wanted to especially mention the role of the approximately 18,000 firefighters who volunteer their services.

My priority, as the minister in this role, the Solicitor General, is public safety, and that includes safety from death, serious injury and losses caused by fire. It's a role I take very seriously, and data gathered over the years by the office of the fire marshal indicates that 80% of fires are accidental and could have been avoided with improved fire prevention and public education.

In the past 25 years fire fatalities have dropped 60%, largely due to an increase in fire prevention and public education, such as the introduction of the Ontario fire code, the distribution of smoke alarms and other prevention tools. We must not stop there. Last year 142 people died as a result of fire. This tragic statistic reveals that more must be done to protect the public. In fact, over 30 coroner's juries have called for a more coordinated approach to fire safety and fire protection to help save lives.

That's why Ontario's fire services must emphasize fire prevention and public education. They are essential components to ensuring effective fire protective services throughout this province, and I'm proud to say that with this bill we are taking action to create safer Ontario communities.

Under Bill 84 Ontario will be the first province to make fire prevention and public education mandatory. Most deaths occur at home, at night, when the occupants are asleep. Many deaths occur where there is no working smoke alarm, and we must prevent fires from occurring, but when they do occur, they must be detected early and people must know how to react when the smoke alarm sounds.

The legislation will permit municipalities to enter into automatic aid agreements with neighbouring municipalities. There has been some controversy with respect to this particular element of the bill, but this is not requiring municipalities to enter these kinds of agreements; it's permitting them to enter into automatic aid agreements with neighbouring municipalities. This makes a great deal of sense, because what it does effectively is allow the nearest fire department, regardless of the municipal boundaries, to respond to an alarm. Automatic aid will give municipalities the tools they need to increase public safety while maximizing the resources available to them.

I can give you a situation. If a municipality in Metro Toronto -- there's a municipal boundary, and if there's a fire station two blocks into another municipality, they do not have first response. If there's a fire within that municipality, their fire station may be seven, eight, nine minutes away. We know those first few minutes in terms of response are critical in saving lives and catching the fire before it can grow.

Having the ability to have the closest fire station, regardless of municipal boundaries, respond on a first-response basis makes sense to all of us when we're talking about public safety. Again, we have made this permissive in the legislation. We are not overriding agreements. We're encouraging it to take place and encouraging municipalities and fire services across the province to take a careful look at automatic aid, initially as a public safety measure, of course, but also to achieve efficiencies where they can be achieved and at the same time improve public safety.

This bill will also establish the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council in legislation. This will enhance private sector participation in the delivery of fire safety education. It will clarify the role of the province and the municipalities in delivering fire services. The bill will also bring common sense to the way fire services are organized on the ground in the municipalities so that fire safety is delivered in the most economical and practical way.

I'd now like to take some time to discuss the details of the bill and how they address each of the important areas I've touched on.

This government has created a new framework for fire protection in Ontario to improve public safety, streamline services and reduce costs. The proposed act does that by consolidating nine separate statutes: the Fire Departments Act, the Fire Marshals Act, the Hotel Fire Safety Act, the Firefighters Protection Act, 1993, the Lightning Rods Act, the Egress from Public Buildings Act, the Firefighters Exemption Act, the Accidental Fires Act and the Fire Accidents Act.

Mr Wildman: Lightning rods? What about the nimrods act?

Hon Mr Runciman: That might put some people in this place in jeopardy. I won't say who.

Some of these acts are so old, they're clearly irrelevant. For example, the outdated Egress from Public Buildings Act deals with specific issues already covered in the fire code, so that means the egress act has been irrelevant since 1980 when the fire code was first introduced. There's too much red tape in fire services legislation, and that's best exemplified by the fact that we currently have an Accidental Fires Act and a Fire Accidents Act.

I again have to emphasize the fact that this bill makes us a leader in terms of fire safety, because we will be the first province to impose mandatory fire prevention and public education. This sends a clear message that prevention and public education are the most important factors for fire safety in Ontario today.

The member for Renfrew North was mentioning earlier the Brockville Recorder and Times. I have here --

Mr Conway: A fine paper, George Graham's old paper.

Hon Mr Runciman: Yes, Senator George Graham. What party did Senator Graham represent?

Mr Conway: More important, he was from Eganville. There was a time when the Recorder was a Liberal paper, I want to state for the record.

Hon Mr Runciman: The occasions have been few and far between when the paper editorially supported the Progressive Conservative Party, although I must indicate that in the last election, like most dailies and weeklies in the province, they did indeed support the now governing party. They're very objective, I must say, with respect to their editorial comment and are not always supportive of every initiative undertaken or perhaps contemplated by this government. But in this particular instance, with respect to Bill 84, the Recorder and Times said:

"The legislation contains measures that fire officials across the province have been demanding for years, such as the requirement for municipalities to implement fire prevention and public education programs." It's a very strong endorsement with respect to the remainder of the editorial, and perhaps I will put that on the record later.

I want to say that the beauty of this legislation is that it won't cost taxpayers more money. It's actually designed to save money by providing municipalities with the unique opportunity to use the money saved through restructuring to improve public safety. To enhance these efforts, the province will support the best possible level of safety from fire at the lowest possible cost.

The fire marshal's office will work closely with all municipalities, especially with smaller communities, to provide them with the materials they need to implement solid fire protection and prevention programs.

I want to stress that while this bill allows municipalities to determine what will best suit their own needs, the province will not allow any action which could present a serious threat to public safety. The fire marshal will have the authority to review municipal fire protection and, should there be a serious threat to public safety, make recommendations to council on how these deficiencies could be addressed. That said, we are confident that municipalities will make the right choices and decisions for providing fire services and fire safety in their own communities.

One of the many welcome things the proposed legislation does is give the Public Fire Safety Council legal status. This will enable the council to attract more private sector partners and it will also allow it to expand the council's opportunities to provide public education to all Ontarians. The council -- I believe it was brought in by the previous government -- has been doing an outstanding job in this regard in terms of recognizing individuals, children who have been involved in a variety of programs sponsored by local fire departments.

I'm not sure if members across the way -- I know in opposition I had a number of opportunities to attend the council presentations. This year a number of children were rewarded with recognition, in many instances for saving lives. This also complemented the local fire service in their particular municipality, which was very involved in fire safety education. It's the programs and lessons that these children learned through the programs offered by their own fire service which gave them the information, the tools necessary to make the right decisions in very difficult situations for very young people that ultimately saved lives; in one instance, saved the life of a parent.

There's no question that this council has, in its brief tenure, provided a needed service. With an expanded role, which this legislation will allow and encourage, it will indeed expand opportunities to provide public education to each and every resident of this province.

In fact, the council was brought in in 1993, I see on a note here, and I compliment the previous government for this initiative. Since 1993, the council has played a key role in promoting partnerships with community groups, fire service organizations and the private sector to raise awareness and better educate the public about fire safety. Again, with this enhanced role they will be able to provide materials to all municipalities that require assistance at no cost to those municipalities. As you can see, the council's membership will be representing and has represented a variety of partners, all working towards a common goal: preventing fires.

To date, the office of the fire marshal has been successful in raising funds for public education activities through the council. Although there have been many successes, the council's inability to contract in its own name prevented it from entering into agreements or handling and distributing money. This in turn made it difficult for the council to enter into partnerships with private firms. Bill 84, the bill we're debating today, will give the council the ability to operate separately from government in financial and contractual matters. The council will also be able to receive private donations and engage in partnership activities.

A public education fund will also be set up to develop and put in place province-wide public education programs -- again, I want to reiterate, at no cost to the taxpayers of this province.

Most importantly, the changes will improve public safety by ensuring that the public receives a continual and consistent message making people aware of fire safety hazards, emphasizing individual responsibility and providing appropriate information to protect Ontarians from fire.

This bill is designed to improve the safety of all Ontarians, regardless of where they live and regardless of whether their community has professional firefighters or volunteer firefighters. As I said earlier, volunteer firefighters are a valuable asset to this province. Under the new act, the mandate of the office of the fire marshal will be strengthened to provide better firefighter training, giving volunteers the support they need to function effectively. The fire marshal's Public Fire Safety Council will help support the volunteer system by making sure they have the materials they need for public education.

In other words, this bill gives volunteer firefighters the extra support they need to keep up the excellent work they already provide to this province.

The legislation will allow municipalities to improve safety and reduce costs by matching effective prevention and public education with an appropriate and affordable level of fire suppression.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act complements the government's municipal restructuring program by balancing municipal involvement in fire service delivery with provincial support. Bill 84 gives municipalities the flexibility to arrange fire protection services based on their own needs and circumstances. In the words of Barrie fire chief Jim Lexieux -- I hope I pronounced that correctly, Chief -- "I like the flexibility it allows."

Ontarians living in isolated rural and northern areas may ask, "How does this bill help me?" They will be happy to hear that this legislation will improve public safety for all Ontario municipalities, including isolated rural and northern communities. For the first time it provides unincorporated communities in the north with the authority they need for effective fire prevention and fire safety education. In those areas the traditional focus of fire suppression has not and will not provide the necessary level of public safety.

This bill gives them the means to take advantage of technology and place more emphasis on early warning systems and escape plans, and they can do this all through effective prevention and public education.

Another important issue dealt with in the bill, and I spoke to this briefly, is automatic aid, and this is the concept of allowing the closest fire station to respond to an emergency regardless of municipal borders. Currently some cities have their respective fire stations and equipment located immediately adjacent to a municipal border, so if a fire occurred in a specific area of one municipality, a fire department of the neighbouring municipality may be able to respond faster. But because of the way things are structured now, they cannot, and I think, as I said earlier, all of us would agree that that is simply ridiculous, a situation that cannot continue to exist.

When lives are at stake it shouldn't matter which fire department responds, and these changes will make it easier for municipalities to arrange automatic aid arrangements with their neighbours. It's only common sense that whoever can get there faster should respond, and we expect and are confident that municipalities will work together to improve public safety.

I know in my discussions with professional firefighters as well on this issue, I think their primary concern was a misunderstanding that the government was requiring municipalities to enter into automatic aid agreements, that we were somehow overriding contracts that were already in place with respect to questions like this. Again, that is clearly not the case. We're certainly encouraging municipalities to take a look at these kinds of issues because we think they are very helpful in terms of public safety, and second, of achieving efficiencies within their operations.

We are already starting to see positive examples of neighbouring municipalities working together on this particular front. I'm pleased to say that approximately 15 fire departments in Essex county are very close to finalizing an automatic aid agreement that could serve as a model for the province as a whole, and they hope to initiate the agreement early in the new year. We're confident that municipalities, fire departments and professional firefighters will continue to work together to improve the safety of all Ontarians.

Of course, public safety has to remain as our top priority, and if we do find problems in the future, we reserve the right and are prepared to act to ensure cooperation with neighbouring fire departments.

As you can see, it is this government's goal to create a whole new framework for fire protection in Ontario, and this clearly and obviously requires updating and modernizing many aspects of Ontario legislation, including labour law for firefighters. As I said, labour relations legislation for firefighters has not been updated since 1948, and obviously many aspects need to be changed and updated to reflect modern labour relations practices.

The changes in this bill will bring the fire services more in line with other labour legislation in the province. Again, I have to stress the key issue here isn't labour relations or job security; it's public safety and security. I know there have been some concerns with this, and I will get into them in a few moments, but I know that firefighters and their unions will be supportive of legislation that enhances the safety of both the public and firefighters.

I have met with professional firefighters in my own riding and I'm quite well aware of some of the concerns that they have with respect to labour aspects of the bill. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, they can rest assured that the committee hearings on Bill 84 will be a real and a meaningful forum to hear their concerns. The comments and concerns which firefighters express during public hearings will be taken into consideration during the legislative process.

I am confident that once all the stakeholders look at the package as a whole they will appreciate that, on balance, these changes are fair and reasonable and will improve public safety. This bill ensures people's skills and talents will be arranged and managed in a way that will better serve the public, and that in itself will improve public and firefighter safety.

Again I want to emphasize that any changes made by this legislation will be fair, and I'm confident and expect that all members of the fire service, including firefighters, will continue to work together to create safer communities for all Ontarians.

There are a number of the issues I'd just like to take a few moments to discuss with members, because I know that these are concerns that have been raised by a number of individuals, including members of the opposition, and some of these concerns certainly have been brought to the attention of members of the government as well.

The number one concern is related to collective bargaining rights. Bill 84 does not take away firefighters' collective bargaining rights. In fact, we have actually added a conciliation procedure to increase the chances of negotiated settlements. With respect to collective bargaining rights, the bill also provides arbitrators with comprehensive new powers to subpoena documents and witnesses, and we have provided firefighters with more choice as to who will represent them.

Another issue, and I've talked about this, is lack of consultation. Again, I'll put it on the record: Consultation has been occurring for almost 30 years, the most recent around in 1989, again in 1990 and 1991, again in 1993; and I asked for input in 1995 with respect to the fire marshal's report, so very significant and extensive consultation.

I'm not sure why the Solicitor General of the last regime did not act on the report he had in hand, but he didn't. I gather with an election approaching they felt that perhaps it may have created some dangers with respect to support they were counting on in the labour community. I'm not sure. Perhaps the members opposite can elaborate on that when they have an opportunity to speak to this legislation.

I want to say again that I'm confident that we can all work together, both sides of this House, the fire chiefs, the municipalities, the firefighters, both volunteer and within the professional ranks. We can all work together to create safer communities for all Ontarians. I feel quite strongly that the Fire Protection and Prevention Act will create a safer Ontario for everyone and it will save lives, and safety has to be the bottom line for each and every one of us in this chamber.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr Bradley: The minister did not mention the thousands of firefighters who were on the front lawn of Queen's Park. I remember being outside the Parliament Building with the president of the St Catharines firefighters association, Mr Colburn, and Mr Carpenter, the Ontario president, was on the stage. These are individuals who ordinarily aren't taken to protesting, but they were very concerned that this government was abrogating contracts, or potentially abrogating contracts, and attempting to change the labour relations part of this legislation, to the detriment of the firefighters.

They were particularly concerned because on no occasion have they ever threatened to engage in a strike action, that is withdrawal of their services, or any other action that would be detrimental to firefighting in this province. They have it in fact in their constitution, and it is their policy not to strike. In consideration of that, I thought it an insult that the province would then turn around and withdraw that particular right that they might have when they had voluntarily forgone that right.

What they were asking for is full public hearings across the province. I, as the House leader of the official opposition, insisted in our meetings with the government House leader that there be full and comprehensive public hearings and not simply here in Toronto but that they be in communities across the province so that firefighters could have a meaningful input into this legislation. Well, there has been some peripheral consultation that has taken place, in their view; there has not been direct consultation in a timely fashion. They hope that they can persuade the government, as I do, that some of the provisions of this legislation are detrimental to fire safety in this province.

While the third party and our party have fought for that and have been able to gain that from the government, we are nevertheless going to want to scrutinize this legislation very carefully and allow for those public hearings so we can have that input.

Mr Bisson: I'm going to have the opportunity in about an hour's time to debate this bill more fully on behalf of my party, but I wanted to direct a couple of questions to the Solicitor General on his opening comments.

The Solicitor General took the time at the very beginning of his speech to try to say and try to put on this façade that he's consulted thoroughly the people of Ontario and all stakeholders in regard to this legislation. We know for a fact that the firefighters of this province have not been consulted such as the minister says they have.

In fact, we had over 1,000 firefighters, closer to 2,000, out before this Legislature on the front lawn about a month ago, where they all came from across the province of Ontario, from Timmins, from Kirkland Lake, from places around Toronto, Ottawa and different areas, who said the minister had not been listening and that they'd been urging the minister to at the very least withdraw certain sections of this bill that they find to be quite offensive.

I would say to the minister, in a question put to him directly by Marion Boyd, the critic for our party, he had engaged to go into public committee and into a legislative committee in order to deal with those issues that firefighters say have not been heard by them, they have not been suggested by firefighters. Is the minister still prepared to go to a legislative committee with this bill so that there can be a full hearing and firefighters across this province have an opportunity to have their say? I would particularly like that bill to at least come to northeastern Ontario, to Timmins, because there are many firefighters in Timmins who want to be able to speak on this bill.

But then he has the gall to say, "We have consulted thoroughly as a government," and for that reason he didn't need to move forward. I just want to take a quote here from the last election by Mike Harris, the then leader of the third party, who's quoted as saying this: "We have serious concerns about some of the changes that are being contemplated with respect to the Fire Departments Act. No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted." That has not happened, Minister.

What do you say to the firefighters watching in the city of Timmins today, Bill Laffin and others who wonder, about that particular point of the bill that you haven't spoken on?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today and join with Minister Runciman speaking on Bill 84. I know over the last several weeks I have visited and spoken with many of the firefighters in my riding of Durham East, and they really do as a group exemplify a professional group of people who are concerned that the legislation does not address some of their needs.

I find it rather confusing. When I was first introduced to this, the fire chiefs of Ontario issued a videotape. I'm sure all members got a copy of that. That was one side of the argument. But as I speak with the members from the Whitby and Clarington fire departments, I know what they really want is an opportunity to meet and discuss with the minister. It's my understanding that he's trying to do that.

I want to commend the firefighters in every riding in Ontario and indeed, as the minister said today, the volunteers. In my riding of Durham East, for the large

part it has been principally a volunteer organization with a main force operating primarily in one area of the municipality. But with growth it's rapidly changing, and in fact I think this bill is looking at the changes in technology and the changes that have been in place in the last while. If you look at prevention and the decreased number of accidents -- and indeed most of the firefighters tell me that they spend much of their time in education and safety training.

I think it's time the legislation was modernized, as the minister said. There are several acts being joined together here. I'm certain at the end of the day we'll have a better, more up-to-date piece of legislation that fills the needs of both the taxpayers and the firefighters of Ontario.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was also interested in the minister's comments. I was especially interested in the tone. He was much livelier when he was on this side of the House. His Nytol type of speech was quite interesting.

I want to say to him that I too took notice of the 1,000 or 2,000 firefighters that were on the lawn who were less than enthusiastic with the minister's approach to this bill and very concerned that we actually do have full, comprehensive public hearings.

I had Mr Walker of the Elliot Lake firefighters in my office in Elliot Lake just last Friday, as a matter of fact, to discuss these issues. Fully a third of the Elliot Lake firefighters participated on the front lawn here. That is a considerable journey for them to make. They wanted to let the minister know that there were portions of this act that were just not acceptable to them and that they wanted the opportunity to come before public hearings either in the Sault or in Sudbury so that they would have the opportunity to put their points of view across to him.

I want to say, as the MNR critic, one of the parts of this downloading we're now seeing by the provincial government, the provincial government now more and more insisting that municipalities take over some of the functions of the Ministry of Natural Resources vis-à-vis firefighting on crown lands, basically forest firefighting, is of concern to many municipalities and to firefighters. They're wondering if they're equipped to do this type of work, and they're wondering whether they can afford to do this type of