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

September 9, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L226a - Tue 9 Sep 1997 / Mar 9 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

GAMING INITIATIVES

MOTHER TERESA

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

PAY EQUITY

ONTARIO HYDRO

PEEL COUNTY COURTHOUSE

VISITOR

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND TUITION FEES

ONTARIO HYDRO

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

HEALTH INSURANCE

GASOLINE PRICES

DOMESTIC COURTS

LOTTERY MACHINES

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

COURT DECISION

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

BLOOD SYSTEM

CHARITABLE GAMING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILD CARE

RENT REGULATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N O 2)

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

The House met at 1335.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today I hold in my hand another example which confirms the level of incompetence which is synonymous with this Minister of Education and Training. It is a sample of the carte de competence, or teacher's qualification card, recently put out for francophone teachers in this province. This form is filled with spelling errors, grammar errors and structural errors.

I gave this form to a grade 3 French teacher and asked her, using the new report card which clearly measures student achievement, to grade the minister's performance. Sadly, the minister didn't do very well.

On spelling she gave the minister an R, meaning: "The student has not demonstrated the required knowledge and skills. Extensive remediation is required." In grammar she gave the minister a D minus, which means, "The student has demonstrated some of the required knowledge and skills but in limited ways." In structures she gave the minister another R.

On a national level, this Minister of Education fell below the norm. The people of Ontario deserve more for their hard-earned money. We deserve the best-trained Minister of Education. We deserve a Minister of Education who exceeds the national average. But what do we have? We have a mediocre minister putting out mediocre policies.

GAMING INITIATIVES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This government launches yet another attack on another sector in the small business community. While the break-open ticket industry, with its 60 to 70 gaming equipment suppliers across Ontario, like Mr Nevada up on Merrittville Highway in Niagara, works with hundreds and hundreds of hospitals and charities raising money so that these hospitals and charities can continue to function, especially in a time of dramatic and cruel government cutbacks to health care and other transfer payment agencies, what has this government done?

This government proposes to put out of business every one of those approximately 70 gaming equipment suppliers here in Ontario, shut down all but one, possibly two, of the break-open ticket manufacturers, with a loss of jobs that will count in the hundreds, if not more. I tell you, that is criminal.

It's augmented by the fact that the government wants to scoop another 6% of the prize board from the break-open ticket industry, knowing full well that when that prize board drops below 70%, which it will if the government has its greedy hands in there, the sale of break-open tickets diminishes radically.

This government talks a big game about small business, but it simply doesn't deliver and it simply doesn't care. I join with Mr Nevada and its colleague companies in the gaming equipment supply industry and the break-open ticket industry in calling upon this government to end this foolish attack on that small business sector now and not repeat it again.

MOTHER TERESA

Mr John L. Parker (York East): The world had not yet absorbed the shock of the tragic death of Princess Diana when another outstanding world figure was taken from us -- Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa lived the faith that she believed. She grew up in Skopje in a household of modest means but in which no person in need was ever a stranger. She joined the Loretto nuns before she was 20 and was sent to serve in India, a country whose language she could not speak. While there, she heard the call not just to serve the poor but to become one of them, to live in the slums of Calcutta and to serve among the poorest of the world's poor. This became her life's work.

Among her greatest admirers, and perhaps the man who made her a media star, was Malcolm Muggeridge. He had a unique understanding and appreciation for the work of Mother Teresa. In his words:

"Most of what she and her Missionairies of Charity do is, in worldly terms, patently absurd. For instance, salvaging derelicts from the streets just for them to have the comfort of seeing, even for a few hours or minutes, a loving face and receiving loving care, rather than closing their eyes on a world implacably hostile, or at best indifferent, whether they lived or died."

Mother Teresa held to her faith and her beliefs against all of the dogmas of the contemporary secular world. For that reason, she has been regarded by some as controversial. Perhaps, though, the greatest controversy brought by Mother Teresa is the challenge that her life poses to each one of us to serve tirelessly, with humility and dedication, to be indifferent to things material and to hold in reverence at all times the miracle and sanctity of life.

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Did Mike Harris lend the Minister of Education his son's copy of Mr Silly? It seems that Mr Silly must have made it on to John Snobelen's reading list. Indeed, it may be the only book that he uses as a reference. "Silly" certainly seems to be the only word left in the minister's vocabulary.

Kathy Haas, chairperson of the Etobicoke Board of Education, expressed her concern that the government's proposed funding for heat, light and maintenance in our schools would be inadequate. She brought attention to her concerns by suggesting that children would have to wear mittens to sit in cold classrooms. The minister, ignoring her very real concern, as he always does, just said she was silly.

School board officials, expressing their concern that reduced provincial funding would mean the closure of schools, the loss of special education or the elimination of junior kindergarten, don't deserve a serious answer from the minister, it seems. After all, says John Snobelen, they are all just silly.

Opposition critics are just silly too, although we are granted some credit for at least being misinformed and just plain wrong. I was wrong, for example, to suggest that the minister is about to spend taxpayers' dollars trying to sell his government's misdirection for education. But lo and behold, today at 3:30 he will launch his new PR program.

What could be more just plain silly than a Minister of Education who talks about meeting the needs of every student when he has cut half a billion dollars out of education and is planning to cut $750 million more? The problem is, this isn't really silly when it comes from the man who controls the dollars and sets the priorities that affect our children's education. It's serious and it's truly scary.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The restructuring process in the north is not working. In an

article published a couple of weeks ago in the Sudbury Star, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines gave a very rosy picture of the restructuring process in northern Ontario, saying, among other things, that the government is following up on the good suggestions made by northern leaders.

The same week in the Northern Times, Kirkland Lake Mayor Joe Mavrinac said that municipal members of the Who Does What transition teams, on which Mayor Mavrinac sits, are very frustrated by the whole restructuring process and are refusing to continue until they meet with Premier Harris.

The members of the transition teams feel that all information should be on the table when making important and irreversible decisions like amalgamation. They want to know if there's any flexibility along the implementation dates and initiatives this government is forcing them to put in place by January 1. They want to know how the financial impacts for each and every community are going to affect them.

They want to know what assumptions the government is using to calculate their numbers because of the fact they don't match the municipalities' ones when we're talking about the transfer of roads and the transfer of the cost of policing and all these services on to the municipalities. Which figures do they go by?

It's very unfair and ridiculous for this government to ask the transition teams to comment and make a decision when municipal leaders don't have half of the information they need to make an informed decision.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Last night in my riding I had the pleasure of hosting a public forum on youth crime. I was also joined by members of the Crime Control Commission of Ontario. As well, the meeting was attended by a broad range of individuals and included representatives of youth, seniors, police, ratepayers, the local crime prevention association and other members of the public who want to see youth crime reduced.

What all of these people have in common is that the concern about the issues involving crime, justice and community safety brought them to this public meeting to speak out. The discussion included many constructive ideas to do with young offenders and ways to curtail any future criminal activity. It was clearly evident that those at this meeting favoured strict discipline measures for young offenders. In fact, the forum's audience supported a resident's suggestion to increase the use of strict discipline facilities.

While some may be critical of use of strict discipline facilities, I challenge any of you to look in the eyes of a victim of crime and explain your reasoning.

This government is continually focused on the goal to reduce youth crime in order to make our communities safer. My appreciation goes out to those who contributed to last night's forum.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise today to renew the attention of this Legislature to a court decision made by Mr Justice Dennis O'Leary on Friday that has serious implications for this government's agenda.

On behalf of Carlene Chambers and Kara Valian, the Service Employees International Union brought a case against this government charging that

schedule J of the infamous Bill 26 unfairly discriminated against them by removing the proxy method of comparison for the purposes of pay equity.

Schedule J capped the employer's ability to honour pay equity adjustments by requiring that no more than 3% of its 1993 payroll be devoted to closing the wage gap.

As Judge O'Leary noted, the proxy method was removed without any study of its efficacy. Its removal has allowed this government to meet its fiscal targets at the expense of women who face the greatest amount of pay inequity. It is an absolute disgrace that in their revolutionary zeal the Tories have trampled on discriminated working women and flagrantly disregarded the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People all over Ontario are calling on this government to slow down, as indeed we indicated when the bully bill, Bill 26, was passed into legislation. This is a stinging condemnation of this government's incompetence and disregard for women in this province. Slow down.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): The Minister of Energy, responsible for Ontario Hydro, has declared that he wants to appoint a legislative committee to look into the problems at Ontario Hydro and particularly Ontario Hydro nuclear. This party does not agree with that position. We believe there needs to be an independent commission to investigate the problems at Hydro, both in terms of how we got to where we are now and where we go in the future for restructuring. We do not think that a legislative committee dominated by neo-cons from the Tory back bench is the way to plot the future of Ontario Hydro.

We believe the mandate for such a commission should be as follows:

To investigate the economic, environmental and safety issues that led Hydro to its August 1997 decision to lay up seven reactors and embark on a multibillion-dollar restructuring plan.

To examine Hydro's multibillion-dollar recovery plan to determine whether it is the most economically, environmentally friendly, safe alternative for providing Ontario with reliable power supply or whether there are more suitable alternatives within the framework of public power.

To examine the government's promised white paper on the electricity industry restructuring and alternatives to it. Issues around what will happen to Hydro's debt, access to the Hydro grid and ensuring environmental and consumer protection should be a particular focus.

PEEL COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I'm pleased to announce the reopening of the historic Peel county courthouse. At the grand opening, Peel council will be holding a re-enactment of an early council meeting. This is a fitting way to celebrate the opening of the restored building.

This is an excellent example of making one of Brampton's most important heritage buildings suitable for today's needs, and I'm glad that the government of Ontario was able to play a

part in funding this project. The provincial government is helping to finance a number of projects like this across the province for a very important reason: We want to revitalize Ontario's economy. More importantly, we want to create a positive economic climate to attract new business and investment for our province. Witness the 33,000 net new jobs in August alone in this province, over 1,000 net new jobs a day.

One important element in attracting business to a community is the infrastructure of that community, the condition of the roads and bridges, the schools, the municipal buildings, the recreational facilities and so forth. Our communities should have top-quality infrastructure if we are to succeed in a global economy. Put simply, we have to invest in Ontario.

With this project, we celebrate our past along with taking another step in rebuilding Ontario's economy and creating a more prosperous future for us all.

VISITOR

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out that the former member for Windsor-Walkerville, now the current member for Windsor-Riverside, is here in the gallery with us.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you know what? If you had waited for me and I had introduced him, then the cameras would have gone on him and it would have been better for you. Now I can't do that.

Welcome. I guess we'll be seeing more of you next week.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I have a motion with regard to the order of private members' business. I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mr Shea and Mr McLean exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 99.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for second reading of the private member's bill introduced into the House yesterday, entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, which will allow for the direct election of chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to debate Bill 156, second reading? I hear a no.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Just over two years ago, this government was elected to deliver on a commitment to balance the budget and cut taxes for all Ontarians. After previous governments' 65 tax increases, doubling spending and tripling debt, we pledged to make a major change. We promised the people of Ontario we would get the finances of this province under control again and make the province of Ontario the land of opportunity it should be. We are delivering on our commitments.

Today I am pleased to submit to this Legislature the 1996-97 public accounts, which show that we are clearly turning the corner in the fight against the deficit, and as we promised, we will balance the books by the fiscal year 2000-01. I am pleased to announce that the actual 1996-97 deficit was $6.9 billion. That is fully $1.9 billion lower than the 1995-96 deficit and a further half a billion dollars lower than the deficit estimate announced in our May 1997 budget.

Today I am also releasing the 1997 annual report of the province of Ontario for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997. Our second annual report, like the first, highlights the government's financial achievements. In presenting the annual report today, I also want to emphasize that we are committed to giving all Ontarians access to information on our province's fiscal position and on the government's financial and economic performance compared to the goals we set.

Unlike previous governments, we are reducing the deficit and cutting taxes at the same time. We have always said that if Ontarians were only allowed to keep more of their own money, they would spend it and that, in turn, would increase tax revenues. The public accounts show that this is exactly the case. In the fiscal year 1996-97, tax revenues were up by $2.2 billion from the fiscal year 1995-96. Obviously, the plan is working.

While Ontario has 39% of the national labour force, we are outpacing the rest of the country in job creation. In fact, in August 60% of all new jobs created in the entire country were created in Ontario. In the last six months, employment in Ontario grew more than twice as much as the rest of Canada combined. Over the last 12 months, Ontario's help wanted index jumped 27%. Since the throne speech in September 1995, a total of 268,000 new jobs in the private sector have been created in Ontario. In that same period, more than 173,000 people have left the welfare rolls.

The evidence is clear: It is possible to cut government spending, reduce the deficit, cut taxes, reform the welfare system and strengthen the economy. The evidence is everywhere as Ontario continues to outperform the rest of the country.

Consumer confidence, one of our most important indicators, is up for the sixth straight quarter, increasing by an additional 10.6% in the April-to-June period. The Ontario economy continues to accelerate. For the first calendar quarter of this year, Ontario's real GDP almost doubled the national rate of 3.7%.

The Conference Board of Canada, in its latest provincial forecast, projects that the Ontario economy will post the fastest growth in the country in 1997, led by stronger consumer spending and continued gains in export-oriented industries.

Over the first half of 1997, manufacturing shipments are up 6.8% and Ontario exports are up 6%. Over the first eight months of this year, housing starts in Ontario are up 33.1% from a year ago, much stronger than the 20.9% national rise. So far this year, in the Toronto area new home sales have increased 53.1% and resales have risen 16.4%.

Statistics Canada's recent Investment Intentions Survey reports that Ontario businesses plan to raise plant and equipment spending by 11.8% in 1997. Residential spending is projected to rise by 20.1% this year.

This is all good news for Ontarians and for the future of this province. Our plan to cut taxes and create jobs is working. Clearly, those who say it is not cannot ignore these facts. All the economic indicators demonstrate that we are continuing in the right direction, and as a result Ontario is prospering.

A lot has been accomplished but there is a lot of work left to do. Ontarians are feeling optimistic about their future, and rightly so.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Let me respond to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't want to caution the member for Ottawa-Rideau any more. If I do, I'll have to name you.

Mr Phillips: I want to respond to the minister's statement and speak on behalf of the people who weren't here to stand and clap for that address.

Who has paid for this fiscal situation? The young people whose tuition fees have gone up enormously. The government promised they would not increase tuition fees beyond 25% of the cost. They broke that promise and it is the young people of Ontario who are paying for this.

Who else is paying for it? The property taxpayers of Ontario. Mike Harris has decided to dump $660 million of provincial cost from the province on to property tax. The members who stood today and clapped for this fiscal statement will have to go out and explain to the property taxpayers why they dumped $660 million of extra cost on to property tax.

This document, the Common Sense Revolution, promised the seniors of this province that you would introduce "no new user fees on drugs." You broke that promise completely. Seniors are paying $100 plus user fees. You said you wouldn't do that and you did that. You broke that promise.

You said you would protect health care. You are going to freeze health spending for 10 years. For 10 years health spending in this province would not go up. The population is growing by roughly a million people, our seniors are growing in significant numbers, but you are funding this fiscal statement on the backs of our health care system, freezing it for 10 years and cutting $1 billion --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You said you were going to spend $17 billion, for goodness' sake.

Mr Phillips: I know you don't want to hear that, but that is a fact.

The Speaker: Order. I'm not going to warn the government whip either. You've got to come to order. The minister was allowed to make the statement. The responses have to be allowed to be made.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, I'm quite capable of handling this particular uprising here.

I caution the government members, if you'd please come to order. Pparticularly the government whip, it would be very helpful if you could come to order.

Mr Phillips: To go on with the health issue, you've cut $1 billion out of our hospital budgets. If you want to spend more money on health care, say so, but right now Mike Harris says we're spending plenty on health. We need to spend no more money. Freezing the health budget for 10 years; that's how you're funding this.

You proudly say, "We've cut the number of people on welfare dramatically." I would just say to you, look at the employment numbers. When Mike Harris became Premier of Ontario, there were 499,000 people out of work; today there are 487,000 people out of work, virtually the same number of people out of work. Those aren't my numbers, they're the government numbers: Virtually the same number of people are out of work today as when Mike Harris became Premier.

You can proudly say, "We've cut this number of people off welfare," but where are they? Exactly the same number of people are still looking for work, unemployed as when Mike Harris became Premier.

I would say particularly tragic is the unemployment rate among our young people. I remember Mike Harris, when I raised this a year ago, said: "You're full of hot air. I don't trust your numbers." What are the numbers?

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: You don't want to hear about unemployment. I would say to the young people of Ontario, listen to this. This is the Conservative caucus bellowing about youth unemployment. It is a tragedy.

Youth unemployment in this province for the first eight months of this year is up dramatically. Last year, for the first eight months, the unemployment rate among our young people was roughly 15%. This year it is 18%. It is a tragedy, yet this document today proudly announces how great things are in Ontario. I would say to you people that if you believe it's so great among our young people, you are completely out of touch with the real world.

I realize you don't like to hear this, but this is what Ontario needs to tell you. You are funding your fiscal plan on the backs of the most vulnerable in this province. Our young people: You're taking their tuition fees up. You're cutting services for our young people. You're cutting support for education. You're cutting support for health care. And you proudly say, "Employment is just great" when there are virtually the same number of people out of work today as when Mike Harris became Premier.

I think a statement today that smugly says, "Everything is fine," is wrong. You are wrong to assume everything is fine. We have significant, dramatic problems in the province. To fund the tax cut that benefits the best off -- without any question, the tax cut funds those best off in this province. We all know who is paying for it. It is the most vulnerable.

So I don't stand and applaud this statement today. I take it as an indication of smugness and arrogance by a government that is out of touch.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I too welcome an opportunity to respond to the Minister of Finance's statement. I have with me a copy of the Common Sense Revolution and would wish to draw your attention to page 18: "This plan will balance the Ontario budget within our first mandate." I also have the statement which has just been released and read. It says "in the fiscal year 2000-01." Are we to assume that no elections will be held before April 1, the beginning of the fiscal year of the year 2000? I'm trying to help the minister, as always, and trying to reconcile both documents.

"We are delivering on our commitment." At what cost? On the backs of the most vulnerable, the marginalized, on the backs of the poor, those who can least defend themselves. A chance to live has been taken from those people. That's the commitment this government is delivering on.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would caution the member for Mississauga South to come to order. I don't want to have to warn her again.

Mr Pouliot: Another quote from the minister: "Obviously our plan is working." I think the minister is right, in all fairness. If you make $247,000 per year the government plan is working, because you shall pocket $15,000 in tax cuts. If you have a family of four and if you make a mere $25,000, you will only benefit to the tune of $450 per year. Simply put, a person making $25,000 and a person making $250,000: 10 times the earnings equals 30 times the tax savings. Yes, the plan is working; if you're rich, if you're fortunate in our society, the plan is working big time.

However, if you're marginalized, if you're trying to make ends meet, trying to make the mortgage payments, the plan is a failure.

Eliminating the deficit? The deficit is to be found among our youth, people who have no hope, almost 20% of them simply not working. The deficit is to be found in the false promise, the pretext of 725,000 jobs. Those are real human deficits. Nothing else matters: the essence of life. You can't fool people with numbers.

Proud indeed. He who takes the credit shall take the blame. How do we arrive at these figures. Simply put, the Ministry of Education: The 1993-94 budget was $8.691 billion. Well, subtract about $400 million. That's how you make ends meet to justify the tax cut, which will cost $5 billion.

If you're with the Ministry of Health, a lot less dollars are being spent per capita. You can dance around the issue, but when all is said and done, the lineups are getting bigger. There are more and more people bent in half sent home in a taxi, more and more people lined up in the corridor.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs: another downloading. People are scared and anxious because they will not release the figures, simply because they don't know the mess they're in, but they're passing the buck to the lowest common denominator. The property taxpayer will have to shoulder their ambitions. That's what it's all about.

Ministry of Natural Resources: budget cut from $502 million in 1994 to $426 million.

Ministry of Transportation: Are you with me, Al? You've cut your budget for roads -- it's in the Common Sense Revolution as well -- by $300 million. It's shameful. We give heavily at the pump and then your government has the gall and the audacity to charge $37 extra for northerners.

They're insatiable. Why? Because they're on the hook to the people who are rich, to the people who call the shots on behalf of this government. What you have is a chorus of seals that wish to be like them one day. Well, forget it, because you're getting it too. Wake up.

I wish I could applaud, but today is a sad day if you're not that fortunate.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have in my hand a copy of a document put out by your government called Your Ontario, Your Choice: A Preliminary Look at the Referendum Alternative. I just want to quote a few sections in this document.

"Public participation in government is both desirable and intrinsically preferable to capture of the policymaking apparatus by special interest groups. Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does."

Then there's a quote from the Premier: "We feel, unlike other politicians, that referendums are a good idea and do not limit the ability to manage a government. We don't think it's unreasonable for people to have those alternatives."

I'm just wondering, Minister, if you agree that referenda are a good idea.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yes.

Mr McGuinty: You'll understand why I ask that: because the last time we held a number of referenda here in the immediate vicinity, in fact in Metropolitan Toronto, you rejected outright, in the most dismissive manner possible, the results of those referenda.

I'll tell you why I also am asking you, Minister. A couple of days ago, we learned that the election officer, the person in charge of running the elections here for the new megacity, has decided that the local municipalities involved in this will not be entitled to place referenda questions on the ballot. So I'm asking you once again, are you or are you not in favour of referenda?

Hon Mr Leach: I assume from the comments from the Leader of the Opposition that he is a big fan of referenda. I wonder where he flip-flopped this time from the statement that he made on February 1, 1997, when he stated, "I am not, generally speaking, a big fan of referenda." I hear the sound of a flip-flop, where suddenly we're a big fan of referenda.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You're in charge now.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, come to order. I'm not going to warn you again -- one warning.

Hon Mr Leach: I assume the Leader of the Opposition is probably referring to the newspaper articles that were in the Star this morning that indicated that the existing municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto don't have the legal right to put a question on this fall's ballot. Technically, that's correct, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I've already had a conversation with Mayor Hall in the city of Toronto and indicated to her that I would have our legal staff review the ramifications of putting through a regulation to allow that.

Mr McGuinty: A review isn't good enough, and I'm sure you understand that, Minister. I want you to commit here and now -- it's very simple. Shortly you will have the opportunity to stand up and reply. I want you to tell us that Warren Bailie was wrong and that you are going to ensure that any municipality in the city of Toronto that chooses to place a referendum question on the ballot will be allowed to do so. It's as simple as that. Now stand up and tell me that is what's going to happen.

Hon Mr Leach: I realize that the Leader of the Opposition has his questions written out beforehand, but he might want to listen to the answers that were given.

I stated that I agree with the elections commissioner. His read of the legislation is correct, that the question cannot be legally put on the ballot at this time. I said that I've asked my legal officials to review that legislation to determine if there's a way and means of allowing that. I said right at the beginning I'm a believer in referendums, as is this government, if they're done in a proper manner. As long as we can be assured that the referendum is done in a proper, precise manner, I'm all in favour of it and I hope we can accommodate the request.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education and Training. This morning a group representing more than one third of all university students in Ontario told you that debt loads and burdens on students today are fast approaching the unbearable. Let's review the record insofar as what has happened on your watch as minister.

You have cut funding to colleges and universities by $386 million, so that now we are the lowest funder per capita in Canada when it comes to funding for our post-secondary institutions. Second, you have hiked tuition fees by 30% on your watch. Third, you have cut by some $20 million the amounts for student summer employment programs in Ontario, making it even harder for students to acquire the funds they need to pursue their post-secondary studies.

My question for you, Minister, is very simple. When will you stop being the Minister of Education carrying out Mike Harris's cuts and start being the Minister of Education advocating on behalf of Ontario students?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the Leader of the Opposition, that's not the record. The record is certainly more fulsome than that. Our ministry has been working over the course of the last two years to provide some very innovative supports for students. Our goal is very clear: to make sure that the students in Ontario have access to excellent-quality post-secondary education. That has been what we've been moving forward with in partnership with the post-secondary institutions.

Mr McGuinty: The minister has talked for quite some time now about an income-contingent repayment scheme and that this somehow is going to be the magic elixir that's going to solve all the students' woes.

I want to tell you about two concerns that they have regarding your scheme for this new loan program. First of all, they believe it's going to be a Trojan horse that you're going to use to sneak in even further dramatic tuition fee hikes in Ontario. Second, what they told us this morning was that the average interest payment by all student borrowers will increase from approximately $7,000 under the present OSAP system to $24,000 in interest under your form of an income-contingent repayment scheme.

I want you to offer your guarantee right now, Minister, that students under your new scheme will be paying no more interest than they are under the existing scheme.

Hon Mr Snobelen: As we go forward in developing the models for an income-contingent program, we will look at all of the circumstances -- at the appropriate interest rate, at the appropriate amount of funds a person can provide.

The reason for this is obvious. It's so that we can have a program where people who graduate from post-secondary institutions have an opportunity to repay their fair share of the cost while as they earn more dollars in the work world. It's responsible to the real circumstances those people find themselves in. Again, we have been working for two years to move forward on this with the federal government. We were encouraged when it was referred to in the federal budget of a year ago. We hope that you will continue to talk to your colleagues in Ottawa and ask them to move forward with us on this to get the right model for the students in Ontario. It's critically important that we do this.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Minister, the students rejected your Tory student aid plan and called for a consultation. That was the cry we heard all morning. The program you put forward has been rejected by the students because they know it will hurt students who can least afford it.

Students who need financial assistance are being penalized if they make more than $800 over the school year. Coupled with all the expenses being borne by students, which my leader just explained to you, you have now reworked the student aid program, forcing the poor to pay more. The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance would like me to ask you to justify your program where interest payments on a $31,000 loan will be an additional $82,000 debt. How can you justify this debt load on the students who can least afford it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Our program will be designed around making sure that people can repay their fair share of the cost in a way that's responsible for their circumstances. That includes -- and I'm proud of our moves over the course of the last two years -- where we've asked colleges and universities to hold back 30% of any tuition fee increase to help students most in need. We're introducing the Ontario student trust fund -- $500 million to help the students most in need in Ontario. I could go on about innovative program after innovative program intended and directed at those students most in need in Ontario, including spending more year over year on OSAP, on assistance for students.

As we begin, step by step, to build a better program for supporting students in Ontario, I can tell you that it's very difficult some days in this chamber to hear from the Leader of the Opposition about the support for these students when he said there are too many programs being offered at too many universities which could be better offered on a more efficient, cost-effective basis at --

The Speaker: New question.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Minister of Energy and of the Premier, I'll put this question to the Minister of Finance. Minister, today I released a proposal for an independent commission into the situation at Ontario Hydro. Since Hydro released its so-called plan a month ago, the costs of the plan have ballooned by more than $1.5 billion. Governor Pataki of New York has said he is worried that Ontario will be dumping more pollution on New York state if you fire up the fossil plants, as Ontario Hydro proposes.

It is clear that the situation at Hydro is not under control. Minister, I know you wouldn't want the public to think that Hydro is squandering $8.8 billion of their money and I know you wouldn't want them to think your government has a secret agenda of privatization. You say your government is serious about getting all the facts on the table about Hydro. Will you accept our proposal for a truly independent commission of inquiry?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): It's my understanding that the Minister of Energy has sent to both opposition parties a proposal, which he is certainly willing to sit down and discuss, with respect to looking into the difficulties at Ontario Hydro. I don't think anybody disputes the fact that indeed there are some difficulties at Ontario Hydro. That has been acknowledged and recognized by everybody and I think everybody understands and agrees that the public has to be taken into account and we have to make sure we have an adequate supply of safe power in Ontario.

It's my understanding that the minister has sent a letter to the two opposition parties today and he's certainly willing to sit down and talk about these things.

Mr Hampton: The proposal from your Minister of Energy is for a very quick and dirty investigation by a committee that will be dominated by your backbenchers. With all respect, Minister, people across this province have seen what happens in those committees. In the committee dealing with the megacity, anybody who came forward and disagreed with your government was either ridiculed or ignored by government members on the committee. With respect to workers' compensation, some of your backbenchers have literally shown contempt for the very injured workers who are going to be hurt by the legislation.

People want the facts to emerge. People want the serious issues that surround Hydro to be dealt with in a serious way, not by some quick and dirty government committee that already has an agenda.

Minister, that's the proposal we put to you. There are very serious issues at Hydro. Those very serious issues ought to be reviewed by an independent commission of inquiry that has the capacity to do its own research and the capacity to demand answers to the tough questions. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, it's my understanding that the minister indeed has scheduled a meeting with one of his opposition critics for tomorrow. I might note that the official opposition has taken a slightly different tack on this than the third party has. If I might say so, I wouldn't want to cast any aspersions on the official opposition getting a compliment from me, but I think the committee process is perhaps the most appropriate one in which to look at this.

However, I would like to go on and say that I have had an opportunity to peruse some of the principles in a press release put out by the New Democratic Party and by Mr Hampton, the leader of the New Democratic Party -- Power for the People, it's called -- and a statement of principles. Many of the principles that are outlined in your communiqué are the same principles that the Minister of Energy indicates in his letter that he is prepared to look at.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Eves: I think the facts are out there, and enough consensus that perhaps --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have just for the first time seen the proposed terms of reference from the Minister of Energy. While I don't disagree with a lot of the suggested terms of reference, there is no mention whatsoever about the whole issue of privatization of Hydro or parts of Ontario Hydro.

I think that is what is bothering us about the investigation going to an all-party committee which will be dominated by Tory backbenchers. We know what the intent of the government is on privatization and where your backbenchers will come down: They'll come down four-square on the side of privatization. That is why we want to have included in the terms of reference the whole issue of privatization, and I don't see it in this set of terms of reference. That is why we are calling for an independent inquiry that would be able to look into that in a much more objective-minded way than your backbenchers will ever do. That is why we are asking you now: Will you appoint an independent inquiry?

Hon Mr Eves: The issue of Ontario Hydro and difficulties with Ontario Hydro, as anybody who has been in this place is quite aware, and I'm sure the member is quite aware, has been around for many years, many decades. It certainly transcends all three political parties in this Legislature.

I would agree that we need to balance the needs of the public with timely decision-making that will ensure a power supply that is safe and secure for the future of Ontario. I would think those would be the most primary things we would want to have a committee of the Legislature look at, and I think they can look at that.

The minister will be releasing shortly his white paper on Ontario Hydro in a response to the Macdonald commission's report, and I'm sure that context will be there for any Legislative Assembly committee at the time those deliberations take place.

Calls for public inquiry get a little exaggerated from time to time. I have here a list of some 19 different times that the opposition parties in this Legislature have asked for public inquiries. They want a public inquiry almost every second week. I think we should --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Finance.

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Labour: It seems like every day now a court in Ontario has bad news for the Harris government and good news for all the people of Ontario. Yesterday the court ruled that this government's attempt to take away pay equity money from the lowest-paid women in the province was unconstitutional.

Today I want to talk about another court case. This one involves charges of contempt of the Ontario Labour Relations Board after Management Board Chair Dave Johnson was quoted as saying, "There would be a shake-up if the labour board decisions went against the government." Unbelievably you, the Minister of Labour, have fought tooth and nail to prevent the appointment of an independent person to hear the case against the Chair of Management Board. Now you have lost that court case too. The judge has issued an order saying that if you won't appoint an independent adjudicator, he will.

Minister, I want to ask you the same question I asked yesterday: Are you finally willing to listen to people and, most of all, listen to the courts?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I am well aware of the court's decision in the SEIU matter. I think you probably had some of the information a little different from what has been stated. But I will tell you I am very pleased that the court found the independence of the OLRB was not of issue. As I had indicated to the parties in my February 13, 1997, letter, they had possible remedies available to them in our court system and it would seem that those remedies are being pursued.

Mr Hampton: I invite any members of the public to get a copy of this court case, because the minister certainly has a sanitized version. Look, the court is ordering an independent adjudicator because the court is essentially finding that the Chair of Management Board has interfered.

I want to take you back to what this was all about: Your government took away the collective agreements of men and women who clean the office buildings at the Macdonald Block across the street. The allegations then expanded to include allegations that your government improperly fired labour board members, made partisan political appointments to that quasi-judicial tribunal and tried to intimidate the labour board into making decisions favouring your government. You were asked three times to appoint an independent adjudicator and you refused. Now the court has found that you were wrong.

Minister, I put the question to you: You have got all kinds of other labour cases. You are going to have some issues arise out of Bill 136. Are you going to start listening to the people, and are you going to start listening to the courts, finally, in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would simply indicate to you again that I am well aware of the court decision in this matter and that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the issue.

Mr Hampton: All the minister has to say is that she is going to start obeying the law, that she is going to start obeying the courts of Ontario.

While I'm at it, Minister, you can do something else. One of your hallmarks is that you made scabs legal again in this province. So we've got at S.A. Armstrong a scab situation; at Goldcorp in northwestern Ontario a scab situation; and now at PC World in Scarborough. You have given the signal to employers that they can treat workers with contempt. In fact, I would say you have led that whole stand.

The steelworkers have asked you to appoint a mediator at S.A. Armstrong. You refused to do that. Today the auto workers called on your government to intervene and to get good-faith bargaining started again to settle a bitter eight-month strike at PC World in Scarborough. I don't need to tell you that the labour board has already had some findings with respect to PC World.

Minister, are you going to do the right thing? Are you going to start listening to people and try to help these situations rather than making them worse

Hon Mrs Witmer: Fortunately, we are listening to people; in fact we have created an environment within this province which has created 33,000 jobs in the last month. If you take a look at retail sales, they have increased 5%. If you take a look at car sales, housing sales, everywhere you look there is a tremendous optimism in this province, simply because we have listened to the people.

If you want to take a look at the issue of the PC World strike, I can indicate to you that, as a result of the meeting that took place this morning between the Deputy Minister of Labour and the president of PC World, we hope the parties will resume their negotiations to reach a settlement as soon as possible. We have had our mediators available. --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. New question, official opposition.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I have in my hand the public accounts which you released a few moments ago and, reading from page 19 of the volume concerning notes on financial statements, I see some concern raised by your officials at the Ministry of Finance about the Ontario government position vis-à-vis the Ontario Hydro debt guarantee.

According to your own documents tabled here just a few moments ago, the Ontario government has now guaranteed approximately $29 billion worth of Hydro debt. According to your own document, and I read from page 19, "The Ontario government's risk to make payments under the guarantees has been increased as a result of recent activities at Ontario Hydro."

Given this statement today, what has your government done, what has your department done, to assess this so-called recovery plan that the Hydrocrats are engaged in that seems to many outside observers to increase the exposure of the Ontario government?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, who always puts his questions so eloquently and so demandingly: The bond rating agencies, you will know their initial response, of course, to the report coming out of Ontario Hydro. Moody's, CBRS and Standard and Poor's all indicate that they think the province is more than capable of handling any difficulties that may or may not come out of the Ontario Hydro report.

Officials at finance obviously are talking to individuals and officials at Ontario Hydro. It would not be appropriate for us to do otherwise, I would submit to you. We are certainly of the impression to date that Ontario Hydro will be able to meet any financial demands it has with its initial plan, I might say, that's out there for the public to see today.

Mr Conway: Your own report today raises the concern about an increased exposure and risk to the Ontario government and its taxpayers as a result of recent Hydro activities. My question is very clear. Has anyone in the Ontario government, most especially has anybody at treasury and finance, done an independent assessment about this so-called nuclear recovery program the dollars of which have changed by over $1.5 billion in just three weeks?

Has anybody looked at the Hydro plan, independent of Hydro, to come to some conclusions as to whether it's a good plan, the right plan, what options have been looked at and discarded, or are we just going let the Hydrocrats who got us all into this mess in the first place develop the recovery plan without anybody in finance or in the government, whose risk and exposure is pointed out today in the public accounts, doing an independent assessment in the name of the Hydro ratepayers and, more important, the Ontario taxpayers who are on the hook for all of this multibillion-dollar guarantee?

Hon Mr Eves: Obviously any time that there are additional debt problems created, if and when they are created for Ontario Hydro, the province of Ontario has increased exposure in that area. That goes without saying. Yes, finance officials are talking to people at Ontario Hydro, because the government wants to be satisfied that the appropriate plan of action is being taken and that indeed it's a workable plan. We talked earlier today; a question was asked by the leader of the third party about Ontario Hydro. We're going to have a legislative committee, hopefully, that will look at this entire issue.

I think these are all welcome suggestions and all very appropriate ones and I would share his concern, but I would not assume that because there may be some increased exposure to Ontario as a result of what Hydro is doing, we should go off half-cocked, so to speak. I think we should approach this in a rational and appropriate fashion, and that's exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.

J'ai ici une lettre de votre secrétaire du Cabinet qui indique que vos propres ministères partagent nos craintes et celles des autres francophones. Laissez-moi lire une

partie de cette lettre ; c'est une traduction parce que la lettre était écrite en anglais :

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I would ask the honourable member to repeat the question. I do not have my earset in my desk. As a matter of fact, the set I borrowed is not working. So if he would be so kind as to repeat the question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's a fairly reasonable request, because mine isn't working either, for some reason.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I don't even need one.

The Speaker: Could you stop the clock, please. Maybe it would be helpful if the member for St Catharines could repeat it for us.

Do you want to ask it again?

J'ai ici une lettre qu'on a reçue de votre secrétaire du Cabinet qui indique que vos propres ministères ont les mêmes craintes que notre parti. Je vais en lire une traduction :

Hon Mr Eves: I will refer this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I think it's a question dealing with providing French-language services via municipalities.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Should I ask him to repeat it?

The Speaker: Forget it. We're not repeating it again.

M. Bisson : Je trouve ce processus-là à travers lequel on vient de passer un peu frustrant. Premièrement, on ne comprend pas la question. Deuxièmement, on la réfère à un ministre qui n'a même pas entendu la question. Quand même, vous avez essayé.

Au ministre des Affaires municipales, qui est chargé du processus Qui Fait Quoi, si on lit cette lettre de votre secrétaire du Cabinet, il y a une

partie là-dedans qui me préoccupe et qui fait peur.

Hon Mr Leach: Again to my good friend in the third party, as I stated, one of the reasons for some of those pieces of correspondence is that every ministry and every department of this government wants to ensure that French-language service is protected. That's why those pieces of correspondence go from ministry to ministry, to make sure that each ministry is prepared to provide services to francophones in their native language. We are going to ensure on a program-by-program basis that the services required by francophones in Ontario are there for them as they are now.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Labour and it concerns this government's ongoing consultation around Bill 136.

Members of this House will be aware of the recent consultations between the Minister of Labour, the Premier and other ministers with the Ontario Federation of Labour. Members of this House will also know that the government is currently considering the various recommendations made by the OFL. It's clear that the minister and this government are continuing to listen to receive input on Bill 136.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate for us on other areas of consultation around this bill to give us some further sense of the government's consultation.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Yes, we are consulting and have consulted with the OFL. In fact, today my ministry staff continued to engage in consultations with the OFL. It was as a result of the input we had received from the labour leaders prior to the introduction of the bill that we did not include the successor right provisions and the restrictions on contracting out.

We've also met with AMO, we have met with the health and hospital organizations, we will be meeting with ONA and we have been consulting with the police as well. So we are having widespread consultation on Bill 136. I'm quite confident that at the end of the day we will be able to look at some alternative suggestions.

Mr Klees: I wonder if the minister could elaborate for us and give us some specifics as to the outcome of this consultation and listening process so far.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The results of the consultation, including the consultation today, have been very positive.

We have heard from the Toronto transition team, who have written to us to say, "Bill 136 is an essential element in the objective of a smooth transition to the new city of Toronto." The president of AMO said in his speech, "AMO remains committed to the principles it originally espoused and are found in Bill 136"; and Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, has written to us and she has indicated in her letter, "I was greatly disappointed in the way Bill 136 was considered and voted on at the conference," meaning the AMO conference. "I am pleased that you are not going to withdraw the bill.

You are correct that AMO has, over the years, asked for more control, especially regarding arbitration."

We are consulting, we are listening and we want to ensure that all employees receive fair treatment.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last week I talked to you about an individual who has been waiting since last April for an MRI at Sunnybrook hospital. His doctor called again last week and found out he is still going to be waiting a couple of more months. Last Thursday Ed Sprague, who plays for the Blue Jays, injured his shoulder. He got an MRI in a Toronto hospital the next day.

There's something wrong with this scenario, and it's your scenario: the idea that MRI services can only provide 40 hours a week through OHIP and then rent their services out to private insurance companies in order to make up the costs. We're finding out that in one Ontario hospital they're operating for 90 hours and only 40 hours of that is for OHIP; the rest is for private insurance and WCB.

Is it not a violation of the Ontario Health Insurance Act to charge directly to sell insurance for a cost of a medically necessary service? If that's the case, what are you doing about it?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): No. In the history of OHIP, it's never been against the rules that once the publicly funded system has paid for the hours, then hospitals are free to use the equipment for private services -- insurance services only. Individuals can't come in off the street; that's a violation of the act.

The act has been challenged many times. The federal government, including the current Liberal government, has clarified this area, and nothing has changed over the past several decades.

It's not uncommon, for example, that much of the workers' compensation work, which is an insurance company, is done after the OHIP work. It's simply a matter of the availability of times. These are decisions taken by the hospital. They are not taken by the Ministry of Health, and they never have been taken by the Ministry of Health nor the Minister of Health.

Mr Kennedy: There's no denying that this practice is taking place. It's supposed to be for very limited purposes, but nobody is checking on that, and from what you just said, you're not even concerned about it.

If you've got a private insurance company and you can pay for it, you get an MRI in days, maybe a few weeks. If you're a taxpayer in Ontario, expecting quality health services through your government, you wait for months. This isn't acceptable.

The hospitals have told us that you're only paying $150,000 of the upkeep for those machines. It doesn't even cover the service contract. They've got to rent out their machines, they have to do this, because you won't give them enough money to provide MRI services to the public. You have created the lineups. You are the one making this accountant who's got back pain, who can't walk, who is 53 years old -- he doesn't get the service, but Ed Sprague does.

We've heard how unconcerned you are and we want to know: Are you sponsoring this development of a two-tier system in Ontario for MRIs? You say the Ontario Health Insurance Act isn't violated. I would say to you that the Canada Health Act is being violated. I would like you stand up and tell us what you're going to do about it,

Hon Mr Wilson: It's a ridiculous assertion. If the member has any doubts about my answers, he can ask the federal Liberal Minister of Health.

Second, I'm proud to say that the federal government has made clear in the two years I've been health minister that we're the only province in which they have no complaints about the way we uphold the Canada Health Act. We have no irritants between us and Ottawa with respect to upholding the Canada Health Act.

Third, I don't like the system we inherited from you and the NDP either, and that's why we're adding 23 more MRIs so people can have access to modern technology that's long-overdue in our health care system. We're acting where you failed to act.

Go talk to the feds. Tell them to give back our $2 billion. And stop standing in our way of restructuring, because we need to get these MRIs up and running for the patients of Ontario.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Tomorrow is the start of the federal-provincial consumer ministers' conference in Regina. You introduced a resolution in this House almost two weeks ago, but while it was debated last week, there was no vote.

You can blame the Liberals for that all you want, but you're the government in Ontario and the government has not put the resolution on gas pricing on today's agenda. Minister, will you put the resolution on the House agenda today so that you won't be going to Regina empty-handed tomorrow?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Earlier last week we heard a lot of rhetoric from the opposition parties indicating a clear support for the resolution. To the credit of the third party, they were very supportive of the fact that we need to go to Saskatchewan. They understand how important this is to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I was saying, at least the members of the New Democratic Party understand how important this issue is to the people of the province and they are willing to carry through on their commitment to protect the people of Ontario.

I can understand where the Liberals are coming from. I guess they want to protect their cousins in Ottawa. They don't want to somehow bother their federal counterparts and they put that political agenda ahead of the agenda of the people of Ontario.

We have a commitment. It is on the agenda to speak to at the conference. I will carry forward the fact that most of the House supports the resolution, and certainly we'll try to do everything we can to protect the people of Ontario from high and outrageous gas prices.

Mr Martin: Where's the beef, Minister? Ontario consumers continue to be gouged. Gas prices in southern Ontario range from the high 50s to the low 60s. Northern Ontario consumers are gouged twice. Wawa's gas prices continue at 72.9 cents a litre. Other gas prices in northern Ontario hover around 65.9 cents a litre or higher. Gas prices in border towns like Windsor and Welland and Fort Frances and my own community of Sault Ste Marie are sending people across the border to the United States of America. They are not just buying gas; consumers are making other purchases.

Yes, the federal government is equipped to deal with this in the Competition Act and the standing commission which looks into competition policy. Minister, the NDP caucus will support the gas pricing resolution, but will you resolve to take some action yourself, check out Prince Edward Island's Petroleum Products Act, and to alleviate the double whammy on northerners, will you eliminate the $37 motor vehicle registration fee which you reintroduced?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't believe it's a question of looking for where the beef is. Perhaps I can look across at the opposition party and see the results of one end of the beef in terms of the gas prices and the gas situation.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: At least you guys got it.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's a relief to be able to get up and speak now after that cacophony of flatulence over there. Clearly we have a commitment to try to protect the consumers of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Perhaps you can pass the dictionary over there to the member for St Catharines so he understands that.

We have a commitment to act for the consumer in Ontario. It is being tabled at the ministers' conference. Certainly I will take the support of the House there.

I would like to just mention one thing. We had an opportunity to pass a resolution earlier on, and once again I must point out that the NDP support the resolution. If I could just say what Mr Hampton, the leader of the third party, said: "I've listened intently to the speakers who addressed this issue" -- speaking to the Liberal Party -- "and so far I'm a bit perplexed. I've listened to a number of Liberal representatives. I'm not sure if they're supporting the resolution or not supporting the resolution." Gee, what a change.

DOMESTIC COURTS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): My question is to the Attorney General. The minister recently announced the expansion of specialized domestic courts to six new sites across Ontario, one of which is in London. When does the minister expect these new courts to be operational?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In London we are setting up a court modelled on the Toronto K court experience. The court is made up of a designated team of crown attorneys, police and victim support staff with expertise in training in domestic assault cases. Before selecting and scheduling cases, the new crown attorneys, courtrooms and batterers' programs must all be in place. We are presently working with all parties, including the police, to complete these steps, and with the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham.

The court will be operational in December 1997. At that time, the court will begin selecting and scheduling cases for hearing. Based on the success of our pilot projects that are already running in Metropolitan Toronto, I'm hopeful that all six new courts will help to further combat the problem of domestic violence, while supporting victims of this crime before, during and after the court process.

Mr Bob Wood: In what concrete ways does the minister expect these new courts to make the system work better?

Hon Mr Harnick: To date we have taken a look at the concrete ways in the city of Toronto in the K court where prosecutors are unanimous that they are obtaining more convictions in cases where previously their only evidence was the victim's testimony. The new court uses additional evidence such as 911 tapes, photos of the crime scene and the victim's injuries, as well as audio-video recordings of the victim's statement to police, which has reduced the pressure on victims to testify in court.

In North York we have a court that's designed to break the cycle of abuse through early intensive intervention with first-time offenders where there has been no physical injury. One hundred and seventy-nine cases have been deemed eligible for this project; 107 of the 179 accused have entered counselling programs to change their behaviour and prevent future violence. That is why the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, has invested $5.2 million over the next four years into opening six new specialized domestic violence courts, something that neither of the opposition parties ever deemed to be important.

LOTTERY MACHINES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. There are 700 instant ticket vending machines in the province of Ontario, machines that dispense scratch-and-win tickets. Currently there are no enforcement controls in place to oversee the sale of these tickets. They're available in doughnut shops, laundromats, bowling alleys, all over the place. This summer, a 14-year-old boy visited four of these establishments and was able to buy four scratch-and-win lottery tickets.

Minister, you have in your ministry and the Ontario Lottery Corp the authority to withdraw these machines in the province of Ontario. Will you do that?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I refer the question to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): We share the concerns when under-age people use these machines. There were concerns given to us over the last few months, and I have asked the Ontario Lottery Corp to delve into any abuses by the people who run the vending machines which allow young people to use these machines.

The member has a very good point. I think we're all concerned that under-age people should be using these machines. I will continue to refer these situations to the lottery corporation for investigation.

Mr Crozier: You just don't understand. A referral to the lottery corporation isn't enough. They can't control them. There are four tickets there that prove that.

If you really care whether we stop children from gambling in the province, you'll do like the previous government did with cigarette vending machines and you'll get rid of them. That's the way to solve the problem. Why don't you stand up today and say, "I don't like children gambling in the province of Ontario and I'm going to get rid of these machines"?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think I made it very clear that I did not think it was right that young people use these machines. But I would like to say that our policy with the lottery corporation is to remove these lottery ticket vending machines from those retail outlets that are selling to under-age people. We have done this in the past and we will do it again. I'm glad you brought the point to me. I'd ask you if you could tell me what location it was where this happened and be specific.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'd like to say to the member from the opposition that the people who sell to minors can be fined up to $50,000 and corporations can be fined up to $250,000. If I could ask him for his cooperation, to give me the details of the situation, I would be glad to investigate it and report back to him.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Attorney General regarding the family support plan. It has been a year since you closed the regional offices of the family support plan and laid off 290 staff, and there has been no improvement whatsoever for women and children who are trying to get money they're entitled to. Every day our constituency offices --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you must withdraw that statement. That's out of order.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'll withdraw it, Speaker.

Laughter.

Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that some people don't think this is a serious issue.

Every day women and children continue to call our constituency offices because they can't get through on the 1-800 line, they get no replies to their faxes or letters, and cheques continue to be lost or delayed for no good reason whatsoever.

We want to raise with you today the case of Lorna Bell, who we've been trying to help since April of this year. She is in arrears right now of $3,167.49. She has received support payments for 15 years and had no problem with her payments until you closed the Windsor office. The last contact we had with family support on August 6 was for the family support plan to offer to call Chrysler and find out where her money has gone. We haven't heard from anyone since. Can you tell me why Lorna Bell and her son can't get the money they are entitled to?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will certainly take a look at the information the member has provided today and see if we can find an answer. I reiterate that there are a number of variables as to why money doesn't find its way into the hands of the recipient. Sometimes the payor is no longer working. Sometimes there are court orders that involve some work to be done. I don't know the answer, but we will look into that.

I know the member doesn't want to admit that the plan has gotten better. The fact is that 95% of money is processed within 24 to 48 hours. It's done by the Royal Bank. It's done through modern technology. Last month, $37.5 million was distributed by the Family Responsibility Office, and that is a significant improvement over anything this plan was ever able to do in the past.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Lorna Bell's problems didn't begin until this Attorney General dismantled the family support plan across the province. Just like Victoria Adam and her two kids, who first made contact with our caucus in March 1997. She simply couldn't get through to the Attorney General's new FSP consolidated up in Downsview. In fact, the 1-800 number that the Attorney General published seems to be accessible to nobody any longer; all one gets is voice mail.

The special number for constituency offices -- because you see, family support remains the number one problem that our constituency offices remain confronted by -- the special so-called access line for MPPs has been cut off as well.

Victoria Adam is owed almost $1,300 by this Attorney General. Her problems began with his dismantling of the family support plan. Where's her money? How come you can't get your act together? How come neither these people nor constituency offices can get through to your staff?

Hon Mr Harnick: We all know there are about 165,000 people who are recipients of money through the Family Responsibility Office. This has been the case for many, many years. We also know that for many, many years payments didn't flow simply and easily through what was the former family support plan. We also know that today a greater percentage of phone calls are being returned and answered and problems solved in a one-step process than has ever been the case before.

We also know that as a result of closing regional offices, we found 90,000 backlogged items: 90,000 people who didn't have their cost-of-living allowance applied, 90,000 people who didn't have their mail answered. We are now eating into that backlog. That backlog should be gone by late October. The plan has made tremendous advances beyond anywhere that the plan ever existed. I say to the people who ask these questions to take a look at their facts and realize how terrible this plan was before and how improved it is today.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and is entitled "Let the People Decide."

"Whereas Bill 156 was introduced as a private member's bill and is entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, 1997; and

"Whereas this bill provides for the direct election of the chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury by a vote of the electors in the area municipalities; and

"Whereas the election of the regional chair will be held concurrently with the regular election in the area municipalities; and

"Whereas we, the electorate of the regional municipality of Sudbury, want to be part of the electoral process in electing a regional chair; and

"Whereas we, the electorate, believe that as residents of the area municipalities composing the regional municipality of Sudbury we have a right to decide who is elected to the office of regional chair; and

"Whereas we, the electorate, support Rick Bartolucci's private member's bill which lets the people decide;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the private member's bill entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, which will provide the taxpayers of the regional municipality of Sudbury with a voice in electing our regional chair, and urge the assembly to deal with this private member's bill immediately."

I affix my signature to the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by 170 residents, mainly of the Ottawa area, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, regarding the government's download to municipalities. The petitioners are raising objections to the download of the cost of transportation, social services, public health and the removal of school boards' ability to tax, the government's lack of consultation with those affected, and as a result, the petitioners are stating that they are registering a vote of non-confidence in this government.

I affix my signature to it.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 124 people. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the undersigned residents living in the city of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario are in need of a new regional acute care hospital situated in the city of Thunder Bay to provide the said residents with quality health care services in a modern and up-to-date acute care hospital; and

"Whereas the partial renovation and restructuring of the existing Port Arthur General Hospital, a 65-year-old outdated and antiquated hospital building, proposed by the Health Services Review Commission and the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario will not be suitable, adequate or proper to provide such quality health care services to the said residents; and

"Whereas the undersigned residents endorse and support the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital and the trustees of the hospital board and their vision of a new centrally located hospital to serve the northwestern Ontario region;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reverse the decision and direction of the health services review commission and the Minister of Health to have all acute care services for the city of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario region delivered from the renovated and restructured site of Port Arthur General Hospital and to endorse and approve capital funding to build a new centrally located acute care hospital in the city of Thunder Bay."

Once again, several hundred residents have signed this petition, and I affix my signature.

TVONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario provides Ontarians of all ages with programming that broadens understanding and responds to specific learning needs;

"Whereas TVOntario does this through formal and informal educational programming on its two networks, TVO and TFO, which are available to 97% of households; and

"Whereas for over 26 years TVOntario has encouraged Ontarians to acquire new skills, advance their knowledge and pursue the benefits of lifelong learning through its educational programming; and

"Whereas without government support, programming which educates the viewer would not have the commercial appeal to survive;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the privatization of TVOntario."

I have affixed my signature to it as well.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I have a petition relating to the issue of toplessness, courtesy of the Kennedy Road Tabernacle and the Bramalea Baptist Church.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to appear topless in public; and

I affix my signature yet again.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in the election campaign of June 1995, the agriculture policy put forth in the Common Sense Revolution assured residents of this province there would be no further cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture; and

"Whereas the current Minister of Agriculture repeatedly stated during the said election campaign that a Mike Harris government would not cut but increase spending to agriculture; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has indeed cut agriculture spending by $80 million and is now proceeding with an additional $60-million cut over the next two years;

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

"To cease the program of cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture, to increase funding in this ministry to an appropriate level and ensure the existence of the Ministry of Agriculture for the years to come."

I also sign the petition.

BLOOD SYSTEM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition from a number of citizens of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw your attention to the following:

"That over 70% of persons with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through the use of blood-derived treatment products. With hepatitis C as with HIV, the same institutional players of the blood system failed to respond to the identified risk of transmission, failed to properly notify people of the potential risk of exposure, failed to implement safety measures to lessen the risk of transmission, that is, the failure of the Red Cross to implement surrogate testing for hepatitis C for over four years, and now continue to deny any responsibility for these failures.

"That the representatives of Hemophilia Ontario and its hepatitis C task force have been advocating for financial compensation to those individuals who have been infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system. The provincial Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, has three times cancelled meetings with Hemophilia Ontario, and the provincial and territorial ministers of health have publicly stated that they intend to keep the issue of hepatitis C compensation off their agenda in future meetings; and

"Further, that the only prescribed treatment for hepatitis C in Ontario is alpha interferon, which has a less than 25% success rate in clearing the virus among people who have had one exposure to the virus. Many haemophiliacs were repeatedly exposed to the hepatitis C virus through the use of blood-derived treatment products. The response to interferon therapy in haemophiliacs with chronic HCV infection is poor and appears inferior to that of other groups of infected patients. In view of the generally poor response to interferon therapy in haemophiliacs, treatment with interferon is inappropriate in the majority of individuals, as quoted in Blood magazine, volume 87, number 5, March 1996.

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon you to meet with representatives of Hemophilia Ontario's hepatitis C task force now to discuss issues related to compensation."

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition signed by approximately 100 constituents from the riding of Lambton. It states:

"Professing that our world belongs to God and believing that governments are called to secure justice for all, with prejudice towards none and with compassion for the weak and powerless;

"We, the undersigned, urge you, our member of provincial Parliament, to oppose and resist the spread of gambling into our area. Specifically, we ask you to resist all efforts to install video lottery terminals here and oppose the operation of local or regional charity casinos."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Northwestern hospital provides quality health care to the residents of northwest Toronto; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario and the board of Humber River regional hospital are planning to close Northwestern hospital as early as September 1997; and

"Whereas adequate replacement services are not available and the care of all residents in northwest Metro will be in jeopardy; and

"Whereas there have already been cases of risk to patients due to the rush to close Northwestern this summer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee no shutdown of services at Northwestern occurs until replacement services are available, and further to review the quality of health services which will be available to the whole northwest area."

I have several hundred local residents who have signed this petition. I add my signature to theirs.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government is abandoning its responsibility to provide good care for people who live in long-term-care facilities by defunding and deregulating the sector; and

"Whereas the resulting staffing shortages lead to loss of quality care, decreased resident security and more workplace injuries; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that funding, staffing and standards provide a level of care which promotes dignity and respect for those who live and work in long-term-care facilities;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide adequate funding for the care of residents in long-term-care facilities, to establish and enforce provincial standards for care in Ontario long-term-care facilities and to impose a moratorium on the selloff of care for vulnerable residents to the for-profit sector."

I agree with this petition and I'm proud to affix my signature.

CHILD CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infant and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature to (

a) pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices, such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care, and to (

b) pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

I have signed this petition.

RENT REGULATION

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that `rent control will continue'; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those that can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and to introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in total and complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, woman-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health care."

I am proud to affix my signature as I am in agreement with the petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 142,

An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes / Projet de loi 142, Loi révisant la loi relative à l'aide sociale en édictant la

Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la

Loi sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées, en abrogeant la

Loi sur les prestations familiales, la

Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la

Loi sur l'aide sociale générale et en modifiant plusieurs autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 4, 1997, I am now required to put the question.

Mrs Ecker has moved second reading of Bill 142. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1530 to 1535.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kormos, Peter

Laughren, Floyd

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 4, 1997, the bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on social development.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N O 2)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 148,

An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 8, 1997, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Leach has moved second reading of Bill 148. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1540 to 1545.

The Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kormos, Peter

Laughren, Floyd

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 8, 1997, this bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on general government.

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

Mrs Mushinski moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques de façon à situer à l'échelon local les pouvoirs, la responsabilité et l'obligation de rendre compte concernant la fourniture et la gestion efficace des services locaux de bibliothèque.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Mr Speaker, I will be dividing my time this afternoon with the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

The Local Control of Public Libraries Act proposes to do exactly what its title suggests: put the responsibility and accountability for managing public libraries where it belongs, with the communities which are served by those libraries.

We are very proud of our libraries. This government wants to ensure that they will continue to serve the people of this province as repositories of books and as very accessible sources of information in all its many forms. The best way to do this is to allow the communities served by those libraries to determine how their own public library resources should be used.

Last year, the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation conducted consultations with the library community and the public. Officials from the ministry and I spoke with delegations of library associations and organizations, with members of library boards and municipal councils and, most important, with library users themselves.

This year, following second reading of this bill, the standing committee on general government held hearings in which my parliamentary assistant, Mr Derwyn Shea, participated on my behalf. In these consultations and hearings there was a strong consensus that library boards should be retained. The bill before you proposes to do just that.

The committee recommended other changes. The bill now provides that library boards have a minimum number of board members and that meetings of the library board be open to members of the public.

Library boards will ensure that the concerns of libraries will keep a high profile at the municipal level. They are an ideal way for citizens to become involved in the management of their local library's resources. A further opportunity for community participation in the governance of libraries will arise when each municipality debates its own bylaws on the makeup of its library boards.

In the hearings there was some discussion as to who should be eligible to be on library boards. Some presenters felt that a majority of citizens other than elected officials should be required by the bill. The advantages of having elected officials on the library board were noted by Tom Boyle, the chair of the Bruce County Public Library, who made the point that the presence of elected officials on library boards furthers the accountability of the board to the community. The standing committee adopted the position that municipalities should be free to constitute library boards as they see fit. This conclusion is reflected in the bill now before the House.

In the consultations there was also a strong consensus that core services of libraries continue to be offered free of charge. There would be no charge for access to libraries -- anyone would be able to enter a library and use library-owned collections free of charge -- there would be no charge to residents for borrowing books and other printed materials and there were be no charge for borrowing special-format materials for residents with disabilities.

During the hearings there was strong support for the network connecting Ontario's libraries. Through the Ontario library network, libraries communicate with each other to make interlibrary loans possible. Thanks to these systems of interconnectivity, small neighbourhood libraries have access to specialized collections held by much larger libraries on the other side of the city or on the other side of the province.

The network is currently being enhanced to carry high-speed digital information in multimedia form and to connect to the Internet and other repositories of information throughout the province, the country, and indeed the world. Under the new library framework, the government would continue to fund this network for the benefit of all of Ontario's public libraries.

If Bill 109 is adopted, day-to-day responsibility for and control over library operations will clearly rest with the local government. The province will continue to use its resources to advance the Ontario library network, and the new library framework will protect the traditional role of our libraries while recognizing and advancing their position on the leading edge of the information revolution.

These times have been called the information age. We know very well how thoroughly we rely on access to information and the exchange of information just to function in everyday life. Our public libraries are the most accessible source of information in society today. The goal of our new library framework is to ensure that libraries remain accessible while serving the rapidly evolving needs of the communities they serve. I am pleased to recommend this bill to my colleagues in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Questions and comments?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): She is splitting her time.

The Acting Speaker: Splitting the time, the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I am very pleased to follow up on the comments made by the distinguished minister, the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski. I remind all members of this House of the title of the bill before us today. It is the Local Control of Public Libraries Act. I remind us of that because that is extremely important throughout this debate. It proposes to do exactly what its title suggests: put the responsibility of accountability for managing local libraries where it belongs, with the communities which are served by those libraries. I ask us to remember that as we go through this debate.

It puts the responsibility for governance of the libraries in the hands of those councils directly elected by the people.

I am confident that when passed by this assembly, this act will serve us well. Bill 109 would amend the Public Libraries Act to add the following purpose to the existing legislation:

"

(1) To ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs;

"

(2) To support Ontarians' requirements for access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society;

"

(3) To allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network."

Surely those are three principles at which no one in this House would take umbrage.

This act would be the newest phase in the evolution of the relationship between the government and the province's public libraries. This is a relationship which, I remind us, predates Confederation. It is a relationship which has evolved and changed with the times. The Local Control of Public Libraries Act, together with a new regulation under the Municipal Act, would provide a new framework for Ontario's public libraries. This new framework would result in more effective and simpler management of library services at the local level.

I ask you to mark these words. We believe that municipalities, which provide the majority of library funding, are in the best position to make the decisions which affect the delivery of local library service. Surely this is a fundamental principle in a democratic system. I find myself struggling -- and I'll wait to hear with more than passing interest the arguments that will be posed by my distinguished colleague from Port Arthur in the Liberal Party opposition and from my distinguished colleagues in the NDP third party, who will try to tell this House why local government ought not to be trusted in the governance of local libraries. I look to hearing that.

Our province-wide review of library services began, I remind us also, before Mr Crombie's Who Does What panel, and this proposed legislation and the new library framework are consistent with the principles of that report. I emphasize that the Who Does What panel brought forward this sort of recommendation for us to follow.

To safeguard the independence of libraries, I also remind us Bill 109 would continue to require that libraries be operated by library boards. I want to say at this point that's a point on which I was touched and persuaded by deputations during the public hearings. I think they were well made and I think the minister and the government have responded appropriately to those deputations.

After much discussion as to the minimum number of members a library board would be required to have, the standing committee has decided to recommend that no fewer than three members should sit on a duly constituted library board, and that is also in keeping with many of the comments raised by deputants before the committee -- three members. I also point out that that is the minimum number in the bill, as amended.

I would like to take this opportunity as well, on behalf of the minister, to thank all those who took

part in the standing committee's review of this legislation, particularly the many people from around the province who took the time and made the effort to submit briefs and attend the hearings. I want to give them comfort to know that each and every one of us read those briefs diligently and listened very carefully to the deputations.

Our new library framework is appropriate for the age of the knowledge-based society -- the minister was making that point, and I want to re-emphasize that -- and the information economy that is before us now, two developments in which I am pleased to say Ontario has led the way. As new systems of information technology have been developed and applied to business, government and the institutions of learning, our libraries have made this state-of-the-art technology available to the public.

Even while our libraries are bringing us information on the electronic highways, they are continuing to fulfil their traditional and much beloved roles in society. Libraries are the places where youngsters have some of their earliest and most memorable experiences with the written word. Libraries are at the forefront of our literacy efforts. They are the storehouses of community information and of the collected wisdom of mankind throughout the ages.

But as I said, Ontario's relationship with our public libraries is changing. Under our proposed new library framework, the province would continue to develop its support for and involvement in the system that connects our libraries with one another and, I also point out, with the world. The province would continue to build on the support of the Ontario Library Service. The OLS resource-sharing system facilitates the sharing of print materials, electronic database access and Internet resources among librarians.

The province would also continue to be active in developing library policy, in setting standards and assisting libraries to achieve the standards necessary to make full use of the provincial library systems.

The province is now active and would continue to be active in encouraging and facilitating cost-saving measures such as the coming together of publicly funded resource centres. Under the new library framework, local communities would be encouraged to make cost-effective alliances and partnerships best suited to their particular needs. As the name of the act declares, there would be more local control.

I know that some of my colleagues in the opposition have serious reservations about such local control. I will recall the comments of the distinguished member from Nickel Belt, a member I have consummate regard for, at the time of the previous revision of the Public Libraries Act. Will you permit me, Mr Speaker, to remind us that Mr Laughren expressed his view that library boards "are more democratic in nature than even school boards or municipal councils"?

His major concern was the power of municipal councils, and at the suggestion that municipal councils should have line-by-line control over the budgets of library boards, Mr Laughren stated, "I think that is simply horrendous." Democracy shocks my friend and colleague.

Mr Laughren continued: "It is going to allow the municipal council to say, `We think you are buying the wrong kind of books.' I hope I'm not reading too much into this, because I do not mean simply to raise a red flag, but what if the municipal council says, `We think your books are simply too liberal' -- by that I mean small-l liberal, of course."

This is a direct quote, I say to my colleague from Port Arthur. "We think they are too liberated," he perhaps meant. "`We do not like all these books on women's liberation. We do not like these books on liberation theology.'"

In another quarter, I may have an interesting and spirited debate with my colleague on liberation theology, but for now I find it appropriate to at least raise on the floor Mr Laughren's classic response. It bespeaks an attitude of a party towards local government which I find at the very least bemusing.

I ask you to also remember the words of --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe there is no quorum, and there should be, because we need to hear this member.

The Acting Speaker: Could the table determine whether there is a quorum in the House, please.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Shea: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the intervention by the member for Fort York because I want to turn my attention to him for just a moment. It was very timely that he made that usual intervention because I want to remind us of his remarks when we were debating this bill a little earlier this year. Let me just quote, and please listen very carefully to the thoughts behind these words. The member for Fort York said:

"Giving full governance to the municipalities means that we no longer have the kind of library system where we're guaranteed a majority of public citizens, ordinary citizens, to be there to preserve the public interest. When we take that away, which is what we had under the old act, we no longer will have, I suspect and fear, a citizenry that will be controlling those library boards, but we will have who knows what. We will have municipalities which will take complete control of those library systems, as many have wanted to do in the past....

Many municipalities may decide that we don't need chief librarians, that we can take it over by a bureaucracy of our municipal government and run it through other librarians, let them run whatever remains of our libraries in those towns and/or counties."

What in heaven's name does he mean by these words "ordinary citizens, to be there to preserve the public interest"? What does the member for Fort York think about locally elected members of council? I despair when I hear that kind of philosophy. I despair because it could be interpreted as arrogance on the one hand or abysmal ignorance on the other side. I despair when I see that. However, I suppose the member will have an explanation of why he won't trust locally elected councils, and we will look forward to hearing that with interest.

More than that, perhaps he will say why his party would believe that way, why he would run in the face of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which represents the municipalities of this province, who have said, "This is what they want," and run in the face of what the Who Does What panel has said. My dear colleague from the riding of Fort York and his party obviously won't trust the people and whom they elect to the office of council. I find that rather sad. He hides behind appointed agencies, boards and commissions, as though democracy can be positive there and is not to be found in elected councils.

It may be that he arrives at that conclusion because he has never served on a municipal council. Had he served on such a council, I think he would be the first to rise in anger and outrage.

To address the concern of the composition of the new library boards, I should point out the following: I am aware of several municipalities where there have already been informal discussions between the library board, the librarian and the municipality regarding the wording of the new bylaw to be presented to the new council. Surely such proactive measures as these on the part of the library community, working with their local councils, will do much to alleviate any tensions or concerns about the relationships of future library boards with their municipal councils.

The new framework would come into effect when the new councils take office following the 1997 municipal elections. As such, Bill 109 does respond to the government's Who Does What initiative to realign responsibilities between the provincial and municipal levels of government, and it's long overdue.

I should point out that neither the Who Does What exercise nor our proposed amendments will have any effect on the provincial funding for the approximately 50 first nations libraries, most of which receive in excess of 75% of their funding from the government of Ontario. Be very clear about what I said in that regard: No effect on approximately 50 first nations libraries, most of which receive in excess of 75% of their funding from the government of Ontario.

With technological advances and the trend towards electronic publishing being more and more the norm, there's some information that is only available or best accessed in electronic form. It's important that this information be made available to the public.

In the last century, information was disseminated in printed form. Libraries were founded to give access to this information to the public, not just to the privileged few who owned large collections of books. In this century and the next, more and more information will be disseminated in electronic form. Once again, our libraries will be there to see that this information is also available to the public, not just to those who own their own electronic hardware.

On June 6, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, attended the official inauguration of six dedicated Internet workstations at the Scugog Public Library in Port Perry. This is an important local initiative which will make the vast information resources of the global information highway available to residents. Our goal is to ensure that every public library in Ontario is able to offer electronic access to information. This will be an important objective under the new library framework.

Under this new library framework, libraries would continue to offer -- and I want you to mark these words, please -- free access to library facilities; use of library collections on library premises would continue to be free of charge, as would the borrowing of books and other printed material by residents. Borrowing of special-format materials for residents with disabilities would also be offered by the libraries without charge. Watch my lips: free, without charge.

I'd like to point out to my colleagues that the phrase "library collections" provides a wide

interpretation entirely suitable for the wide range of media in which information is now presented. The wording currently in effect is "library materials," which does not clearly include information in an electronic medium.

There are some services for which the libraries' patrons must pay on a per-use basis, as they do now. The new library framework would clarify that libraries would have the right to pass certain charges on to their users if they choose to do so. The fees, if any, for such services would be determined by the local library boards.

Those boards, I remind you, would be directly accountable to the local council, which is directly accountable and elected by the people. Why the opposition party and the third party find that principle of democracy offensive is simply beyond me.

One possible user fee might be for the take-home use of videos. I know from the librarian of the Michipicoten Public Library in northern Ontario that they expect that the revenue from videos alone will exceed the funding shortfall that might arise from the Who Does What exercise. Please hear those words again, Mr Speaker, because I know you sat up most attentively to hear those words: They expect that the revenue from videos alone will exceed the funding shortfall that might arise from the Who Does What exercise.

That particular library could then increase its revenues without requiring an increase in funding from the township. That's extremely important. This is one of the many strengths of this bill. More flexibility will be given to each municipality to determine the best method of serving the public in their area.

AMO supports this bill. Why doesn't the opposition? As Grant Hopcroft, deputy mayor of London, Ontario, said in the hearings, the bill "addresses our need for more local control, efficiency and accountability while at the same time ensuring that public access to libraries is not jeopardized." This is indeed the intention of the act. This government has listened; this government has responded to those requests. It's gratifying to see that our efforts in this regard have been recognized.

Under the new library framework, communities would have control of their libraries. At the same time, free access to information, including information in media whose existence could not have been anticipated when the province of Canada -- I say again, the province of Canada -- passed our first Public Libraries Act in 1851, would be guaranteed.

This legislation and the new library framework would be an important footing on which libraries could continue to build their very proud traditions. I am most pleased to recommend Bill 109, as amended, to the members of this House.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm absolutely delighted to support Bill 109, because what it will do, as the member for High Park-Swansea reiterated more