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

February 19, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L165 - Wed 19 Feb 1997 / Mer 19 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

JIM AND MERLE BYRNES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

TOWN HALL MEETING

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

OPPOSITION PARTIES

LEGISLATIVE PAGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

CHARITY GAMING

TAX REBATES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRUCK SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WCB PREMIUMS

RENT REGULATION

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

INTERGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY PROJECT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I rise today to inform the House of the enormously successful meeting on the megacity held in the great, thriving city of Scarborough last evening. Over 1,000 concerned citizens, businesses and ratepayers jammed the council chambers and overflowing areas to send a clear message to this conceited and pompous government, outlining their fears and concerns on this mega-assault on their democratic rights.

My leader, Dalton McGuinty, forcefully highlighted the dangers and pitfalls of this demonic downloading on to the local taxpayers and the irreparable harm this action will cause.

It was unfortunate that the Premier was unable to make time in his busy

schedule to address the very real concerns and fears of the citizens, thus delegating the propaganda peddling to the member for Scarborough East, Steve Gilchrist.

This costly initiative and forced action without proper process and debate has been greeted with all the joy and euphoria of a root canal operation. This entire exercise is typical of the arrogance of this out-of-touch government. The more Mike Harris forces the downloading exercise the more organized the people of the greater Toronto area become to preserve their individual communities.

I want to thank all those for coming out and further encourage them to continue their fight. It is the galvanizing of that participation that will make the Premier understand that democracy will indeed rule the day in Scarborough.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thousands of people in Niagara, including folks from Welland and Thorold, have expressed their opposition and continue to do so against Bill 84, this government's attack on professional firefighting services in each and every one of our communities in this province.

People recognize that this is part of an overall plan on the part of this government to privatize valued and important public services including professional firefighting. This government has an agenda which is very much to Americanize the province of Ontario, and part of that Americanization of public services is going to be the prospect of privatization of firefighting services. Bill 84 opens the door to privatization -- make no mistake about it -- and the lives and safety of communities, residents of those communities, their children, workers, seniors and firefighters' are very much at stake.

The fact is that Bill 84, as proposed by this government, is going to let big American companies come into Ontario and take over our local fire departments, just as American companies have been coming in and taking over ambulance services. Just as this government has been paying big bucks, megabucks, to American firms, be they consulting firms or highway construction firms, to come in here and take away Ontarians' jobs, Bill 84 is going to permit and invite American companies to come in and take over local firefighting services.

In the United States there has been nothing but problems and tragedy as the result of for-profit firefighting. We don't need those problems here. We in this caucus are opposed to Bill 84. We're insisting that this government take its hearings across the province so it can learn what real Ontarians think about its savage attack on firefighting services.

JIM AND MERLE BYRNES

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I rise today to draw the attention of members to the generosity of Mr and Mrs Jim and Merle Byrnes of Hamilton, who recently donated $25,000 to the Hamilton regional firefighters. This remarkable gift will make possible the purchase of a state-of-the-art thermal imaging camera for use in fire rescue work in the Hamilton area. The equipment allows firefighters to scan smoke-filled areas and douse small fires before they become major blazes. It also allows firefighters to locate victims who might otherwise be lost, allowing them to save lives and reduce the number of deaths.

Mr and Mrs Byrnes are not wealthy by any means. They are ordinary taxpaying individuals who wanted to contribute to their community. They are a retired couple who saw a need in the community, a community they love, and they came forward with eagerness to do their part and help out. I know I speak for all Hamiltonians when I say thank you to Mr and Mrs Byrnes for their contribution. It is very much appreciated by the Hamilton firefighters and all the community people in Hamilton-Wentworth.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The people of Ontario are becoming increasingly concerned, and justifiably so, at the unsafe conditions confronting them on our provincial highways. Unplowed, unsalted and unsanded roads, flying tires and wheels, broken pavement and slippery surfaces face motorists who dare to venture out on to Ontario's highways in these days of senseless provincial government funding cuts. The unease and uncertainty in the minds of Ontario drivers is understandable when they read about and witness tragic accidents, some of them fatal and some of them resulting in serious injury.

It is essential that the Harris government stop leaving motorists vulnerable to damage, death and injury when they use Ontario highways in winter. When snow and sleet make our highways dangerous for motorists, the transportation ministry should ensure that plowing, salting and sanding operations begin immediately.

It's time that the Minister of Transportation converted his tough talk into tough action when it comes to dealing with flying tires and wheels. Drastically increased fines, revoked licences, vehicles removed from the roads and jail sentences for the worst offenders are needed now. Mindless funding cuts that jeopardize public safety and place lives in danger should not be sacrificed to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our society.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take the opportunity today to bring back to the Legislature the concerns from the citizens of the city of Timmins that I've been getting on a very regular basis now, I would say over the last couple of months. I've received at my constituency office literally hundreds of letters, and I'll be bringing them to the House here later in debate, about Bill 84, about this government's attack on firefighters in this province and the government's attempt to move to open the door of privatization to firefighters, legislation that I think will turn the clock back in many ways, to the professional firefighters that we see today in Ontario.

Citizens are concerned. Why? Because it's an issue of public safety. People understand that firefighters offer a very, very important service to our communities in making sure that if the fire happens, they are there at our beck and call and they are there to protect us. The citizens who have been contacting me have been saying they very much wonder what's going to happen after Bill 84. The citizens of this province are very wise, as they are in Cochrane South, because they read the legislation, Bill 84, and take the time to inform themselves.

I've had a number of inquiries at my office wanting to get details on Bill 84 and all I've done is to give people copies of the legislation. People are very concerned about the direction the government is taking us vis-à-vis fire protection. So on behalf of the citizens, I ask the government to think seriously about this move that it's making on this attack against firefighters in the province.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): On behalf of all Ontarians, I want to salute and thank the thousands of volunteers from Toronto and my home town of Collingwood for making this year's Special Olympics a truly memorable event for the athletes and their families.

With a population of 12,000 people, Collingwood, like its founder, Admiral Collingwood, provided nearly 2,000 volunteers who spent hundreds of thousands of hours of their time planning and implementing every aspect of the games at Collingwood. Throughout the eight days of competition and evening social events, Collingwood lived up to its reputation as a world-renowned town excelling in tourism and hospitality.

I had the pleasure to participate by presenting some of the medals to very worthy athletes. I would like to commend all those athletes who participated in the games and the many organizers and volunteers who made the Special Olympics a success for Collingwood and Canada. My sincerest congratulations go out to everyone involved in a job well done. I am truly proud to call Collingwood my home town.

TOWN HALL MEETING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a letter to a local newspaper entitled "MPP Town Hall Meeting an Insult." It's an open letter to David Turnbull, MPP, York Mills, which says:

"You invited us, the residents of York Mills riding, to attend a town hall meeting on the amalgamation of Metro Toronto.

"`Come and voice your opinion -- speak with your MPP,' stated the flyer.

"At the meeting you and your guest (assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs Al Leach) Steve Gilchrist, talked at us.

"You only allowed written questions, which you carefully screened.

"You emphatically stated, `This is my meeting,' when attendees asked to verbalize and express their thoughts.

"You did not allow us to converse with you, nor voice our views.

"This evening, as I reflect on this town hall meeting of yours, I feel very unrepresented by my MPP.

"I do not believe that you are working to represent the people of York Mills when you do not allow them to speak with you.

"You and Gilchrist insulted my intelligence and made me regret that I attended your meeting."

This is a huge statement on the government's listening to the people of Ontario.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to share with you my growing concern about the moving force of this whole phenomenon of privatization that's taken hold across this province. It's becoming the panacea for everything. I don't think people fully understand the impact it will have on communities and on families and on workers across this province. No matter how you look at it, it is a diminishing of the ability of hardworking, highly trained and very committed individuals who have spent years of their working lives training and learning how to do their job.

They will in some instances not have their job any more, and in other instances, when they do have their job, by way of competing for it in the private sector, it will not pay as much, and by that demean the contribution that person can and will and continues to make to the very fabric of life, the quality of life in our community.

When I look at the areas that are being targeted -- firefighters, ambulance workers, school support staff, and the list goes on -- I become very concerned. But in my community particularly the privatization of the lottery corporation is of particular concern. We're trying to diversify the economy. The lottery corporation is an important part of the industrial base of Sault Ste Marie and it will be gone if this happens.

OPPOSITION PARTIES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to comment on the ongoing opposition attacks to our government's Who Does What proposals. Recently the Liberal Party began its caucus tour of the province in order to hold public hearings on our government's proposed changes. It seems rather strange to me that an opposition party that held up debate on Bill 103 through political games, which simply meant a delay in holding public hearings, has suddenly become the party of the people. What nonsense.

Our government is also proposing changes to the province's education and property tax system which will benefit taxpayers in Ontario. We are proposing to take $5.4 billion in education costs off the residential property tax base. We are working to bring greater accountability by moving local services to local government. Our proposals will improve classroom education, reduce waste and duplication, and provide better government at less cost.

But the opposition parties would like Ontarians to believe that any change would be wrong. They want the status quo. I guess I would expect no less from the NDP, but I had expected better things from the leader of the Liberals. I can remember the leader of the official opposition during the Liberal leadership race saying that the opposition cannot simply oppose everything and propose nothing.

Mr McGuinty, where are your proposals? Are you following in the flip-flop footsteps of the last Liberal leader?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday in the Legislature the member for York South was asking the Minister of Health a question. The member for York South said, and I quote, "Today we learned that one of your members, the member for Simcoe East, has called his hospital and said: `We have made mistakes. We're going to give the money back.'" I just wanted to say that is an incorrect quote.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's a point of interest possibly, but not a point of privilege.

LEGISLATIVE PAGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I neglected on Monday to mention one of the pages who is here and I want to correct the record now. I don't see him, but Colin Imrie from Peterborough was neglected to be mentioned. I want to apologize to Colin and apologize to his family. I hope he enjoys his stay.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I'd like to direct this question to the Premier. Premier, I'd like to talk to you about the conditions that have been created in this province by the Harris hospital cuts. I'd particularly like to bring to your attention the conditions at Peterborough Civic Hospital.

On February 5 a resident of Peterborough, Susan Kellar, and her doctor went to visit Susan Kellar's father in Peterborough Civic Hospital. They found him alone, lying on a stretcher in the bright lights of the hallway of the emergency ward where he had been for the last 24 hours. All up and down the hallway of the emergency ward are stretchers full of patients, and what they heard Ms Kellar say was, "How long has my father been lying here dead?"

Premier, Ed Whitehill was 82 years old, a member of the Sports Hall of Fame, a few months shy of his 60th wedding anniversary and deserving of the dignity of proper hospital care. This morning your minister said people could expect to get the care they need and the care they deserve. Premier, did Mr Whitehill get the care he deserved?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Health is coming, but I'm sure he's not going to comment on any individual case in any event.

Any time somebody is hospitalized it's very traumatic for the family. When somebody dies it's very traumatic for the family and all those who are involved. If the member would like us to look into the individual case, I'm sure I can pass that to the Minister of Health and he'd be glad to do so.

If he's talking of generic policies, the very reason the NDP started hospital restructuring was to make sure we could focus resources properly. That's why we've carried on with the initiative Mr Rae started, along the way of course guaranteeing that we'd preserve the dollars for health care.

The member will also know that we don't run hospitals and we don't deliver the services, but we do fund them. We will continue to fund health care as our predominant expenditure, continue to protect the integrity of the $17.4 million --

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

Mr Kennedy: Mr Premier, we need an answer from you that is better than that. We need you to deal with the reasons you and your minister ignored the warnings you got, beginning last October, from Peterborough doctors and nurses that said drastic measures had to be taken to deal with your cuts, the Harris hospital cuts; 32 beds were closed, programs were cancelled and 97 health care workers, 56 of them nurses, were laid off. You were warned that there would be noticeable differences in the care that would be available.

In this hospital, now an average of 20 to 30 persons per night lie in emergency, many on stretchers like Mr Whitehill did. These patients are often elderly, extremely ill and stay several days in a hallway where the lights remain on, where there's no privacy, where there's constant noise, which leads to further problems of confusion or weakness that can prolong their hospital stay.

We were told by the chief of staff that you knew about this. Why have you and your minister ignored the warnings --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Of course, as I've indicated, we do not deliver health care services. Hospitals do, and other professionals do as well. On September 22, 1996, Dalton McGuinty, now leader of your party, said: "I am convinced that there is enough money in the health care system. I don't think we're spending it as effectively as we can." We are convinced there is enough money in the system, but we don't think it's being spent as effectively as it can be. We're trying to make those changes.

I wonder if Mr McGuinty or you, as the health critic, have any suggestions on how we could do that. We'd be pleased to hear that within the budget that Mr McGuinty says is more than ample for health care.

Mr Kennedy: There must be a way to extend the due dignity to the legacy -- unfortunately only available to us -- of Mr Whitehill dying alone in an emergency hallway where he'd been for 24 hours. This Premier and this minister knew ahead of time that there were problems in their hospital cuts. They were told, and so were members of this caucus, on January 20 by the head of the OHA that their cuts were untenable, that their cuts were causing serious problems in the delivery of health care, that the third-year cut could not be done, and yet this minister persisted. The finance committee heard again today that these cuts cannot be achieved without reducing health care.

Mr Whitehill died in the conditions he died in partly because of your cuts. You were warned by the people in the Peterborough hospital, the front-line health workers, last October that this situation would emerge. Will you stand today and give an assurance that you will stop these cuts until you know at least what effect they're having on patients? Because that is your responsibility and you can't get away from it.

Hon Mr Harris: I'd be happy to ask the Minister of Health to look into the individual case. The member will know that his government and the NDP government closed 8,000 beds but left all that bureaucracy and infrastructure in place. We have of course been looking at and following up the NDP initiative to restructure hospitals.

The member's leader, on September 21, 1996, said, "I think clearly there's going to have to be some savings found, some efficiencies in our health care system." Could you tell us where you plan to make those savings and efficiencies so we could live within the budget that your leader said is ample there?

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm going to give the Premier another chance at this because it's truly important. What happened to Mr Whitehill in the Peterborough Civic Hospital is very shocking indeed. Today we heard about a man who died in a hospital hallway, a hallway filled with 20 to 30 other patients because of your hospital cuts. Yesterday we heard of patients tied to chairs because there aren't enough nurses to care for them. Last week we heard the shocking story from Sault Ste Marie where a man was not being fed. We heard how he suffered from a severe bed rash because of a lack of nurses.

No one in this province, as rich as ours is, should have to be treated this way. Your government should be ashamed. How do you answer to the families of these patients for all their pain and suffering?

Hon Mr Harris: I know the Minister of Health would be pleased to respond to that.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): The Liberal Party, when it ran in the last election, said $17 billion was enough for health care. The Progressive Conservative Party said that wasn't enough, that we would guarantee at least $17.4 billion in health care. In actual fact, we have exceeded that; we have put $17.7 billion into health care. Do there need to be improvements? Of course there need to be improvements.

The member opposite has indicated that some $1.3 billion has been taken out of the health care system. Not so, incorrect, totally false. To date, there have been some administrative savings, but there have been reinvestments announced exceeding that amount of money taken out in administrative savings. At the end of the day, we will have a better health care system to serve all the people of Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: These are people we're talking about. I want everyone in this House to try to imagine for a second the voice of Susan Kellar screaming, "How long has my father been lying here dead?" Imagine walking into a hospital room and seeing your 89-year-old uncle naked, tied to a chair, like Mr Zukowski did. Imagine having to listen to your father scream in pain as his bed sores are wiped, as Paul Kaihla did. You have to admit these people deserve some dignity. How much pain and suffering is it going to take before you stop your reckless hospital cuts?

Hon David Johnson: I feel a great deal of concern for individual cases which come up and recognize, on behalf of the government, that there need to be improvements in our health care system, there need to be improvements in the hospitals. We are reinvesting as a government. We've announced some $600 million of reinvestments to improve hospitals for cardiac care, for all aspects of kidney dialysis, every aspect of care within our hospitals.

I find it interesting that the member opposite represents a party which, when it was in government between 1988 and 1989, removed some 1,300 beds from our hospital system, removed those beds which today they are saying we desperately need. Yet they removed those beds when they were in government. What we are trying to do is make sense out of the system, make sure that our moneys are spent wisely, that our moneys are reinvested where the patients need the money to be spent.

Mr Cordiano: I represent the party that puts people first, a party that cares about people. That's what I represent. You were elected on a promise to protect health care. That's what Mike Harris said in the last election campaign.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): People like Patti Starr. People like Hershell Ezrin.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Mr Cordiano: This is a serious matter. People are dying in hallways, people are being tied to chairs, dirty diapers left on floors, people are not receiving the basics in nursing care. That's what we're talking about in Ontario in 1997. Could it be possible? You've only just begun. What it took decades to build up, our health care system, you're destroying in just 18 months.

I ask you, Minister, what's going to happen to families when your cuts reach the $1.3-billion mark? What is their suffering going to be like then, Minister? What's it going to be like in Ontario when your cuts reach the $1.3-billion mark?

Hon David Johnson: I think it's unfortunate that we play politics with individual cases when the member opposite, the member for Lawrence, represents a party which closed over 1,200 hospital beds in the province of Ontario. The member for Lawrence --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order. Members for York South and Lawrence, come to order.

Mr Cordiano: We never left people out in the hallway to die.

The Speaker: Member for Lawrence, I'm warning you to come to order.

Mr Cordiano: It's shameful what you're doing.

The Speaker: Member for Lawrence, I'm warning you to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government members, Minister of Culture, please come to order. Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: It's embarrassing, but the member opposite represents a party that took over $2 billion out of health care and social services in the province of Ontario and then had the nerve yesterday to put $20 million back in.

Mr Cordiano: You said we were spending too much.

The Speaker: I'm not going to warn you again, member for Lawrence.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite represents a party that took $2 billion out of the system and put $20 million in.

The government has indicated the spending on health care will be at least $17.4 billion. I can guarantee you it will be beyond that and I can guarantee you at the end of the day that money will be spent wisely; that money --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: -- will be spent in terms of putting the patient first, to the services that the patients in the province of Ontario need.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the minister responsible for municipal affairs. I have in front of me a request for proposals that was put out on January 24. It invites private firms to do the property tax reassessment you announced last spring. On page 5 it says that the training of property tax assessors will be "approximately one day in duration." People are going to get one day of training to go out and do property tax assessment.

Ordinarily, property tax assessors take at least two years to train, but you're going to send them out there with one day's training. Minister, how can property taxpayers possibly have confidence that property assessment will be done properly when the assessors have only one day of training?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the assessment falls under the Treasurer, I'll refer the question to him.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable leader of the third party, he knows full well that the province of Ontario is spending some $61 million to do a reassessment of the entire province and he knows full well that this function started last summer. There have been additional people hired by the Ministry of Finance, the former Ministry of Revenue, to do the reassessment project, and there will be many local people at a local level who will be used from the private sector to assist us in this endeavour.

I believe what he's referring to is an RFP that was put out to see if there was anybody in the province who was capable of doing the entire project, and the answer to that is no. The ministry is proceeding on its own, has been proceeding since last summer, and will continue to reassess the entire province. That will be done in due course by this fall.

Mr Hampton: This is a request for proposals dated January 24, 1997, this is a request for proposals that is still active, and this asks for several suppliers. It says they will get one day's training to do property tax assessment. I'd say to the Minister of Finance, nice try.

The experts who've gone through assessment say it will take three years to do property tax assessment properly. University of British Columbia Professor Stanley Hamilton says the following: "I have a great fear that if the Harris government tries to do it too quickly, they're going to mess it up, and if they mess it up, they're going to mess it up for the next decade or so."

You're going to hire a bunch of assessors and give them one day's training. It's going to be Al Leach's drive-by assessment system. Minister, will you reschedule your assessment scheme so it can be done properly and taxpayers across the province can have some confidence of fairness?

Hon Mr Eves: I believe this question was raised before; it may even have been by the honourable member himself for his own party.

Let me explain to you the difference between British Columbia and Ontario. We happen to be in Ontario today. The year is 1997, not 1982, when BC did its reassessment scheme. The BC system -- we are not adopting it as they did there. We are going to be doing a reassessment of every property and a revaluation on an annualized basis. We're going to have a three-year rolling average, which will be much fairer than the British Columbia system, which goes up and down every year in accordance with real estate property values.

Getting back to the heart of his question, the reality is that in the overwhelming majority of Ontario they are currently on either 1984, 1988 or 1992 values. The effort required to bring those up to date is not like going back to day one, as it perhaps was in British Columbia --

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

Mr Hampton: I will give the Minister of Finance credit for trying to speak volumes about British Columbia. The fact is, it's your government that's out there hiring tax assessors and you're going to give them one day's training. That's what your request for proposal says -- not mine, not British Columbia's, yours. You're going to give them one day's training.

We already know your reassessment scheme is behind and it's a mess. The experts who have gone through a reassessment say very clearly that what you're doing is creating a recipe for chaos: You're rushing through a province-wide reassessment with people who are inadequately trained; you're downloading close to $2 billion in social services costs on to property taxpayers; and you're trying to shove a megacity down the throats of the people of the largest municipality in the province. It is indeed a recipe for disaster.

I ask you again, will you slow this down so people across Ontario can have a reassessment system they can have some confidence in --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the reassessment of the province is already more than 50% complete. The majority of the province is already done. We are asking for assistance, in certain localized areas, from local people. They won't be doing the entire reassessment, as much as you'd like the people of Ontario to believe that. They won't be. They'll be guided by Ministry of Finance staff in this function. They will be performing functions they are capable of performing, and if they're not, they won't be asked to do them.

I say to the honourable member that what we will have at the end of the day, and the people of Ontario can rest assured of this, is that for the first time in Ontario's history there will be a fair and equitable property tax system in the province where everybody will be treated the same -- unlike under your government, which got to the brink of making this decision and backed off for political reasons in the city of Toronto.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope he has a better explanation. You will know that a new farm coalition has come together. It's called the Farmers of Ontario. It represents 36 agricultural groups, and this coalition is speaking out with a unified voice to demand no more cuts to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. They say your ministry budget has almost been cut in half; it has been reduced to $250 million under the Harris government and farmers believe you're planning even deeper cuts.

Minister, can you promise Ontario farmers today that there will be no more cuts to the ministry's budget and no more cuts to farm programs?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Yes, I had the honour of meeting the group representing 36 farm groups and we listened very carefully. Of course, they thanked us for the $15-million Grow Ontario new money last year plus the $20-plus-million rebate on the provincial sales tax. That's new money. Yes, there have been transfers to the University of Guelph. There has been considerable rearranging within the ministry to make it more efficient and to reduce duplication. It's a very worthwhile group. They represent the second-most important economic sector of our province, and yes, we certainly are listening.

Mr Hampton: Minister, the farmers of Ontario were so impressed with your meeting that they issued this press release demanding no more cuts, so obviously they had a bit of a problem coming out of your meeting. They also have a bit of a problem with your election promises. This is what your government said in the 1995 election campaign: "Under a Mike Harris government, agriculture will regain its fair share of government support. That is why there are no cuts to agricultural programs in our policy plan, the Common Sense Revolution."

Farmers know that agriculture and farming has been slashed in order to provide the money to finance your tax scheme for your wealthy friends. What they want to know now, and they want to hear it from you today, is will you guarantee that there will be no further cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and no further cuts to farm programs?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It's a very interesting question. The farm tax rebate: Farmers are optimistic about tax reform. Farmers feel good about the Harris tax changes. You know, those are things we promised. Those are things you promised and you could not deliver. We have delivered on the farm tax rebate. We have delivered what we promised and there are no programs that are cut in agriculture.

Mr Hampton: I meet with farm leaders fairly regularly and their impression of your doing away with the farm tax rebate is that you have essentially put farmers all across this province in a position where they are being set up for tax increases. That's what you've done.

I want to go back to your promise. You said in the election campaign, "No cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture, no cuts to farm programs." You've lost nearly one half of the ministry's budget; one half of the ministry's budget has disappeared. I know what cuts are all about. I know that in fact your government has taken money from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and you're going to give it to your wealthiest friends by means of your tax scheme.

Farmers have had enough of the promises of the past. They want a guarantee from you: no further cuts to farm programs or to the ministry. They want that guarantee: no more rearranging. Will you give them that guarantee?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It's difficult to accept from this party -- a 25% cut to agriculture in the last two years they were in power. What did they do? They shut down two of our five agricultural colleges, and they have the audacity to stand in this House and trying to preach to us. Farmers are telling us they're very happy with what's happening and I will go with the farmers every time.

CHARITY GAMING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Harris government took the next giant step towards putting video slot machines in every neighbourhood in this province. The government's own study by Coopers and Lybrand on the Ontario charity gaming clubs project states that the win potential in Ontario is $977 million.

Minister, we know charities will be capped at $180 million. Where's the rest of the money going and how much is going into the pockets of the Harris government?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm not familiar with the study. I'd refer the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I know my honourable friend has --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Agriculture, if you had any more to add, I suggest you would have done it during the answer. It would have been more helpful.

Hon Mr Eves: You cut him off.

The Speaker: I didn't cut him off. He sat down. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't suppose it would be appropriate for me to refer my time to him.

I'm sure my friend across the way has in his hands the Coopers and Lybrand study, because that's what he's referring to. I might point out that this was based on replacing the current roving Monte Carlo situation with up to 50 permanent gaming clubs. It goes on to say as well in the summaries and results and recommendations that the province has an estimated total charitable gaming win potential, and that's clearly what this is. It is clearly a potential, clearly an estimation.

I might point out as well that the particular program we are coming forward with right now indicates that we'll have 36 full-time charity gaming clubs and eight part-time charity gaming clubs, and I would assume that we shouldn't lose sight of what actually is happening here today and that the take of the charities out of this will now expand from $10 million to $12 million up to about $180 million, along with a certain amount, $9 million, going to problem gambling as well, which the communities out there are really look forward to.

Mr Crozier: The minister is referring to one report that was December 1, 1996. The request for proposal is dated February 18. I would have thought if you had this under control, you would have changed the figure of the win potential. I don't know how anybody then could base a proposal on this.

But, Minister, as you have said, we know for a fact that the charities are going to be capped at $180 million, we know that the potential is $977 million, and you're telling us that these casinos are for charity, but it looks like your government is the biggest charity case of them all.

If introducing 44 permanent casinos and 20,000 video slot machines in the province is to benefit charities, why don't you become more charitable, and rather than taking 90% of the pie, why don't you give charities the biggest slice of the pie?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, my honourable friend made reference to the Coopers and Lybrand report and is suggesting that we change somehow a number that's in this report. It would be highly inappropriate for us to do that.

Mr Crozier: I said change the request for proposal.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to suggest --

Mr Crozier: Answer the question.

The Speaker: Member for Essex South, I appreciate that you want an answer to your question, but you've got to listen if you're going to get an answer.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I know my honourable friend is usually pretty good at listening, so I would compliment him on it.

But let's take a look and see what exactly we're doing here today. We're replacing a system that came in under the Peterson Liberals, the three-day roving casinos that had absolutely no accountability whatsoever. The problem has been, and we've heard and every member in this House has heard, that the charities at the end of these three-day roving casinos benefit sometimes not one cent -- sometimes they're in the hole -- and that is totally unacceptable. Now we're looking at increasing the charities' share from about $10 million to $12 million up to $180 million.

Certainly this government has done more for charities in this initiative than they have done before in the past with these three-day roving casinos.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is to the same minister on the same subject. Yesterday, Minister, in your announcement, you foisted permanent charity casinos on communities across Ontario. You've said over and over that you would let communities vote on whether they want to have more casinos, yet here you go again imposing without consultation.

Mel Lastman has said no to these casinos in North York, Mayor Barbara Hall said bylaws forbid them in Toronto, yet your announcement includes several permanent casinos in both of these cities. So instead of referendum and thoughtful planning, we have imposition. Why will you persist in your hypocrisy and arrogance by imposing gambling on communities? When will you let communities have input, as you promised? Will you let them have a say?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to point out to my honourable friend that what we are doing is replacing a system that did not work -- the three-day roving casinos -- with a system that will work; a system that was totally unaccountable and totally irresponsible with a system that has a high level of accountability; a system that only sometimes provided revenue to charities with a system that will now provide around $180 million to charity.

These mayors should certainly know that we are replacing a system with a new system. Without that vehicle, how will charities in their areas benefit? I would like to point out that last year Toronto held 619 events, approximately 1,600 days. That's almost five of these going per day. Clearly, this is simply a replacement of these vehicles that did not work.

Mr Martin: That's a red herring. My community of Sault Ste Marie has had a referendum on this issue and they want a casino, but not this kind of casino. Your announcement yesterday shows, to quote from a recent editorial in the Sault Star, "unbelievable hypocrisy and inconsistency on the party of the government" and it shows "an irritating and disturbing lack of concern for the economic wellbeing of Sault Ste Marie."

This is not the strategic, measured, controlled process we need for developing full-fledged casinos to ensure that they are viable and safe additions to our communities. The spread of many casinos opens the door to organized crime. You are ignoring the concerns raised about VLTs. You are exposing our communities to crime.

The CISO report shows that illegal gambling flourishes in Ontario and there is potential for abuse in the legal gaming sector. You have ignored these reports. You are ignoring these communities that want input into these decisions. Why aren't you listening? This is not what they want.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I might be allowed to answer that sequence of questions somehow, this is really a question coming from a party which introduced the casino concept within Ontario without providing a lot of the supports it was really necessary to have.

I look at some of the concerns the member has, but I think he forgets that when his government brought in the Ontario gaming commission, they brought in a certain number of safeguards to crack down on a lot of the illegal crime and concerns the member has. I guess he's forgotten these things. We have followed through and continued on and tried to put in more supports to fight these types of illegal activities. In fact, we're allocating around $7 million to assist.

We're bringing the number of officers involved with this up to 35 from six; we're bringing in special prosecutors just to prosecute illegal gambling, forensic experts and assistants to do that, because we believe we should crack down and make sure we protect the community.

TAX REBATES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As part of our government's commitment to bringing fairness back to the tax system in Ontario, the Minister of Finance announced the removal of education from the municipal tax base, thereby freeing billions of dollars for municipalities to spend on programs of local importance. Private property owners in my riding are very interested in changes to the tax system concerning woodlots and conservation lands. Could the minister comment on the proposed changes to the managed forest tax rebate program and the conservation land tax rebate program?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. It's a very important issue to all those in Ontario who care about the environment. This government has announced that for eligible managed forest lands there will be a 25% tax rate, a special class, and for conservation lands that have provincial significance there will be no property taxes.

This is to recognize, as Ontarians have recognized for almost a quarter of a century, that there was an inherent unfairness in the property tax system that has treated property that was owned and had trees on it unfairly related to other properties, and made it unsustainable or unaffordable to keep that land with forests on it.

This government has made these changes to reduce the red tape of issuing rebates and the uncertainty that the private property owners would have to go and beg the Ontario government each year to maintain their forested lands or their provincially significant conservation lands.

Mr McLean: The NDP claimed to be concerned about the environment, yet they cancelled these programs when they were in government. How will the changes in our government policy have an effect on the environment?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As most people in Ontario know, the managed forest tax rebate was introduced in 1975, and although the NDP claimed in all their party propaganda that they cared about the environment, they chose to cancel this program because they had other spending priorities. The minister at the time is the present leader of the third party and they cancelled this for other spending priorities.

Our Premier, Mike Harris, recognized the unfairness in the property tax system and the importance to the environment of maintaining and managing our managed forests on private lands. That's why we made a campaign commitment in the Mike Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development. I'm pleased to say to the member who asked the question and to all those people in Ontario that we've lived up to another campaign promise, and that is very beneficial to the environment and to the future of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Premier. I would like you to help me understand how you could launch health ads at a public expense of $650,000 at the same time as hearing the most disturbing stories of terrible health care in Ontario.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You call an ad agency, you explain to them what you are trying to do and they come back with a program to help explain to the public how much better their health care system will be after we make the changes than it was before.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, I cannot believe your answer --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Government members, I can't hear the question. And opposition members as well. It's awfully noisy today. If you'd come to order, I'd appreciate it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order means we stop heckling. Member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: Premier, I cannot believe your answer in this House today. On February 6 we asked the Deputy Minister of Health what plans she knew of for health care ads and she said: "I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're referring to in terms of ads." Premier, this lands on your desk. How dare you spend taxpayers' money, $650,000, while Mr Whitehill dies in the hallway. Make me understand this, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: This is a question from the party that right before an election spent $1.5 million advertising a flawed card plan that had to be cancelled after the election.

Mrs Pupatello: You're responsible for --

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, I'm warning you to come to order. Please. Member for Brantford, it would be helpful if you were in your seat. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: This party and this government do not need to get a lecture from a party that spent three times more than we are spending on government advertising, wasted money on a government card that was totally unacceptable, and spent more money advertising things they didn't do than things they did.

Yes, even though we have slashed the advertising budget in half from the NDP, even though we've slashed the budget by two thirds from what the Liberals spent on government advertising, we are informing Ontarians with a minimal amount of money of a new vision for a comprehensive health care plan and we're inviting them to share, and their participation, in how we can correct the disaster of the last 10 years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate the fact that members are somewhat more lively today, it happens on Wednesdays, but the fact remains that I understand it's upsetting when you're being heckled from either side, but no side is perfect. When this side's up, that side's heckling, and vice versa. It would be helpful if you would --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, I'm beginning to think that's happening more and more. I would ask you to come to order.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. My question today relates to whether or not a worker's right to refuse unsafe work is going to be protected under this government. At CAMI Automotive in Ingersoll, a worker exercised his right to refuse to continue working with a piece of equipment he believed to be dangerous. Amazingly, and in violation of the law, he was suspended by the company. Ministry of Labour officials rightly filed charges against the company under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Although in the first round in front of a justice of the peace they lost, your officials did assure the Canadian Auto Workers union that they would pursue this case under appeal.

The deadline is tomorrow. The union is extremely concerned that you're going to abandon this worker and his right to refuse unsafe work. Minister, will you stand in your place today and give assurances that you will not abandon this worker's right and that you will pursue this case under appeal and file the proper charges before the deadline expires?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member opposite, I think I've made it abundantly clear that we are presently reviewing the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I have stood in this place on many occasions and have indicated to you that we are prepared and will continue to allow within the act the right to refuse unsafe work. I would also indicate to you that if you take a look at our record of enforcement, if you take a look at our inspections in the workplace, our endeavours to make the workplaces safe, we have actually increased our inspections in 1995-96 by 35%. We have a very, very strong commitment to ensure the workplaces are safe.

Mr Christopherson: In response to those hollow words that you've given time after time, I've accused you of not backing up those words with any action. When we look at your track record of how you've attacked the rights of workers, particularly the area of health and safety, I believe our arguments on this side are the ones that are correct.

Today you've got a chance to put some action and some truth behind what you claim is a sincere concern for workers in the workplace. I'm asking you a very specific question: Will you assure us that you will not abandon this worker's right to refuse unsafe work and that you will indeed file the papers to ensure that we continue with the appeal? Put action behind your words, Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, I am well aware of the situation about which you speak. I understand the worker has indeed sought a remedy under the grievance procedure of his collective agreement, but you also know, since this is the subject of a grievance proceeding, that I am not in a position to make any further comment on this specific issue other than to give you my assurance that the right to refuse unsafe work will remain a very basic part of the legislation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is also to the Minister of Labour, following on the question from the member for Hamilton Centre on your commitment to occupational health and safety.

I know that you recently announced a review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In my riding of Hamilton West, I've received several calls and letters from constituents asking how they might add their voice to that review and comment on what's in that review. Can you please tell this House and all members of this House, clarify how their constituents can also provide comment on that act?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member for Hamilton West, yes, as the member has indicated, approximately two weeks ago we initiated a review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As you probably know, the act had not been totally reviewed for the past 19 years, so we are going to take a look at how the act can better respond to the changing needs of the workplace.

We're going to be taking a look at the issue of whether or not sexual harassment should be included within the legislation; we're going to take a look at the issue of the right to refuse unsafe work, to make sure that the right is appropriately handled and that it is appropriately administered. We'll take a look at the hours of work. We have identified within our paper 31 issues, but certainly we would invite the stakeholders to contribute any information and any response they would deem appropriate.

Mrs Ross: Could the minister please tell this House what the reaction has been so far to the release of this paper?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to indicate to the House that we've had a very positive response. I had an opportunity yesterday to meet with some people from unions in eastern Ontario and we had a very good discussion on some of the issues we are addressing. I was also pleased to read today in the editorial of the Sudbury Star that it indicates this planned review of the act is long overdue. They mention that the act has been refined, but has never been the subject of this type of comprehensive review. They indicate it's clearly needed because of the workplace changes.

We're taking a look to ensure that at the end of the day the workplaces in Ontario are among the safest in the world. That's our objective and with the cooperation of all stakeholders I know we can achieve that goal.

TRUCK SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I wonder if you could take a moment today in the House and elaborate on what initiatives you plan to undertake with respect to the enforcement of safer trucks on Ontario highways.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I know he's as concerned as this government is concerned and as I am concerned on how we can make our highways safer. I believe since October 1995 a lot has happened as far as changes in our highways, as far as trucks are concerned. I believe we have implemented some very positive things, from higher fines to legislating wheel installers and allowing drivers to adjust their own air brakes, and hiring additional enforcement officers.

One of the things I believe our ministry has done an excellent job of is pulling over a lot more vehicles over the course of our fiscal year, nearly twice as many as any other government has done in the past. We are presently in the mode of putting additional enforcement in place for our spring --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Palladini: I can certainly tell the honourable member that we are going to continue to make sure we get things done.

Mr Duncan: Enforcement is the problem. The OPP are saying that, the Canadian Automobile Association is saying that, most other groups that have taken an interest in these issues are saying that. In fact you have provided an additional $200,000 on a budget of $22 million for enforcement.

The OPP are saying that the best method of enforcement is roving inspection stations; that is, where trucks don't know where inspection stations are going to be from day to day, that they make a lot more sense than the stationary stations you have on Ontario highways. Will you commit today to providing additional mobile inspection stations throughout this province, and will you commit today to spending the kind of money it's going to take to give Ontario motorists the reassurance they need that their highways are indeed safe and that Ontario's roads will be safer? You've had more incidents with truck wheels than ever before.

Hon Mr Palladini: I know the honourable member means well, but I made that commitment on June 26, 1995, when I was sworn in as Minister of Transportation. One of the things that has happened throughout this short time is that a lot of input has been given by concerned parties, including OPP officers, including CAA, including shippers and all people who have an interest in making sure our highways are safe.

I want to say to the honourable member that as far as the mobile stations you're referring to are concerned, you're absolutely right and that's something we've already looked at before the honourable member even talked about it. We have a lot of things in place that I am sure the honourable member will agree will make Ontario's roads safe.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. In July 1994, our NDP government approved funding of $12 million to replace the 70-year-old south wing at St Peter's chronic care hospital in Hamilton. Your government agreed with our decision and gave approval on February 28, 1996, to excavate the site. In fact, you've already paid your half of that cost. Unbelievably, on January 28 of this year, your government halted construction at St Peter's Hospital.

This is not expansion. These are not new beds. They're replacing 80 beds in a building that is in absolutely deplorable physical condition. For this reason, people at St Peter's Hospital and people across Hamilton are concerned that what you're really going to do is cut the number of chronic care beds in our community. Is that what's really going on here?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I will assure the member for Hamilton Centre that what is going on is a concern for the best interests of the patients in Hamilton. I have discussed this matter with Mr Carruthers, the CEO, and intend to have a site visit in the near future.

What I will say is that the restructuring commission, as we all know, will be going into Hamilton in the very near future. The restructuring commission wants the opportunity to look at all of the hospital services needed in Hamilton and to make sure it has the best fit for that particular community. I'm not able to prejudge what the commission may come up with. Indeed, the commission may say we need more than 80 beds, we need 100 beds, we need some different configuration which will best serve the community. My intent is to encourage the commission to get on with the job, to speed it up and to come forward with a resolution to make everybody happy.

Mr Christopherson: I'm afraid that doesn't wash because, first of all, this is the only total chronic care hospital not only in Hamilton but in the entire catchment area of over two million people. Secondly, your approval to begin the excavation was given after you had legislative approval for your commission restructuring. So either you're guilty of planning to cut back the number of chronic care beds in Hamilton or you're guilty of incompetent planning.

In either event, we've now got a 20-foot hole the size of a football field in Hamilton, and I've got a picture to show you, that is leaving the children in that neighbourhood -- we've got three schools in the immediate residential neighbourhood -- vulnerable to accident. You had the audacity in a letter to them to say to the hospital, "By the way, make sure that you take care of the safety problems." None of this is good enough. None of your answer adequately explains what's going on.

Minister, will you announce today that you're going to continue the funding so we can get rid of this danger: this danger to patients, danger to staff and danger to neighbourhood children?

Hon David Johnson: I think the members on this side of the House find it humorous to be accused by the third party of incompetent planning. This is the party, this is the government, that built a waiting list of over $2 billion worth of capital improvements and yet allocated less than $200 million a year. No funding: built up a huge waiting list of health capital projects and then didn't fund them. That was the NDP.

What this government is doing, and I have a great deal of sympathy for St Peter's Hospital, is planning this in an organized fashion. The restructuring commission will go in shortly, have a look, determine what is the best configuration, which may indeed be more beds -- there may be more chronic beds; there is certainly no plan to reduce the number of chronic beds -- come forward with those recommendations and deliver the best possible hospital services to the people of Hamilton.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Minister, your ministry helped fund the highly successful Special Olympics. The Special Olympics saw 2,000 athletes from 80 countries come to Ontario. Also attending to watch and support the athletes were over 700 coaches, 6,000 volunteers and thousands of supporters and family members.

John Scott, the chairman of the games, spoke to me and recognized your ministry's contributions to the games. Would you please tell the House about your ministry's involvement and assure us that your ministry will remain supportive of and committed to the needs of special athletes?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for Scarborough West for his question and also for his own personal commitment to the recently completed Special Olympics. In fact, as the member has already indicated, this government is very proud of its participation in this very successful event. Indeed, it was the best games ever.

Although the games have concluded, I want to assure the member that our commitment to the disabled athlete has not. For example, in the upcoming Ontario games, as well as the 2001 Canada Summer Games that will be held in this province, there will be competitions in swimming and track and field for athletes with disabilities.

Mr Jim Brown: The provincial government made a great financial contribution to the games. Could you please inform the House what other groups were involved in making the games the great success they were?

Hon Ms Mushinski: A major highlight, of course, of these games was the contributions made by the volunteers, the sponsors and the communities of Collingwood, Duntroon and Metro Toronto. Indeed, one of three people in Collingwood participated in making these games a huge success. They should be congratulated for that. To all those who volunteered their time, their efforts and their resources, including the members in this House, the government thanks you, but more important, the athletes thank you.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Tourism, and it relates to the Niagara Parks Commission, which has been an outstanding success for so many years.

The Niagara Parks Commission has ensured that we've had very careful development in the area of Niagara Falls. It has ensured that there's a lot of green space, a lot of greenery, trees. It is something that has been hailed by many people, and it has controlled the kind of development that would make an area simply a honky-tonk area or a tourist trap; in other words, it has made it more attractive than many other potential tourist areas.

I'm asking the minister, when we have such a successful operation, established by a previous Conservative government, why would you now want to privatize and turn over to the private sector the Niagara Parks Commission and allow for the potential of the kind of development that would be detrimental to Niagara Falls and the surrounding area rather than beneficial?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'd like to say that what we are proposing is to study all agencies, boards and commissions for which we are responsible and to make sure that what is being done with those agencies, boards and commissions is being done in the most favourable way for the taxpayers of Ontario. If there's a way that any aspect of these agencies, boards and commissions can be done better by having more private sector involvement, I think that is very good for the taxpayers.

I agree with the member that the Niagara Parks Commission is one of our treasures, and we have many great facilities there, such as the new butterfly conservatory that was just opened.

What we're trying to do, though, is that if there's a chance for the private sector to be more involved, which would save the taxpayers of Ontario, we think that's the way to look at these agencies, boards and commissions.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would ask you for a ruling if you could. Today in question period I quoted the Deputy Minister of Health, who pointed, on February 6, being totally unaware of health ads. Given that the preparation for those ads happened some time before, I've got to ask the Speaker to rule on the appropriateness of the political arm of the Premier's office absconding with ministry funds that the deputy would not be aware of. If there is another place --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): No.

Mr Bradley: I think it's a good question.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines thinks it's a good point of privilege, and I'm not surprised about that. Frankly speaking, I'm willing to hear you out on that, but I'm not really sure how that is a point of privilege or point of order with respect to the "absconding" of funds.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Speaker, it's clear by the Premier's answer today that he was well aware of the process in developing the television ads. In the question put today it was specifically related to something other than that; it was rationalizing the expense of taxpayers' money. But the point of --

The Speaker: Let me be clear, though. You're very close yourself right now, in the suggestion you've made with respect to the absconding of funds and so on, to being out of order. Now, there isn't a point of order; it doesn't come under any privilege.

I'll ask you, if you'd like, to raise it tomorrow and come back to me and give me the heading on privilege that you want to file this under, but let me stop first and say, be very careful about the words you've chosen to use. They're very powerful words.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the city of Scarborough is requiring individuals who want to participate in the mail-in referendum to provide their name, address and signature on the ballot; and

"Whereas this requirement is blatantly undemocratic and threatens the legitimacy of the democratic process; and

"Whereas the city of Scarborough makes no mention as to whether or not it will accept ballots from residents who wish to vote in confidence; and

"Whereas the question on the ballot itself is slanted towards the position of the city and cannot be viewed as a neutral question; and

"Whereas this uncertainty and undemocratic procedure makes the entire process a great misuse of taxpayers' dollars and tarnishes any results that will come out of the vote;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to

"

(1) Speak out against this undemocratic vote;

"

(2) Disregard the results of the vote; and

"

(3) Continue with the proposed unification of municipalities into one unified city of Toronto."

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

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

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

I add my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto;

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods;

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services;

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

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

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): A petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto;

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods;

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services;

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

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

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

I'm happy to sign my name.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I'd like to present a petition this afternoon on behalf of my riding constituents. It relates to dignity, rights and respect.

"We, the undersigned, protest that quality of care for the residents in nursing homes and homes for the aged is being sacrificed in order to pay for the increases in WCB premiums. Workers in these facilities are being laid off and their hours have been reduced to pay for these increases.

"We demand that the Harris government find immediate funds to ensure that quality of care is not further compromised and that no worker is either laid off or has their hours reduced in order to pay for an increase in WCB premiums."

I'll attach my name to the front.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

This is signed by a number of my constituents at 8575 Riverside Drive East in Windsor, Shoreline Towers, and I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): In spite of the reinvestment in health care that this government has made, I have a petition here.

"Whereas Ontario is gravely concerned with our historic $1.3-billion cuts to the base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

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

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

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): This petition is addressed to the Legislature and comes from residents of Ontario.

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto;

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods;

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services;

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

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

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

I agree with the content of the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the borough of East York is requiring voters in the current mail-in referendum to return their ballots in envelopes bearing their names and addresses; and

"Whereas the ballots are to be forwarded to the borough of East York at the East York Civic Centre and not to an independent elections commission; and

"Whereas the East York council has declared itself in favour of a particular result in the referendum; and

"Whereas the question itself is prejudicial in its wording and clearly slanted towards the result favoured by council; and

"Whereas all of the above factors violate well-established and universally acknowledged principles of a free democratic referendum process;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to:

"

(1) Speak out against the current flawed, undemocratic referendum in East York;

"

(2) Disregard the results of the vote; and

"

(3) Proceed with the government's program to provide for Toronto's future through the creation of one Toronto for all of us."

INTERGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY PROJECT

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the PACE 2000 Foundation, a non-profit organization, is planning to build a residential community for seniors and mature students on the undeveloped lands directly north of Montfort Hospital; and

"Whereas the objectives of the PACE 2000 Foundation are to help seniors live longer in their homes and to help students acquire professional expertise and social support, and that it will be achieved with the support of the intergenerational network which promotes the interaction between seniors and students in a complementary approach; and

"Whereas Les Filles de la Sagesse, l'Hôpital Montfort and PACE 2000 Foundation have submitted a joint application for the rezoning of this 21-acre site (from the actual institutional P to residential R5) on January 26, 1996, and

whereas by January 28, 1997, the rezoning has still not been granted by the city of Ottawa; and

"Whereas since May 1996, 510 signatories are asking that the PACE 2000 project be implemented as soon as possible on these lands;

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

"To grant highest priority to the municipal and provincial agreements which are required for the development of the PACE 2000 intergenerational community project on the lands directly north of Montfort Hospital, before the implementation of the city's new zoning bylaw."

I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 105,

An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I would like to add a few words to the bill as it proceeds and goes to committee.

For those who do not know this bill, it deals with the financing of policing and it deals with the governance issue. Before we get going I'd like to take a quick minute to thank all the members of the ministry for their fine work in putting together this bill. I'm looking forward to the opportunity of taking it out on committee and hearing from some people across the province. It will mean some of the most major changes that have happened in policing in this province in some time.

It has been a while since we've reviewed the issue of policing in the province. I had the opportunity, as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, of spending some time in early summer dealing with the various groups looking at this bill.

We had an opportunity to meet with the various groups across the province involved in policing: the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Senior Officers Association, as well as the Association of Municipalities. During that process, the summit as we called it, we had an opportunity to hear from all sides on the major issues we'll be dealing with, which of course are financing, governance and oversight of policing in this province.

I must say, there were some exchanges that were very forthright on all sides. Everybody knew where everybody was coming from. Regardless of what happened in the end and how people feel about the bill, I think it was a good process to be able to hear from people on this particular subject.

On the issue of financing I would like to say that this is probably going to be a difficult area. As you know, there are municipalities right now that are not paying for policing. All governments of all political stripes have dealt with this issue, and for the first time we are dealing with that.

As we said back in June, the whole issue of municipal governance came up. It isn't surprising that as a result of that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, was in favour of more control over policing, and it's no secret that some of the other groups were not. But during that process we heard from various groups and we put together what we think is a bill which will be to the benefit of the people of this province.

On the issue of governance the municipalities will maintain options for local choice and delivery of police services in their community. They will be given the authority to set police budgets, and Mr Speaker, having a background as a member of the police services board, you will know that had been some area of contention with the municipalities. Policing had been a big part of the budget, a very big part of most of their budgets, and they did not control them. As a result of these changes, municipalities will have greater accountability and control over policing in their areas.

I know this is something many people have talked about. Municipalities have said that when it's a big part of their budget, they should have some say, and I agree to some extent with what came out in some of the hearings from some of the municipal people. We had people from Toronto. We had people from northern Ontario. It was a pretty good cross-section of people.

There were some concerns voiced that somehow the province would need to maintain a lot of control, although I'm one of those who -- and the Premier has said this on many occasions, relating to the whole issue of municipal politicians making the decision, and it's no secret that the Premier has said this: "Why would the people in their community care any less about what is happening in their community than people at Queen's Park?" To some extent, that was the thrust that came out from the people in AMO. They were saying very clearly: "We are in that area. We live in that area.

We have as much concern about policing in that area as the people at Queen's Park or the MPPs." I can understand where the debate was coming from.

In a lot of areas, the policing community was worried that municipal control will create some problems. What we've attempted to do is put together a bill that would take all this into consideration. I hope we've done a good job.

On the issue of financing as part of this, when we did our whole issue of policing at the summit we didn't have an opportunity of knowing what some of the changes coming forward from, as it's known, the Who Does What would be. When the financing issue came up about municipalities paying, it wasn't within the whole structure of having municipalities now pay a bigger portion of welfare and long-term-care costs. Some of the concerns at the time about financing have obviously been heightened with some of the changes that have happened recently.

I think everybody in this province believes it should be fair and equitable, that everybody should pay for policing in the province. Having said that, it is a lot easier said than done, because as you know, in some areas that haven't paid for policing, the cost of policing will be very difficult in areas that have not had the opportunity of paying for it.

The nicest part about this job was having the opportunity to meet with some of these people. The exchanges were forthright -- I will say this very clearly -- and all the members spoke very strongly on behalf of their own people, and we've come up with a bill that we believe will be for the betterment of the people of this province. Having said that, I'm looking forward to the public hearing process and I'm looking forward to hearing from the various critics from the parties opposite.

I will say this: In the past bills I've been involved with in fire services, and I said this to the member for London Centre when she was speaking on it, we really appreciated the input coming forward. No matter how hard you work on bills, no matter how much time you spend with the various people involved in this, there are things that do come up, and that's why the process of listening to the opposition and having public hearings is a good one.

The one issue that I think was fairly easy was that of oversight. I know that what we ended up coming up with may have been fairly contentious to a lot of people, but the amendments were probably one of the few things agreed upon by all people at the summit. The amendments will cut the number of discipline/oversight agencies in half. This will allow for a simpler, more accountable new system. Meanwhile, of course the special investigations unit will remain as it is, to ensure the independence and impartial investigation of cases involving serious injury or death.

It wasn't the fault of any government or any political party. What happened was that the oversight had been built up through years of regulations and through a lot of changes, and what we have attempted to do is to help modernize and streamline and simplify an oversight system that is more responsible and accountable to the public. We believe the amendments are a result of many of the reviews and of the hard work that has been done by the policing community, by the public and by municipalities.

Just for those members who aren't familiar, in December 1995 the Solicitor General announced a comprehensive review and the provisions he asked be looked for in that review were providing more efficient and cost-effective delivery, ensuring all municipalities contribute to the cost of policing in their communities, and providing greater fiscal accountability at the local level, as well as providing police services with greater flexibility in deploying resources.

We also wanted to reduce the administrative and operational overlap and duplication, and we wanted -- obviously as all members would want -- to ensure adequate levels of policing throughout all parts of the province.

The whole issue of the review of policing had been tackled by various governments of all political stripes. We also set up a working committee of ministry officials and representatives from the associations I mentioned who participated in the summit we established as a result and began at the end of August 1996, and the input from these stakeholders was very important. I will tell you that at those ministry level discussions everybody put everything on the table with respect to their own particular views.

We also, since that time, have had a look at the Who Does What panel established by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 1996 and we were able to take a look at some of the review that came from the outside as part of that process.

Finally, in October 1996 the Solicitor General, along with the Attorney General, announced the independent review of the civilian oversight of policing. This review has since been released and has provided the ministry with recommendations on how to achieve a simpler, more efficient and more effective civilian oversight.

The proposed amendments are, I believe, of enormous benefit to the people of Ontario. I believe it will make our policing more effective. I believe it will make it more cost-efficient and will really improve police service delivery in Ontario. That is not going to be an easy task in these times because in all areas we're asking to do more with less, and that is a difficult challenge for all people. But I must say that the cooperation I've seen among all the players at the summit, and through the meetings with the committee at the level of the ministry, has been a tremendous credit to the people involved.

I don't have a lot of time but I want to talk a little bit about the financing issue. It is very clear that this bill will ensure that all municipalities contribute to the cost of policing their community according to their needs. This will mean fairness to all the people of the province. For those members who don't know, approximately 15% of the province's population is policed now by the OPP without any direct cost to municipalities. Meanwhile, the other 85% are paying for police services through their property taxes.

We recognize that the Police Services Act must be amended to treat all taxpayers fairly. Under this proposed legislation all municipalities will be required to pay for their own policing as of January 1998. This will require amendments to the Police Services Act, as well as to the Regional Municipalities Act and the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Under these changes the 576 municipalities currently not paying for OPP policing services will now have to pay for the police services their communities use. This will be determined at the local detachments and will relate directly to the actual workload generated in each municipality. To ensure fairness and consistency, the method of determining the actual amounts owed by municipalities for police services, as well as the time and manner in which payments are to be made, will be prescribed in regulations.

The ministry is also amending the Police Services Act to allow for the recovery of investigation and support services provided by the OPP, such as underwater searches, rescue, tactical teams and technical traffic collision investigations. The cost associated with these investigative services will be considered on a case-by-case basis and recovery of those costs will be at the discretion of the Solicitor General.

I must also add that these changes are consistent with the Who Does What panel recommendations that the province should introduce full cost recovery for policing services provided by the OPP to those municipalities currently not paying.

The issue of governance is again one that I believe is very important to the people of the province. This bill means municipalities will now have the options of choosing the delivery of police services in their community with a governance model which we believe will respond to the local needs of the people in those areas. Under the Police Services Act, municipalities are provided with the options to give them more flexibility in how they will meet their obligations to provide police services.

Under the act, a municipality can have its own police service, amalgamate its police services with one or more other services, contract with the OPP or another police service to provide police services, or adopt a different method of police services with the approval of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

In the short time I have here, I also would like to talk very briefly about the police services boards. Under the new legislation, police services boards will remain as the civilian governing authority of police services in Ontario. There was tremendous debate about how that should happen and who should have the ultimate majority control or whether there should be police services.

Police services boards will still be made up of the same number of members, depending upon the community. Again, that will be based on size. For example, a municipal population of less than 25,000 will have three members, populations of over 25,000 will have five, and populations of over 300,000 will have seven board members.

However, the appointment authority for police services boards will change. Under the changes, municipalities will now appoint the majority of the members. In addition to the existing municipal council representatives, a municipality will now appoint a community representative who is not an elected official or an employee of the municipality and the province will retain a minority number of appointments.

Municipalities will have the authority to set police budgets. Therefore, municipalities that pay for police services from their municipal property tax will have the ultimate say in financial matters. I fully understand that this did create some concerns for some of the members, but I believe the new amendments will mean police services boards will be responsible for allocating funds and administering police service budgets in a fair manner.

To help municipalities with this change in structure, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services will develop regulations for police services board members, including a code of conduct, conflict-of-interest policy, training requirements, and length-of-appointment and remuneration guidelines.

For those who were maybe concerned that the province was not going to have as much control in policing, those things I talked about -- the regulations for code of conduct, the conflict-of-interest policy, training requirements and length-of-appointment as well as remuneration guidelines -- will play a key role in ensuring that the province has a say in what happens with members of the police services boards. When you look at the things I just mentioned, this is one of the areas I think all of the members of this House can agree on.

In the meantime, to make it easier to coordinate police services across municipal boundaries, the legislation allows for the creation of joint police services boards. The composition of these joint boards will be the same as those of other police services boards. However, the participating municipalities will have to agree among themselves which members of the respective municipal councils will represent all of them at the joint board, as well as who the community representatives will be.

I firmly believe the municipal councils will do as we hope the province attempted to do through all governments of all political stripes over the past few years and appoint people they feel represent the community and the best interests of the people of the community as they have their deliberations.

In my association as parliamentary assistant as well as my time here in the Legislature, I can say that the vast majority of people in the police services boards have served with honour and with dignity. They have worked hard. I think the level of cooperation has been excellent. I also believe that this will not change, that those same people who are from those communities will be able to continue to participate if they're selected by the people from the municipal councils. I believe the tradition we have of having fine people represent us on the police service board will continue.

Municipalities that receive police services from the OPP other than by contract may have community policing advisory committees. These committees will advise the OPP detachment commander of the community's objectives and priorities for local service.

I believe I was allotted approximately 10 minutes or so, and I think I've gone over that time. Obviously there is never enough time to get into some of the details.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Take another 11 minutes.

Mr Carr: As my colleague from the Liberal Party says to take a little bit longer, we'll remember that there were times in this House where we used to have occasion to speak for a couple of hours on bills.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The good old days.

Mr Carr: The good old days, as the member for St Catharines is saying.

During that process, it has been my opportunity to get to know the process a little bit better. I believe that while we may not have an opportunity to hear from as many members, I will be sitting through these particular hearings and hopefully we'll get a chance to go across the province. I will also be taking the time to listen to all the members from all three sides as they deal with this issue. I sat through the member for Welland-Thorold's comments the last time we gathered here and thoroughly enjoyed some of the points he made.

I will sum up in saying that I have had the opportunity of being involved intimately with this piece of legislation, and while we still are not done with it, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to make some amendments that will improve the bill, I believe we have moved a great step forward in helping improve the whole issue of policing in this province.

I will say that it has been an honour and a pleasure to work with the members and the ministry on this and to work with all of the people who have been involved. Again, the people who I think deserve a great deal of the credit are some of the people who put in all of the time and effort, the people who were there from the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, the people who were from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police as well as the Police Associations of Ontario, the Ontario Senior Officers Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as well as the ministry staff who spent countless hours going through this.

Our job on this particular piece of legislation, though, as they say, is just beginning, and we're going to have an opportunity to hear from some of the members. I look forward to that, and I hope that as we go forward we're going to be able to continue to work to improve policing in Ontario. I know all members sincerely and honestly want to ensure that we maintain what I believe we have right now, which is one of the finest police services anywhere in the world. This whole process I think will be an excellent one.

I hope my comments have been helpful to some of the members in letting them know what is happening, and I hope that as we go forward we will have an opportunity to hear from other members and to work to improve this bill.

In summing up, I have enjoyed the process. I look forward to continuing as we move forward, and to all members, I wish them success as we go through this process.

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

Mr Bradley: I want to let the parliamentary assistant know that there's going to be a need for a lot of police resources as this government permits video lottery terminals or electronic slot machines in every bar and every restaurant on every street in every neighbourhood in every community in Ontario.

Today, or yesterday, we had an announcement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that they're going to set up another large number of casinos across the province where there are going to be video lottery terminals: new access, a new escalation in gambling opportunities from a government that in opposition was so opposed to gambling and which is now addicted itself to gambling revenues because they now have their hands in the pockets of the charities, taking the lion's share of the money from each of these casinos. So I can tell the parliamentary assistant they're going to need a lot of police to police these activities.

I don't know where they're going to get the money, because the government seems to be spending so much of its money on advertising, self-serving advertising with the Premier's face on the television screen, and when you phone up the number and ask for something, they send you something from the Progressive Conservative Party, which is a clear abuse of taxpayers' funds. I hope the police departments have some money left over when the advertising campaign in health, education and municipal affairs is over with, fully paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, the majority of whom disagree with this government, and they still have to pay for these ads.

Lastly, I hope there is some money left for the police after the tax cut is fully in effect, because this government has to borrow $5 billion a year in order to finance the tax cut. I would suspect the member for Oakville South, in his heart of hearts, because he can be on many occasions a sensible person, probably opposes this advertising campaign and probably opposes this bizarre tax scheme which is going to be of most benefit to the richest people in our province.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I must say I enjoyed the remarks from the member for Oakville South. Of all the members in this assembly, I think his demeanour changed the most when he became a government member and a front-bencher, because I can recall in opposition he was a virtual mad dog in this place, second only to Bob Runciman. But since he's taken on these responsibilities of government, he's very measured in his speeches and his actions. I must say it's been a complete transformation. I don't know whether to congratulate him or not. I hope he hasn't lost a lot of the old spunk he used to have.

I must say, getting to Bill 105, that he does make his case on equity in policing. I think he does a good case in making that argument. I can remember in government we struggled with that issue as well, as other governments have. But I must say that what clouds a bill such as this, which may have some good aspects to it, is what's underlying all this downloading on to the municipalities.

It takes away from some of the things that are going on that perhaps we would have a more balanced response to, because it's very obvious what's going on, whether it's amalgamation to make larger units to make downloading easier for this government or whether it's the simple act of downloading itself. I spent some time yesterday detailing what's happened in my community, where they're going to have to absorb $105 million in downloaded costs; that's after the educational component has been removed from the property taxes.

So that's clouding some of the issues that would get a much cleaner debate, if I could put it that way, if it wasn't for the regressive downloading that's occurring.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to speak in reference to Bill 105 regarding the amendments to the Police Services Act. When I was a police officer in the 1960s, we had a lot less crime and we had a lot fewer social problems than we have today. People in Kitchener, and in fact all of the province of Ontario, left their doors unlocked. Parents could be assured that their children were safe on the streets. During that period I enjoyed being a police officer. Later on, when I was chairman and a board member of the Waterloo Police Services Board, I also enjoyed that experience.

Today we live in a much different society. There's a great mistrust for other people. People feel uncomfortable walking down a darkened street. Unfortunately, the Police Services Act has not really changed to reflect the changes in society. It is in dire need, great need, of an overhaul.

The Solicitor General has recognized that need and initiated a long-overdue review of police services in December 1995. The government had to find ways of improving front-line police services while eliminating waste and duplication. This was accomplished by consulting both police and municipal stakeholders.

One of the areas that is a great burden to police officers is the oversight of their positions. Most professions have a supervisory level to make sure that he or she is doing a good job. In most cases there is only one level of supervision for an employee in both the private and public sectors. However, police officers --

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, your time is up. This was a two-minute response. If you're the next up to speak, you'll have that opportunity in a few minutes.

Further questions or comments? The member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Michael Brown: I was very interested in the parliamentary assistant's comments also, and I would like to share with the member for Nickel Belt the more reasoned demeanour we now see in the parliamentary assistant. Having sat very close to him, it's a little easier on our ears but not necessarily as wonderful.

I want to bring to his attention, though, what this bill in my area -- in our area police are well respected. We appreciate what they do. Whether they're in the Elliot Lake municipal department, in the Espanola department, whether they serve at Wikwemikong or with the UCCM on first nations, they are well-respected people within our communities and people who do a good job for our communities.

What he doesn't speak to, however, is the downloading on to the rural municipality. I know that the mayor of Little Current, the mayor of Massey, the reeve of the township of the Spanish River, the reeve of Billings, my friend Aus Hunt, are very concerned about having to pay what will be a very large amount on their property tax assessment for policing services. This is a very, very large amount to the people.

What are they going to get in return? What will they get for their money? He says, "Well, we'll have an advisory committee." I tell you, Parliamentary Assistant, those advisory committees already exist. They're already there. But I think there will be a substantial difference: When these taxpayers are paying, they'll want to call the shots, and you're not going to permit that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I want to thank the member for St Catharines for his comments. I also want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for his comments. I didn't realize that I had been as aggressive in my opposition days, but when I saw the Speaker smiling, I knew she probably agreed. I know she's a very balanced and very thoughtful person, and when I saw her smiling, I thought, well, he may be right, because she seemed to be agreeing with him while still trying to maintain the neutrality of the Chair. We'll have an opportunity to speak with the Speaker later, but she may be right.

We all bring our passions as we come to this place and our youthful enthusiasm as we get into this debate, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to continue that. But I thank the member for Nickel Belt as well as my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot.

I also want to especially thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for the points he makes. I had the opportunity to be in his riding with the member a couple of summers ago, dealing with some of the timber bills. We had an opportunity of seeing his community. In fact we had probably one of the best dinners at a local restaurant there when we were staying over; Chinese food at the Golden Dragon in his riding. Coming from Oakville, I appreciate more what the member is saying and how vast his riding is. It was a great opportunity.

I take what he is saying about the community and the cost of policing seriously. I understand there are many communities that feel the same way. Approximately 15% of the total population of the province, the land mass, isn't paying for policing, and that is going to be difficult. As I said in my earlier statements and as the member for Nickel Belt said, it's difficult on top of all the other changes that we made, with respect. Hopefully we'll get an opportunity to address some of those and deal with them.

I thank the honourable member for his comments on this bill.

Mr Bradley: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I would just like to give permission to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, when he makes his speech, to use much of the same material as he did the last time. We all go through this particular process and none of us will tell if there's any repetition. We promise.

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, that's not a point of order. Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like at the outset to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share the opening response, which I will give together with my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who will return from a committee at some point.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Conway: I want to just say at the outset that I enjoyed that byplay between the dean of the House, Mr Laughren, and Mr Carr, and I want to simply weigh in in support of the dean because I too have noticed, to quote a phrase, Floyd, "a protest movement becalmed."

I suppose that for a vigorous, red-blooded Conservative like our friend Carr to encounter the Grits and the godless New Democrats in 1990 was enough to inspire his enthusiasm, but I hear now he has come to terms with those realities and it is his new challenge of dealing with the hot breath of one Terry Young which is becoming ever more felt on his neck over the implications of Bill 81. It may be before the end of the season that the godless New Democrats and the spendthrift Grits look rather tame when compared to the very energetic Mr Young, now of Halton Centre, and we are told a man of some considerable interest in Oakville South.

I want to begin my remarks this afternoon by saying that there are certainly aspects of the policy that our friend from Oakville has developed, together with the minister responsible for police, that I think any reasonable person would want to support, and there are aspects of Bill 105 that I certainly would be willing to support. There are some key elements that give me very deep pause and I'm going to deal with those in the coming moments.

Let me say at the outset that the relationship between civilian government and the police and/or the military is one of the most central and one of the most complex in a free and democratic society. Governments of all stripes at all levels, municipal, provincial, state or national, have wrestled with this relationship for a long, long time.

I was interested in the comments of Mr Leadston from Kitchener, whose comments I'm going to be interested to hear in full later on, because he has served in a police force; I have not. As someone who spends a lot of time on the King's highways of Ontario, I understand some of the difficulties that any highway patrol and certainly any police force has.

I also want to observe at the outset that we have a Conservative government that is dedicated to rigorous right-wing conservatism in the late 1990s, so we should not be surprised that Bill 105 contains core values that one would expect from a rigorous right-wing, right-of-centre Conservative Party. One of the key determinants of the political continuum these days is where politicians and political organizations stand in relation to crime and punishment, and therefore with police forces.

I think any fairminded oppositionist has to say in looking at Bill 105 that we see clearly the stamp of Mike Harris and Bob Runciman, people who ran on a commitment to deal with what they felt were the excesses of the Liberal and New Democratic governments before them, and I might add, probably the excesses of the lukewarm red Toryism of Roy McMurtry and Bill Davis.

I want to be fair. I see before me a Bill 105 which clearly betrays the deep-seated commitments and feelings and orientation of modern Conservatism in Ontario. This is not a bill I would have expected from Robarts or from Davis, but we've got it from Harris and friends and this is the kind of bill I would have expected; not the bill I would have offered, but that is as it should be. Let it be stated again: Harris won the election; I lost it.

I come back to the central point. The relationship between civilian government and police forces is an extremely important and very difficult one.

Let me use one very contemporary example. Before I do, I have a lot of sympathy for what I expect our friend Leadston is going to tell us later in the debate about some of the problems that men and women who walk the beat, who drive the highways, face and have faced in these later years, where quite frankly our society has become more multifaceted, more multicultural and more complex than I believe it was when I was growing up in rural Ontario 35 years ago.

All members, I think, will have some currency with the so-called Airbus affair. I don't stand here today as any advocate for Martin Brian Mulroney, QC. I don't want to unduly engage that debate, but I want members of this assembly and anyone watching this debate to for a moment reflect on what was done to a citizen of this country by, it appears, our national police force, with or without the involvement of the national Department of Justice.

It appears from the out-of-court settlement that was arrived at some weeks ago that our national police force now admits that it did some things to a citizen of Canada, who in this case just happens to have been a former Prime Minister, that were, to say the very least, not very well supported by the facts or any facts, and for which now the national police force and I understand the national government have some very deep regret. Mr Mulroney, because of his determination, because of his financial resources, was able to take the national police force and the national government to task for that.

But when we talk about civilian oversight of police forces, let's just remember a few things, because I will agree with my friend Leadston that certain things have happened in the intervening years of 1965 to 1995 that will give chiefs of police and men and women of the Kitchener-Waterloo police force or the OPP or the RCMP some pause and some concern. But I want all members to reflect on why it is that we require a civilian oversight that is real and effective.

One of the people I'd like to call before this committee dealing with Bill 105 is Brian Mulroney to see if today he has a view on that subject, because I'll tell you, he is owed more than I think he will ever be able to -- and as I say, I hold no brief for Brian Mulroney. Think of what was done to him.

I see the member for Kitchener-Wilmot here. I was just thinking about some of the characters we've had, and I'm getting a little ahead of myself, but you know, Gary, you'll remember the Sid Brown case. Can you imagine a situation under the provisions of Bill 105, where you've got Sid Brown loose as an unhappy chief of police down in Waterloo region? Wouldn't that be a happy state of affairs under the provisions of Bill 105?

You will think, as you probably should think, "Oh, that's just an isolated case." Maybe. For those of us in the national capital area, we've had the opportunity to watch the Loranger case unfold over the last two or three years. The endlessly enthusiastic and peripatetic member for Nepean, who seems to have a particular interest in matters of crime and punishment, I don't think in my presence has engaged the Loranger case, and I may do him an injustice. He talks about a lot of other issues of law and order, but I haven't heard him say a word about the Loranger case. I'm sure he has; I just haven't heard him.

But if you're a citizen of Ontario living in eastern Ontario with Ottawa as your media centre and you've been following the Loranger case, I'm going to tell you, you will have some very legitimate concerns about what happened or didn't happen there.

I've got in my hand the report of Mr Justice Archie Campbell on the Bernardo investigation. I know Archie Campbell. He's a very fine fellow and a hell of a good judge and he was a great deputy minister of justice. Have you read this? Has anybody bothered? Have you read this? It's worth reading. It is really worth reading. It's not the first inquiry or review of the Niagara Regional Police, I say to the member for St Catharines-Brock. I know my friend Bradley would have gas from me saying this, but let him have some gas.

How many times, I say, do I have to sit in this place and get another report about the Niagara Regional Police that tells me they are apparently not up to the job? This is a scandalous indictment of that bloody police force, as far as I'm concerned, and it's not the first one.

So we've got Bill 105. What are we going to do? I see the mayor of Montague is smiling, and he might smile because he'll say, "Conway's just off on one of his little tirades." Well, I am a little bit upset, and some of us who've been here for 22 years have been down this road before. I'll tell you, if I were a family member with a direct involvement in the Loranger case, you wouldn't be able to find my pulse, I say to my friend from Lanark.

That is not to say that all police forces all the time are up to those kinds of activities, because I don't believe that to be true. My experience tells me that the overwhelming majority of men and women in the police are good, hardworking people, with a very difficult job, not one I would want. But they're in a very sensitive situation in which all kinds of conflicts, real and imaginary, are possible. We've got to have a policy framework that properly balances the public interest against the police interest.

I watched one night recently -- I think it was an A&E Biography of J. Edgar Hoover. It is absolutely astonishing that in the greatest democracy, apparently, of the civilized world we've got a chief of police who had the book on them all and was quite willing to use it. Whether it was Lyndon Johnson, Jack Kennedy, you name it, he had it and he was quite willing to apply it. I look at Bill 105 and I say to myself, "Well now, what would J. Edgar Hoover say about this?" I think he'd like Bill 105 a lot more than he would have liked Roy McMurtry and his police complaints commission.

I just ask honourable members to give some thought to some of this, this question of the relationship of civilian government to police and military. We are being treated this very season to the Somalia inquiry and I think I can say this because now it appears to be a truly bipartisan mess. You're a citizen of Canada today and you're looking at that. Boy, you must feel good. Doesn't it really? And what do you know? The poor stiff on the front line, he's already in jail, convicted by some kind of a process.

But have you noticed, as you move up the accountability ladder, oh boy, none of the big fish have yet fried and are not likely going to fry. Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe that's unfavourable phraseology.

But I think one of the reasons that people are a little fed up out there is the sense that there isn't very much accountability at the top, that if you're the chief of police, you're the minister, you're the deputy, you're never responsible for anything. No matter how egregious the misconduct, no matter how regular the truancy, no matter how serious the transgression, somebody else is responsible. "Not on my watch, sir." I think Mr and Mrs Ontario, Mr and Mrs Canada, have seen through that. And you know, as I watched some of the Somalia inquiry, it just reminds me of a lot of other things, that it's just --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: You might be right. Listen, I quite accept my friend from Grimsby's view of the world.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Oh no, it's your Grimsby