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

July 3, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L213 - Thu 3 Jul 1997 / Jeu 3 Jui 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARUSO CLUB ITALIAN FESTIVAL

TORONTO FRINGE THEATRE FESTIVAL

ADRIAN MUCALOV

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TAX CUT

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMUNITY CARE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SUNNYBROOK HEALTH SCIENCE CENTRE

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ROAD SAFETY

EMERGENCY SERVICES

BY-ELECTION IN WINDSOR-RIVERSIDE

SEXUAL ASSAULT

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

SPECIAL EDUCATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

WATER CHLORINATION

MANDATORY INQUESTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UN ENSEMBLE COMPLET DE MESURES VISANT LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1997

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1996

NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA ACT, 1996

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

4588 BATHURST ACT, 1997

750 SPADINA AVENUE ASSOCIATION ACT, 1997

YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT, 1997

CHINESE CULTURAL CENTRE OF GREATER TORONTO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NOT-FOR-PROFIT CREDIT COUNSELLING SERVICES ACT, 1997

MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO) INC. ACT, 1997

HOUSE SITTING

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARUSO CLUB ITALIAN FESTIVAL

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I invite and am very proud to invite all members and all Ontarians to Sudbury this weekend to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Caruso Club Italian Festival. The festival is an example of the vibrancy of the Italian community in Sudbury. Its activities reflect and highlight Italian culture and our traditions.

The weekend begins Friday at 6:30 with the official opening, followed by a food fair and a cultural night featuring young Italian talent such as Jessica Natale and Angela Scappatura. During Saturday there are hosts of activities for people to become involved in. Saturday evening we feature the Miss Caruso pageant MC'd by André and Nancy Fragomeni Beaudry.

Sunday, after the bishop's mass, there is a brunch. During Sunday afternoon there is a mini-carnival for everyone to take

part in. All weekend long, hot Italian sausages are barbecued by Peter Niro, Larry Dovigi and friends. They're always on the grill and they're always very, very edible. Sunday evening the festival ends with the traditional pasta dinner, and we dance into the wee hours of the morning.

The Italian community in Sudbury is alive and strong. Its contributions to Sudbury and the region are enormous. Congratulations, Caruso Club. Congratulations, Italians.

TORONTO FRINGE THEATRE FESTIVAL

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): In 1997, the Fringe, Toronto's theatre festival, celebrates its ninth year as a leader of independent theatre development in Toronto. Last year 30,000 people attended, contributing over $2 million to our local economy. Our festival's successes meant fringe theatre festivals are now a national movement.

Starting today and running to Sunday, July 13, the Fringe welcomes 83 theatre companies, which together will stage over 600 shows in the Annex neighbourhood in Toronto. The Fringe is a success story amid the sad tale of cuts to the arts in Ontario, cuts that harm our cultural communities and push theatres in Ontario close to the edge of collapse.

The Mike Harris government and Culture Minister Marilyn Mushinski have cut 40% of the funding for the Ontario Arts Council since 1995. That's a reduction of $17.3 million, returning OAC funding to 1975 levels. And the arts cuts don't stop there. Cuts like these threaten exciting and successful festivals like the Fringe. Cuts like these force successful publishers out of business. Cuts like these close theatres.

I congratulate the artists and organizers for continuing to put on the Fringe in the face of these massive cuts, and I encourage all artists and organizations to join in the arts fax-in on July 10 to tell Minister Mushinski and Premier Harris to rescind their 1997 15% cut to the Ontario Arts Council.

ADRIAN MUCALOV

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is indeed a pleasure to notify you of the latest academic accomplishment of a former grade 11 history student of mine at Dr John M. Denison Secondary School in Newmarket. Nineteen-year-old Ontario academic credit student Adrian Mucalov earned a 99.83% grade average during his final year at Dr Denison. Adrian doesn't want to make too much of his marks because going to school is only a part of what he does so well. He also excels in music, athletics, community activities, and is gaining experience this summer by working as a teller and customer service representative at a major bank.

Adrian says: "What feels great is that I've fulfilled my potential. I reached all my goals. That's what's really important...that I reached all the goals I set for myself."

Adrian's father, Peter, a Keswick family physician, said the Mucalov family knew he was doing well, they just didn't know exactly how well he was doing.

The key to Adrian's success story has been his ability to apply knowledge in a new and more productive way and to demonstrate a willingness to embrace new things and never accept the status quo.

I wish Adrian Mucalov continued success as he studies commerce at Queen's University in Kingston, aided by the prestigious Queen's chancellor's scholarship and a Canadian merit scholarship.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today we are back to debate the truck safety legislation -- this is what the government has said -- and also the Integrity Commissioner motion. The government saw that their priority was beyond discussing safety on the highways. We had hoped this government would have then stated very emphatically that safety was a priority at the time we adjourned, but we had to come back again for this separate day.

My constituency was alarmed actually to see some of the things that were being debated and that the rules changes are going to change this world overnight. As a comment in one of the prominent newspapers stated, this government is much more concerned to rule instead of to govern and they are obsessed to get the order today to ram things through. We hope that when the rules changes do come into effect, which of course they will -- they have the majority -- somehow there will be more participation. They said to me in my constituency about many of the people in the back bench, "I hope they will speak more for their constituency, because they don't seem to do so."

The government itself has muzzled most of its backbenchers. I want to see how much release they will have. Therefore, we are looking very, very carefully at these rules changes, which are a dictatorial approach to things, to see if we can see more democracy. I don't think so; I see some more dictatorship.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): As everybody in this House is aware, the residents of East York voted 81% against the megacity bill.

Last week my colleague Frances Lankin, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, introduced Bill 144, which would amend the megacity bill to ensure fairer representation for East York by increasing the number of councillors from the ward of East York from two to three. The current act would provide a lower councillor-to-resident ratio in East York ward at 1 to 54,000 compared to 1 to 38,000 on average across Metro.

One has to ask what this government has against East York. First of all, the two local members from the area supported the government against their own constituents, and now they're not even giving East York residents the same rights as residents from across Metro. The citizens of East York are about to lose their beloved borough, Canada's only borough, as their welcome signs never fail to remind us. In the interests of local democracy, let's at least ensure that they are adequately represented in the new megacity council chamber, that their voices and concerns will be heard.

Premier, get your House leader to call this bill for debate at the earliest opportunity so members of the House can make some, albeit small, improvements to your megacity legislation.

TAX CUT

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased today to rise to help celebrate tax freedom day in Ontario. According to the well-respected Fraser Institute, taxpayers in Ontario spent the first six months working to pay the government. Starting today, the hardworking taxpayers of Ontario can start to work for themselves and their families, and not simply for the tax man.

Previous governments consistently pushed tax freedom day later into the year by raising taxes and expanding the size of government. In 1985 tax freedom day was held on May 26. Since 1985 we've seen tax freedom day go to July 6. That is outrageous. The people of Ontario told this government that was not acceptable.

This year there is reason to celebrate because the tide has turned. Tax freedom day is three days earlier in 1997 than it was last year. After two years of cutting taxes, the people of Ontario are seeing the fruits of their provincial government's labours.

People in my riding of Nepean sent me to Queen's Park to help create a climate for job creation, to cut taxes and to balance the budget. I'm pleased to report that the plan is working. On Monday we saw the third instalment of the provincial income tax cut. This government is doing what it said it would do. Provincial income tax in Ontario has now been cut by 18.75%. Cutting taxes and balancing budgets helps create more jobs, more hope and more opportunities for the people of Nepean and Ontario.

My good friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said that when the NDP government raised taxes by $1 billion, it would kill 25,000 jobs. Regrettably, he was right. Cutting taxes has helped create 101,000 jobs in the last three months alone.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The people of this province should know that by far the most important legislative measure brought forward this session is not any particular bill on the government's agenda; rather, it is the package of changes to the procedural rules of this Parliament that will enable the Conservative regime of Mike Harris to ram through its radical, reckless program with a minimum of debate, discussion, analysis and scrutiny.

Even those who are in general agreement with some of the policies of this government want Mike Harris to slow down and do things right instead of simply doing them quickly. This, however, is not acceptable to the backroom boys in the Office of the Premier, the real power brokers in this government, whose goal is for absolute control and power.

These procedural rule changes amount to an NHL team filling its roster with goons, with players whose only role would be intimidation, then changing the rules to eliminate penalties, thus giving the government team an unfair advantage.

A democracy works best when a government which has a massive majority is not able to simply snap its fingers and a law is produced. If the proposed rule changes are imposed in their present form when the House returns in August, the skids will be greased for controversial legislation to be bulldozed through the Legislature in record time.

By restricting the amount of time for debate and discussion, bad laws will be passed and time for reconsideration and review will disappear.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today I want to use my member's statement to make a direct plea to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will know that I've introduced a private member's bill which would increase the representation of municipal councillors in the borough of East York, in what will become a ward under the new megacity, from the current proposed two under the minister's megacity legislation to three.

I would point out to him that the population of the borough of East York is very similar to that of the current city of York. Under the megacity legislation he brought in, the city of York will get four councillors and the borough of East York will only get two. For a number of reasons those citizens, who you know are very opposed to your legislation -- they don't like it; they don't want it, but recognize they're going to have to live with it -- have made a very concrete and positive suggestion about how to improve your megacity legislation and how to improve the working of the community council, your solution to continued local democracy.

That private member's bill is sitting there, but I know you have a piece of legislation before the House, your megacity legislation which deals with transition issues. I implore you to please consider this amendment, to work with me, to allow me to bring forward the amendment in committee and to have your government caucus members on that committee support it.

Your answer has been that the council can deal with that in the future, but you know that would mean this election would go by. East York citizens would remain underrepresented. You can do something to correct that situation, Minister. I want to work with you to make that happen. I implore you to please take a look at this issue with me.

COMMUNITY CARE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'm proud to stand in the House today because I am part of a government that's living up to its promises in making Ontario better.

Last Friday, the Minister of Health announced the reinvestment of $3.1 million into community long-term-care services in southwestern Ontario. A total of $1.5 million will ensure that people receive services like attendant outreach, adult day programs, palliative care and Meals on Wheels. A further reinvestment of $1.6 million in community care access centres will allow more patients recovering at home to receive visits from nurses, therapists and homemakers.

Of this announced reinvestment, my riding of Perth will receive nearly $1.3 million to expand the level of services available through outstanding agencies such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, Knollcrest Lodge, Spruce Lodge, Stratford Meals on Wheels, North Perth Community Hospice, North Perth Seniors' Centre, the community care access centre, and family services.

In addition to this good news, the new rural and northern health care framework was also announced by the minister last week. This framework ensures 24-hour access to health care for the people of my riding and will make it easier for small communities such as Mitchell to recruit and retain physicians.

As a government, we are removing waste and duplication from the system and reinvesting in front-line services. We are putting the patients first. This is important to the people of Perth, and I am proud to represent them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I have said in this House that the ministry has been taking several steps, a series of steps, to improve the child welfare system, and today I would like to announce another of those activities.

I would like to inform the members of a new mandatory risk assessment system or model to help identify and prevent child abuse and neglect. This new system will be used by child protection workers in children's aid societies across the province.

Every day, child protection workers must make difficult decisions to assess children at risk. They have been asking for a consistent system to guide their judgement in assessing these children. We want to provide these workers with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. This new model is one of a series of steps the government is taking to strengthen the child protection system. The government has allocated an initial $15 million to support not only this new model but the other initiatives we are undertaking to prevent abuse and neglect of children.

The new risk assessment system will provide child protection workers with a step-by-step decision-making process to better assess the risk of abuse and neglect. It will help workers decide when a case should be investigated, whether a child is in imminent danger, and whether there is a risk of future abuse and neglect. This process will take into account risk factors such as substance abuse or a history of previous child abuse and neglect. It will lead to more informed and faster decisions to remove children from dangerous situations or to take other remedial action.

Starting this fall, child protection workers will be trained in using the new system. The government will provide the necessary funding to train the workers and implement the new model.

Today's announcement completes a five-month review and assessment of various risk management models that have been used in Canada and the United States. The chosen model is being used in four of the six provinces that employ formal risk assessment systems.

Research has shown that workers have found this particular risk assessment model to be effective in protecting children and easy to implement. The system helps workers assess the risk of abuse and neglect in the early phases of an investigation. It also provides workers with a constant focus on the child's safety while a thorough assessment of the child and the family is being undertaken.

The new system is one way we can help child protection workers to detect and prevent child abuse and neglect, and we are pleased that the Child Mortality Task Force has recommended this approach in their series of recommendations.

My ministry has also undertaken another step to improve our child welfare system. Last month we tendered a contract for a new computer database. It will enable children's aid societies to keep track of high-risk cases, to alert each other to those cases and to track incidents of child abuse and neglect. Other initiatives under way include the establishment of an advisory panel to review child protection issues in the Child and Family Services Act. We will also work with professional organizations to increase their awareness of the requirement to report child abuse and neglect.

We've also heard the message about the need for intervention and prevention, which is why earlier this year the Premier announced an investment of approximately $45 million in four programs to help children. These include Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, a program which helps identify children and families at risk and provides them with appropriate supports; and Better Beginnings, Better Futures, which teaches parenting skills and provides other supports to parents in high-risk neighbourhoods.

Another we have under way is Ontario's reshaping of its system of support for children so that families across the province will have simpler, easier access to the services they need. As part of this effort, each community is expected to provide core services including those focusing on early intervention and prevention services for vulnerable children.

The government continues to work with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and the Native Child and Family Services of Ontario to review standards and strengthen the process for evaluating the performance of children's aid societies. The new risk assessment system announced today, additional resources for training and a province-wide computer database will improve the monitoring systems already in place.

Children are a priority for this government and we will be taking further steps to help protect children at risk of abuse and neglect. We are concerned about the safety of our children and we will continue to make improvements to keep our children safe.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The response of the minister to the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force report is simply inadequate. It may be tragically inadequate in failing to take the necessary steps to end child abuse and to prevent more child deaths.

Minister, the initiatives you are taking are fine. They are not new. The $15 million to fund them was announced in the last budget. You have announced and reannounced in response to earlier coroners' reports, to investigations by the media, to questions from the opposition in this House, that you are looking at a new risk assessment tool, new reporting protocols, a new information system for children at risk. The surprise is that these are not in place now. They are needed initiatives, they will help, they are part of the solution, but they are simply not enough.

I draw you to the page of the task force report which you seem determined to ignore, as you've ignored the questions on this issue in the House all along, that the review of workloads throughout children's aid societies indicates that the system is operating beyond its capacity. They stress that none of your initiatives can work unless they can be properly implemented, and to properly implement them you need enough staff.

This is the issue you have refused to address time and time again. Our leader, Dalton McGuinty, has stood up in this House and asked you, "Will you restore the $17 million you took away from children's aid societies, the $17-million cut that forced them to lay off 340 staff?" Time and time again you came back and talked about risk assessment and about computers. You refused to acknowledge what the children's aid societies were saying, what the task force now says loudly and clearly: "There are not enough front-line workers out there to protect our children."

Minister, you say throwing money at it won't work, but the dollars for new staff are absolutely critical if we are going to save children's lives.

The risk assessment system detailing what a worker should do is not going to help if there aren't enough workers to investigate the concerns or to monitor the cases carefully enough. There is no risk assessment system that is going to take out the element of judgement, and you need workers who are not overloaded and working under stress if they are going to make good judgements. You need more workers and you need to put $17 million back into children's aid societies so they can hire them.

Your response is also completely inadequate on the issue of changes to the legislation that are needed: the Child and Family Services Act changes. Again our leader has been asking for months for you to bring in these changes to the act. The task force report says that changing this act to define neglect and provide protection on the grounds of neglect is critical. You have known for months that this was an issue. You've been asked repeatedly to bring in the changes to legislation. Not only do we not see the legislation today, but you don't even make reference to bringing in legislation in your response to the task force. That is unconscionable and inexcusable.

But the ultimate failure of your government is found in the very last statement of the task force, in which they recommend that the province of Ontario develop a "children first" approach and evaluate all new activities and initiatives in the context of the impact they will have on children.

It makes me want to weep when I read that. I know how your government's initiatives over and over again have hurt children, have hurt families and have hurt women in single-parent families who are so often the caregivers of children at risk. I go back to the 23% cut in welfare payments to these families. Those hurt children most of all, the half a million children in Ontario who are on social assistance. Acknowledge that more and more children in this province are having to use food banks because they're hungry. Is that not abuse that your government is responsible for? How does that fit with the "children first" approach the task force has recommended?

You ended any new subsidized housing and you're trying to offload the housing that you have on to municipalities. In Metro Toronto alone, 600 individuals are in temporary shelters, and you are surely aware that the largest proportion of children in those families in temporary shelters are five years of age or under. I don't need to remind you of the five-year-old who died just recently living in one of those temporary shelters.

You've cut funding for emergency shelters. You've cut funding for counselling for children. The list goes on and on.

In May our leader raised with you the concern of the coroner investigating the death of Shanay Johnson. The coroner said there was no one there acting as an advocate for children in your ministry. The coroner said there should be a provincial director for child protection and you said we don't need another bureaucrat. Maybe not, but we need an advocate for children. Today you've given us bureaucracy. You have given us no people to work with children and no advocacy for children in your government.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm glad to see that you're announcing the new risk assessment tool. It's good that it's going to be in place. Another announcement with respect to the computer system: We've heard that many times. This is the tender. I'd like to know when it's going to be implemented, and I hope the implementation of that goes smoothly because those are some useful tools.

But I've got to tell you I am most disappointed that when there's such a needed response from government, your response has fallen woefully short of that need. Tools are important, and I will acknowledge that, but if you don't have the front-line staff to use those tools, to employ those tools, to go out and really intervene in a way that is going to protect children at risk, then the tools will lie idle and you won't have accomplished what you say is your stated goal.

Time and time again I've asked you these questions. When I've raised this issue, I've tried to point out that the cuts you have made to children's aid societies have affected them right at the very front line of delivery of service. The workload situation in children's aid society after children's aid society across this province is reaching critical levels. There have been articles in local communities that have talked about the desperate state, financially as well as staff resourcewise.

Let me refer to Simcoe. The Simcoe Children's Aid Society has found that their caseload in the first five months of this year is already more than two times last year's total. Social workers are carrying the highest caseloads they've had in 15 years. This is an issue that previous governments have tried to address by increasing the number of case workers out there, by giving more resources. Your response has been the exact opposite, and when we've raised these concerns you've said, "We're a government that's not just going to throw money at the problem."

It's throwing human resources that we're asking for that are going to intervene in human situations in families to protect children. These risk assessment tools are useful, but for a staff person, a social worker out on the front line who is overwhelmed by the caseload they are facing, it won't make a difference whether they have a risk assessment tool or not. They don't have the time and the ability to get to all the families in need out there. Minister, you must address that issue. You can't continue to turn a blind eye to it.

I appreciate that you're moving with respect to setting up a task force to look at the legislation. On that point, I've asked you time and time again in this House to make this a non-partisan effort, to allow a legislative committee to work with the experts in the field and to work with families who've experienced use of the system to develop proposals for what should happen in changes to the legislation.

By shuffling it outside, by having communication only between you and the people out there whom you hand-select, you once again re-create a situation where people believe this is not an open process, where they can't have a say, where the people who live and work in communities and represent people in communities, and the legislators of this province, can't have a non-partisan working relationship with you to try and develop appropriate recommendations for legislative change.

All of this you do without acknowledging the impact of other actions of your government with respect to children and what is happening out there. You can't continue to turn a blind eye to poverty and what poverty means in terms of developing children and families at risk. Your social service cuts, your cuts to social welfare rates, have left many more families at risk in this province, many more children living in poverty.

Your initiatives like your child care tax credit do nothing to reach into that community. They don't assess the poorest children in this province. Those are the kids who are going to need help. Those are the kids who are going to need early intervention and prevention programs. Those are the services you're downloading to communities and are cutting support for. The children's aid societies and the front-line workers are overwhelmed. A new risk assessment tool is not going to help them reach out and find those children and take the necessary steps.

It's a useful tool you've introduced, but it's been introduced into a context where there is a vacuum of government leadership with respect to dealing with the most vulnerable children in this province. We have seen the statistics. We have seen the names. We have seen the tragic stories of young children, of babies, who are dying because of neglect and because of abuse.

Your ministry must be the place where there is a centralized advocate. You must take on that role. You must go to the Treasurer and to the Premier and ask to have the funding cuts restored to ensure there are adequate resources on the front line to make sure that children in need get the help they deserve and that all of us want to make sure they get.

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Solicitor General, and it's a question about Ipperwash. The government has said many times that they were waiting for the trial to be over before they appointed a public inquiry into the situation at Ipperwash. Today the trial is over and the sentencing has been done. There's no longer a reason for the government to hold off.

The Solicitor General will know that we in the opposition and the public have many substantial, serious unanswered questions that only a public inquiry will answer. Will you now agree to holding the public inquiry into the situation at Ipperwash?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As the member opposite knows, it is not the responsibility of the Solicitor General to call for a public inquiry. That responsibility lies with the Attorney General under the Public Inquiries Act.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): And he's not here.

Hon Mr Runciman: I respect the fact that he's not here. We met -- I met, the Attorney General met -- with the leaders of the first nations last week and this issue was discussed. I reiterated the position of the government that there are a number of matters ongoing with respect to the criminal charges, which have been dealt with up to this point in time, but there are other civil actions and there's a strong possibility of a coroner's inquest, which will be resolved in the near future.

Dependent upon whether there is an appeal with respect to the criminal charges -- I think it's a 30-day period; it could be longer. I'm not an expert in this area. There is a period of time allotted with respect to Mr Deane filing an appeal. I think we'll have to await the outcome of that matter.

Mr Phillips: The public is aware of the serious unanswered questions. The government chose to ignore the fact that there was a burial ground in that park. The government made the decision to get the occupiers out of the park ASAP; that was not left to the police. The government decided to take a different course than the OPP had planned; that was not left to the police. The day of the shooting there was a headline in the local paper saying, "Queen's Park Plans to Take Hard Line with Occupiers"; that was an action by the government.

The Premier's executive assistant was at meetings daily for a month, two-to-three-hour meetings, and the Premier said she never once kept a note, a file or a memo.

We have a legal opinion that says you can proceed with a public inquiry now. Are you prepared, Minister, to table your legal opinion that says you cannot proceed with a public inquiry now?

Hon Mr Runciman: We've been around this road on many occasions, and it's been clearly indicated by various members of the government that no one has ruled out the possibility of an inquiry, if and when all the matters are completed.

Certainly there are a number of civil actions that have been filed. The outcome with respect to the criminal matter has not been finalized; there's still the possibility of an appeal in terms of the conviction. There is a strong possibility with respect to the calling of a coroner's inquest. An inquest in itself, with the ability to call witnesses for cross-examination, could resolve some of the lingering questions surrounding this matter. It's clear that it would be premature at this time to make a commitment with respect to a public inquiry.

Mr Phillips: It's clear that the last thing you want to do is have a public inquiry, but it's not clear to anyone that you cannot call a public inquiry. I again say to you, we have a legal opinion that says, "Westray" -- this is the precedent the legal opinion cites -- "now stands as a recent unanimous statement by the Supreme Court that a public inquiry may proceed" in a situation exactly like that in which we find ourselves. In other words, you can commit today, the government can commit today to a public inquiry.

I repeat, there are serious unanswered questions about the whole sorry episode involving the Premier and involving senior members of the government. You've put the OPP, in our opinion, in an intolerable position. You've had a tragic conflict between the government and the first nations. We have a legal opinion that says you can proceed with a public inquiry. I repeat, are you prepared to table your legal opinion that says you cannot proceed now with a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not sure what the process is with respect to receiving the opinion. I'm sure the Ministry of the Attorney General would be prepared to consider reviewing the legal opinion the member opposite has. I'm of the understanding that the Ministry of the Attorney General has an opinion which does not agree with respect to this.

If we look back a number of years ago when the Liberal government was in power, the Patti Starr inquiry was launched by your government and then there was an indication that it could not proceed with respect to ongoing criminal matters. I think it's clear there is still the possibility of ongoing criminal matters with respect to an appeal of the conviction of Acting Sergeant Deane. Clearly, based on what has happened in the past under the tenure of the Liberal government, it would be premature to make a commitment at this point in time.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm prepared to table our legal opinion. I'll do that immediately.

SUNNYBROOK HEALTH SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question to the Deputy Premier. I'd like to ask you about some people, people named John Davis, Janina Zaorski, Fred Robinson, William Brazier. Those are the names of four patients who died at Sunnybrook hospital. This morning the Ontario Nurses' Association presented the point of view that those deaths were connected to cutbacks, the unfortunate Harris hospital cutbacks that have been made, $19 million at Sunnybrook alone. One of those incidents was a fire that took place in a ward where 20 beds had been moved into another ward with no additional staff being added.

There have been five deaths at that hospital, which I am quick to say is one of the highest-rated hospital institutions in this province. If it's happening there, imagine what it is like elsewhere in the province. The Ontario Nurses' Association believes there is a link. Will you support their call for a public inquiry?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The honourable member will certainly know that with respect to three of the deaths at Sunnybrook hospital there is currently a call for a coroner's inquest. I'm sure that inquest will get to the root of some of the issues with respect to those individuals. He will also be aware, I'm sure, that Mr Tom Closson, the CEO of Sunnybrook, has stated today that he does not believe the recent incidents at Sunnybrook are in any way, shape or form a result of budgetary reductions.

Mr Kennedy: Unfortunately, the Deputy Premier is not coming to terms with the crisis of confidence that is starting to develop out there on the part of the public, and the reason is very simple. If there is no problem at Sunnybrook, let's clear the air, let's have a public inquiry. There have been four times as many complaints about heavy workload, overload, by nurses there so far this year as there were for all of 1996. It's your cutbacks that are creating the work conditions that have nurses at Sunnybrook afraid of what's going to happen on their shift.

Deputy Premier, you can't get away from the fact that it was your government, the Harris government, that made those cuts. It was your budget that took the money away from Sunnybrook. That may be what the CEO has to say about his fine institution, but we need to know and the public needs to know. There needs to be an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act where staff can testify without fear of reprisal. If you want to restore public confidence, you'll agree to that today. Will you?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sure the honourable member in no way wants to impugn the reputation of Sunnybrook hospital, which, as he quite correctly pointed out, is one of the finest health care facilities in the province. It is indeed unfortunate that these tragic deaths have occurred, but as I indicated in my initial response, there is a coroner's inquest that will look into three of those deaths resulting from the particular fire incident and I'm sure the coroner's inquest will get to the root of the cause of that particular incident.

He might also know that the Ontario Nurses' Association has had a different opinion in the past. He will know that Jane Cornelius, the past president of the ONA, is quoted as saying:

"While many other groups in the health care system are fighting to maintain the status quo, 92% of Ontario nurses say they want the system to be fundamentally restructured and redesigned. Nurses believe that if medicare is to be preserved, we must fundamentally change the way it is funded, structured, managed and governed."

Mr Kennedy: It is not confidence-building to the public, to the patients or to the people in this House that you would resort to old quotes from the Ontario Nurses' Association. Let me give you a quote from today. They want a patient inquiry because their members are afraid of the quality of care; 85% of them say the quality of care has deteriorated since you made your cuts.

I want to quote your health minister, who said just a week ago, "There is no evidence of cuts to patient care in this province." You cannot hide, like he would like to hide. We have the Ontario Nurses' Association, we have nurses from K wing, where these people died, we have the opinion of respected professionals in this province that there needs to be a public inquiry.

If you wish to continue to hide, all you are doing is contributing to the problems of confidence that your budget cuts have created. Will you agree at least to a public inquiry where we can get at the systemic causes of why patients aren't getting good care and why nurses have to operate in fear of what will happen in their institutions?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, there is already an external safety review going on with respect to Sunnybrook's Kilgour wing. This review is expected to be completed by the end of the month and we will see at the end of that period of time if any additional reviews are indeed necessary or indicated.

I would quite agree that these are unfortunate events. However, I don't think one should automatically jump to any conclusions and I don't think you are serving the system well, quite frankly, by doing that. Since 1993, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre has increased the amount of acute nursing care per patient. Those are also statistics.

If the honourable member would wait until the external review is complete with respect to external safety review, if he would wait until the coroner's inquest is complete and we can get the facts -- that's why we have coroners' inquests, to get the facts and get to the bottom of unfortunate incidents such as these.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Deputy Premier: Later this afternoon we will debate the report of the Integrity Commissioner on the inappropriate activities of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. When the motion passes, and I assume it will, it will then go to committee and it will be up to the committee members to look at the actions of this minister who has shown repeatedly a contempt for democracy and for the people of this province. I won't recite the three incidents that have happened just this session. This is a serious matter, involving public confidence in an elected member. The committee must be allowed to do a thorough job.

Will you commit today that should the committee request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to appear before it, the government will not block his appearance in any way and you will not attempt to persuade government members to block the appearance?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party has been around here long enough to know that committees order their own business. They will indeed determine. It is not for me in my capacity as Deputy Premier or for anybody else to dictate to the committee what they will do. It's up to the committee to order its own business, so we'll see what happens.

Mr Hampton: I am interested in the Deputy Premier's use of the word "dictate" because members of your own caucus have used that in reference to the way in which the Premier's office tries to dictate how people act on committee or what positions they take, or what positions they take on public issues. We know, for example, that three government members were disciplined by your government for speaking their minds.

In order that the people of Ontario can be assured this will be a full process and a fair process that will really get a look at what happened here, will you make another commitment? Will you commit that you will not try to influence the government members on the committee and will you commit that there will be no effort on the part of the Premier's office or the whip's office or the Deputy Premier's office to hold back the minister from appearing before the committee?

Hon Mr Eves: Those will be matters for the committee and the minister themselves to decide. I might say, though, with respect to the particular report about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that the Integrity Commissioner did find, as I am sure you are aware, that the minister acted in good faith and on the belief that he was entitled to do so when he wrote to the commission. I think it would do you well to remember that statement by the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Hampton: I want to read to you an amendment that we are going to move to your motion today. The amendment is this: "Further, in the opinion of this assembly, proper consideration of the Integrity Commissioner's report will require the participation of the Minister of Health and the member for St George-St David as committee witnesses." If you're interested in having a full and open and fair process, will you commit to voting for this amendment, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: People don't usually commit to voting on anything during question period. The way this process works is that the matter will be debated later on.

Mr Hampton: You have no clothes, Ernie.

Hon Mr Eves: I think I have some.

Mr Hampton: Despite all the money you spend, you have no clothes.

Mr Wildman: The emperor has no clothes -- deputy emperor, sorry.

Hon Mr Eves: The individual members --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Deputy Premier, hold on. Order. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: Individual members in the Legislative Assembly will vote on this motion, will vote on any amendment to it, as they see fit. That's the way this place operates.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: I regret that the Deputy Premier can't commit that he would favour a full and fair process with the committee.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Two local contractors bid on an MTO highway maintenance contract for the area between Thessalon and Elliot Lake. Their bid was the lowest cost, and as part of the bid they would have re-employed many MTO workers.

A company called IMOS also bid on the contract. IMOS was not the low bidder. You remember IMOS. They employ one of your former assistant deputy ministers who breached the conflict-of-interest rules.

The two local contractors were notified by MTO that the contract would not be awarded. They were the low bidders but they were told, "We're not going to award the contract."

Minister, I'm going to ask you the same question these contractors asked you in their letter of June 9: Was this contract cancelled because IMOS, your friends at IMOS, were not the low bidders?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for the question. If you were to ask your critic, I believe he shed some information on this particular issue and how it was handled, and there were supposedly some things that weren't done according to the Scriptures, although we believe it is to the contrary. I believe all the precautions were taken in making sure the tendering process was done in a fair way.

I want to say to the member that I do not know who was the low bidder or who was not the low bidder. As far as I know, as far as the information I have, these envelopes were not opened because of the inquiries that are being done at present.

Mr Hampton: I think the minister is a bit confused here. I'm not talking about the situation in Cochrane South. I'm talking about a contract that was put out in the Algoma district between Thessalon and Elliot Lake. The tenders were indeed opened. There is recognition that the two local contractors were indeed the low bidders, there is recognition that IMOS was not the low bidder, but the contract was cancelled. The two local contractors, who put in a very good bid and would have re-employed the majority of MTO workers, were told, "No, we're not going to tender the contract."

I'm asking you, Minister, why was that contract not put out? Why was it cancelled? Is it because IMOS was not the low bidder?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to correct what I said earlier. I misunderstood the honourable member. I thought he was referring to the maintenance contracts that have been pulled back. As far as this particular project, I haven't got any information, but I will take it under advisement and get back to the member.

Mr Hampton: It doesn't end there, though. My colleague from Cochrane South gave you the example a couple of weeks ago where MTO employees are being told by way of government memoranda to apply to IMOS for jobs even before contracts have been let. We've had that clearly on the record.

The Kingston Whig-Standard reported this past week that your former ADM, Carl Vervoort, is now project director for the Wolfe, Howe and Amherst Island ferry service. Their business plan -- and get this. They got a contract with MTO with no public tender.

Here's the scenario: Mr Vervoort quit his job at MTO to go to work for IMOS the same day that IMOS got a $29-million MTO contract based on Mr Vervoort's recommendation. Now we see memos floating around MTO saying, "Apply to IMOS," and now Mr Vervoort is getting --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to reassure the House and the member that there were no irregularities. As far as the member saying that because of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a minute. Members for Riverdale and Cochrane South, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You're the closest.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to say again I believe there were no irregularities. As far as that word that was not omitted from the pamphlet that was distributed to potential people at MTO, they took the Chatham guidelines and they forgot to omit "IMOS." That was a very simple mistake. For anyone to assume that it was a predetermined done deal is totally wrong.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Your supposed strategic approach to dealing with violence against women is more like a $5-million package of Band-Aids that you're using to try and fix some of the damage that your own government has inflicted on women and children.

The Minister of Community and Social Services cuts funding to children's aid societies and cuts funding for counselling for children, so you put a few hundred thousand dollars into counselling and training CAS workers. The Attorney General has been unable to fix the mess in the legal aid plan, 80% of women are not able to get access to legal aid, so you put $300,000 more into what you call emergency legal advice. But you have not helped with front-line crisis services, and shelters are still trying to cope with fewer dollars and more demand.

The London centre, the shelter in your own home town, Minister, is turning away one woman in need of help for every woman it takes. The London Battered Women's Advocacy Centre has had a 195% increase in requests for service this year. Why have you not provided more support to abused women who need a safe refuge?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): In response to the question, I'd like to answer in this regard: We did listen over the past two years to the priorities of communities, individuals, victims of assault and certainly members of this Legislative Assembly with regard to the need to improve our violence against women initiatives.

We came forth with a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, a plan of action across nine ministries and 30 programs. This has not happened in this province. As a matter of fact, I'm shocked at the question from the member, because we have thrown some $100 million at programs that have not been planned, have not been coordinated, have not been evaluated, and we need to know that our programs in Ontario work. As a matter of fact, the NDP's Mr Silipo, in response to a question during his last six months as the minister, said to the shelters, "There will be no new money for shelters."

Mrs McLeod: Minister, clearly you have not heard from the people who are involved in providing services to abused women and to their children that what they really need is help on the front lines, not more cuts. What you have not heard from them is that none of your Band-Aids deals with the overwhelming problems that your government's cuts have created for women who are trying to escape from abusive situations.

The director of the Battered Women's Advocacy Centre in London has said that the huge increase in calls they are getting is just the first reflection in the community of the government's massive cuts to social services, to welfare, to housing, to shelters, to counselling services.

You said this morning on television that you wanted to look at the problems of emergency shelters that are under stress. Surely you understand that women cannot leave these centres because there is no place for them to go and they cannot afford to live. When will your government start to repair the damage that has been done and create conditions where women and children can truly be safe because they can leave abusive situations?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In looking at the violence against women initiatives across these nine ministries and the programs we offer in Ontario, which are far more extensive than any other province in Canada, we wanted to see how we could improve these programs, and we have responded.

With respect to the dollars the member has drawn to my attention, the former governments increased that program from $10 million to $100 million, as I have explained. There have been reductions, not in front-line services, but I will add that some of those reductions have been taken up by ministries through agencies other than shelters, and I will also add that the money we are providing right now is approximately $111.4 million, which is $11.4 million more, during very difficult times, than these two governments offered during their free-spending --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. You know that today we're here specifically to deal with one of the issues here, the road safety legislation. I find it passing strange that on the very day we're here to debate this bill at third reading, you as Minister of Transportation have moved to eliminate the strategic vehicle technology office and its commercial vehicles section. Those are the very people who are necessary to do the kind of research your ministry has to do to improve on truck safety.

How do you square, on the one hand, coming into this House today to try to pass truck safety legislation and, on the other hand, firing the very people within your own ministry who are responsible for improving on truck safety?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I believe the people of Ontario have asked this government to do better for less and that's what this government is trying to do: better for less. I believe there are lots of people around the world from whom certain information or technology can be bought at a much better rate, and that is what this government is trying to do: give the people of Ontario that much better for less.

Mr Bisson: You don't do more with less when it comes to the question of road safety. You have to have the necessary budgets in place and the people within your ministry so that you, as Minister of Transportation, can take the responsibility you're charged with, the safety of Ontario roads. When you as minister stand in this House and say, "We're going to do more with less," how do you expect to have any credibility in front of the public when it comes to road safety?

I ask you again, how do you square, on the one hand, coming to this House today to pass road safety legislation, and then firing the very people within your ministry who are responsible for improving on truck safety here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: It's always difficult to justify the dismissal or the surplusing of an individual or individuals, and I understand where the member is coming from, but we do have a responsibility to the people of Ontario to do better for less. We're not going to compromise safety. Safety will never be compromised by this government. I believe we are taking the initiatives that are going to make sure our roads are safe.

The member is referring to the possible surplusing of an individual who has made a contribution towards certain technology we're looking at and certain findings we could be looking at. We can buy that technology -- it is available throughout the world and it is available throughout this province through the private sector -- at a much cheaper price.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation as well on what is turning into the Al Palladini day. Minister, the maintenance of highways in a land as rugged and yet as beautiful of Ontario has long been a challenge for your ministry. I was interested to hear of a situation which has emerged on Highway 17 in the city of Kanata, which could impact the safety of motorists in this area. Could you please provide the House with the details of this problem?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'd certainly like to thank the member for his longstanding concern with regard to road safety. I believe the member is referring to the beaver who built a beaver dam adjacent to Highway 17, east of Eagleson Road in Kanata. This dam has created a 30-square-metre pond right beside the highway, and the concern for my ministry is that an errant motorist could land in the pond, resulting in great personal harm or possibly drowning. This beaver has been, if you'll pardon the pun, very busy in the area for the past six years, and MTO practice has been to physically remove the dams.

However, the beaver is very persistent and always rebuilds the dams. For safety reasons, we have considered a more permanent solution, such as using a trapper.

Mr Chudleigh: There was a great deal of concern expressed by the people of Kanata over the possible solution. I understand that difficult decisions must be made each day by the front-line workers of your ministry at the MTO.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Halton North, look this way. Member for Halton North, please sit down.

Okay: supplementary.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sorry. I couldn't hear you with all the noise going on.

I understand that difficult decisions must be made every day by your front-line workers at the Ministry of Transportation who work to keep our roads safe throughout this great province. Could you please tell the House what course of action was taken in this unique case?

Hon Mr Palladini: I am pleased to inform the House that the water level of the beaver pond has been reduced through natural means. Ministry staff have not taken any further action to date, but we are monitoring the situation to ensure that the water level does not increase dramatically.

I am also pleased to report that our district engineer, Bert Torini, visited the grade 2 class at Roland Michener public school in Kanata on June 19, and he informed the class, all of whom were naturally concerned for the safety of the beaver, that the beaver would not be trapped but relocated only if absolutely necessary. Mr Torini advised the children that we were considering the action because of the need to ensure the safety of the travelling public. I'm sure the children were glad to learn that this particular specimen of Canada's national animal lived to see another Canada Day.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is for the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance. On May 3, 1995, at Kapuskasing, Ontario, Mike Harris solemnly promised that if he became Premier of Ontario a Harris government was committed to protecting "24-hour emergency service in all northern and rural hospitals in Ontario." That was the promise in the 1995 election campaign. Mike Harris won the election; he formed a government.

Last Friday at Goderich, your Minister of Health announced a new small hospitals policy which did not commit to maintaining 24-hour emergency service in all northern and rural hospitals, but rather, promised only access to such service, perhaps 30, 40, 50 kilometres away from that community hospital.

Why did your government break the promise that Mike Harris made at Kapuskasing almost two years ago?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I would say, first of all, that I think the rural and northern health care policy laid out by the Minister of Health last week is an excellent one. It comes, as the member for Renfrew North well knows, from some consultation with people who have a great deal of expertise in delivering health care in rural and northern Ontario. I think the important part of the entire issue to which he refers is that care will be available to people in rural parts of the province.

He would certainly understand, coming from the part of the province he does -- I know that every single institution in the province can't be all things to all people all the time. However, having said that, I do think that we owe it to the people of Ontario to have emergency care available, where practical, and as close to home as is possible.

Mr Conway: It's very clear from that answer that the government's current policy -- where practical, as close as possible -- is a long way from the promise made at Kapuskasing in 1995.

My supplementary question to the Deputy Premier of this government is simply this: In communities like Arnprior, Barry's Bay, Deep River, Winchester and Petrolia, people are very concerned that under this new small hospitals policy their emergency departments are going to close or be substantially downsized and that many of the hospital-based patient services that communities like Arnprior, Barry's Bay and Deep River have enjoyed over the last number of years and decades will either be reduced or eliminated.

Will you commit today to people in communities like Arnprior, Deep River and Barry's Bay that they will not lose any of their patient-based, hospital-based services under your new policy?

Hon Mr Eves: We are the first government in 10 years to listen to the people of rural and northern Ontario. The two previous governments received no less than 26 reports on health care in rural and northern Ontario and did absolutely nothing about any one of the 26.

First of all, in December 1995, I might say to the honourable member, we invested some $13 million in emergency care in rural hospitals across Ontario. That is something that two previous administrations had not seen fit to do. The minister has now acted upon the recommendations of some very notable people with some real experience in rural and northern Ontario. I'm sure I don't have to go through the list for the honourable member. In fact, one of them is from your riding. I have the newspaper clipping, as indeed does he, lauding this person's ability in advising the government.

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

Hon Mr Eves: We are taking the advice of the task force that the minister had advising him, so places like Deep River, Barry's Bay, Renfrew-Victoria, Arnprior, Red Lake --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question, third party.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

BY-ELECTION IN WINDSOR-RIVERSIDE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Since we're doing so well here, another question to the Deputy Premier. As you know, a by-election will need to be called in the constituency of Windsor-Riverside. You can imagine the surprise of people living in Windsor that just in the last few days this piece of propaganda turns up on their doorsteps, in the mail. If you read it, it's very clear that this is not a report to the riding or anything like that. This is strictly political propaganda. This is propaganda being put out.

In fact, what your government's doing, you're using taxpayers' money to in effect put a political leaflet out there before the election is called. Can you tell us how much taxpayers' money you spent putting this piece of political propaganda out there?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): No, I'm not familiar with that pamphlet that the leader of the third party refers to. If he'd be kind enough to send it across, I'd be pleased to look into the matter for him.

Mr Hampton: I'll be very happy to send this over. In fact, if someone wants to take it over for the Deputy Premier, he can have a look at it. My point is this: Instead of using taxpayers' money to fund your election campaign, why don't you call the by-election so the Conservative Party can pay the costs of your candidate and pay the costs of your propaganda?

Hon Mr Eves: As I said, I'm not familiar with the pamphlet he's talking about. He knows of course, as does every member of the Legislature, that by-elections have to be called within a certain length of time and I'm sure that it will be at the appropriate time.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Yesterday was a historic day for the province of Ontario as the government launched Agenda for Action on the prevention of violence against women. I'd like to commend all those who have been involved in this, especially the minister responsible for women's issues and the Attorney General.

In my riding of Perth, violence against women has been a standing concern. Local initiatives have set a high standard for education and prevention, and I know this new strategic direction will greatly assist our communities in their ability to respond to violence against women.

As the new proposal states, the prevention of violence is everybody's responsibility. A particular prevalent problem and an area of concern to my constituents is the incidence of sexual assault. I'd like to know what actions the minister is taking through this initiative to deal with the serious issue of sexual assault.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): For the first time ever in the history of the province we are extending to rape crisis centres annualized funding. I would add that this is on the back of an NDP government that in 1995 reduced the funding to rape crisis centres by 4.8%.

The second piece I would like to extend to the member for Perth is that we're looking at the needs of disabled and francophone women and looking at models that will assist them in providing the kinds of services they need and deserve.

Third, we have put aside an amount of funding to help to close the service gaps in communities, both to rape crisis centres and to shelters.

Thank you for your question.

Mr Bert Johnson: I'm sure my constituents will be as pleased as I am to hear about our government addressing the needs of sexual assault victims. Through the efforts of groups such as the Perth domestic abuse review team, my riding has experienced great success in dealing with domestic violence through the courts. I'm proud to say that successful prosecutions have risen from 50% to 80%. A key element of justice, however, is proper treatment for perpetrators to ensure they do not reoffend.

My constituents would like to know whether yesterday's announcement includes initiatives which will address the need for treatment programs for batterers.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Currently my colleague the Solicitor General oversees some 28 male batterer programs for convicted perpetrators. In the Agenda for Action we are providing a quarter of a million dollars this year to clear out the backlog in these programs. With the expansion of the domestic courts to six new sites, we're expanding the male batterer programs based on the highly successful model that we have in the North York court. By pleading guilty here, a perpetrator will go directly into a counselling program and hopefully this will assist in breaking the cycle of violence.

We must ensure that our justice system is responsive, and although the member opposite from Thunder Bay stated that every woman doesn't want to go to court, she's quite right. That's why I think the North York court is a good model, because in the end families have an opportunity to be together.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today you intend to pass your comprehensive road safety bill, and your idea to protect the 810,000 children who ride school buses in Ontario daily is to double the existing fine levels. This gesture is meaningless, Minister. You cannot get a conviction under the current law. Vehicle liability is the only mechanism that will gain convictions.

You have allowed Mr Froese's bill to be incorporated into Bill 138. Any recognition that school bus safety must be addressed is good. I urge you, on behalf of the children, to address the problem, which has caused 11 deaths and 80 injuries over the past 10 years. There are no fatalities associated with Mr Froese's bill. When will you introduce vehicle liability to protect Ontario's school children?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): As I promised the member, the ministry has looked at how we could incorporate his bill into a road safety bill, and it was because of the member that we actually incorporated the higher fines. But for the member to push the issue of absolute vehicle liability -- we have believed in the past that you have to target the driver, not the vehicle. We're trying to do what's right.

One other thing I want to say to the member is that I believe we have a police authority out there that acts as a police authority, and for this government to give police-type powers to bus drivers, I don't think the people of Ontario would like that very much.

Mr Hoy: Bus drivers currently, if they can identify the driver of a vehicle, lay a charge, so they already have some of those powers you're saying you don't want to give to them. I'm here to support Bill 138 because it involves safety issues. I want you to quit stalling. Bill 78 has the unanimous consent of this House and was referred to the standing committee on resources development. Bill 78 has a right to be considered. Is this a democratic government or not?

School bus experts, legal experts and parents want to tell you why vehicle liability is a necessity. It's fair and it's enforceable. When is the government going to allow Bill 78 to be heard before that committee?

Hon Mr Palladini: I think the member has answered his own question of why we cannot give bus drivers police-type authority. We have something already in place, that if a bus driver can identify the driver, there will be a conviction. Again, I want to say to the member, we are not going to arbitrarily give bus drivers the powers or the authority just to jot down licence numbers and have a conviction based on what licence number they perceive to have seen.

We are working with the school busing industry to see how we can better implement some additional changes that will tighten it, that will protect our children. These things are going to happen, but they're going to take some time. I would welcome the member's input and help on this to see how we can work together.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm sending over a copy of a letter to the Minister of Education and Training. This letter is addressed to a number of officials of the ministry from the superintendent of the Toronto Board of Education regarding

section 27 agreements at the Toronto board.

Despite the cuts to social assistance to poor families, to child care and to school classrooms, this government is trying to persuade the public that they really care about Ontario children. The Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues announced new funding for school boards and to children's aid societies to deal with violence against women. Today, the Minister of Community and Social Services said, "Children are a priority of this government."

If that's the case, could the Minister of Education and Training explain why his ministry would be telling the Toronto Board of Education to make cuts to its

section 27 classrooms, which are classrooms with education programs serving the most fragile, at-risk children in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The member for Algoma has sent me over a copy of this letter. I have had 30 seconds or so to review it -- the member for Algoma smiles because he knows I probably reviewed some of it in that 30 seconds or so -- and I see no evidence here that the ministry has asked anyone to close down a

section 27 program. For those who don't understand

section 27 programs, those are programs that are delivered to young people who are in institutions, who are not well, other people in that regard. I see no indication here that the ministry has asked the Toronto Board of Education to do that.

Further to that, two weeks ago, when asked a similar question about the Ottawa school board

section 27 agreements, I said in this House and I said publicly on several occasions that this government will not allow any student who needs those services that are covered under

section 27 to be denied those services. That includes Toronto and Ottawa.

Mr Wildman: The letter is about four pages of lists of proposed cuts by the ministry to the in-place programs of the Toronto Board of Education. The superintendent who wrote the letter said, "I'm writing on behalf of the Toronto board to request that the ministry reconsider its proposed program closures."

Your ministry has told the board to make cuts in education programs for young mothers at Jessie's; for extremely mentally fragile children at Youthdale Treatment Centre, where there is a 12- to 18-month waiting list already for school programs; for young people moving out of residential psychiatric programs at the Hincks Treatment Centre, and your ministry has given no rationale for these cuts.

As the letter indicates, these programs continue to offer a valuable service in terms of public education for some of our most challenged young people. It doesn't make any sense. Is a child in care or treatment no longer entitled to public education, like every other child in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's surprising to me that the member for Algoma would raise this issue today because as I look at this letter, I believe if the member investigated further, he would find that the Toronto Board of Education was asked by his government to make some permanent reductions in its costs through the social contract. It's been left to this government to bring those programs forward. He will know that his government negotiated, as part of the way of recovering those social contract savings from the Toronto Board of Education, transfers into the Toronto board, into the

section 27 schools and transfers between school boards that receive grants and don't receive grants -- part of the social contract program. I strongly suspect that what's in this letter is about programs that were originally talked about under the social contract, which was your government. The member for Algoma knows it was your government, not this government, that initiated that.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Our government has a strong commitment to ensuring that our workplaces are among the safest in the world. Along with that commitment comes a commitment to occupational health and safety research. I believe that one of the keys to ensuring those healthy, safe workplaces would be looking at various areas of research into the causes and complications of workplace injury and illness. Could the minister outline for us what improvements will be made in this field as a direct result of Bill 99, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member for Hamilton West, I'm certainly very pleased to respond as to the impact that Bill 99 is going to have on health and safety research because for the first time in this province the Workers' Compensation Board will now have the opportunity to focus exclusively on health and safety, which it never had before. It was never part of the purpose clause. I'm also extremely pleased to indicate that the WCB has set up a task force on research and I'm looking forward to the results of the task force over the next few months.

Mrs Ross: I'm sure that all members would agree that any improvements we can make to the occupational health and safety research system have to be good news. Could the minister please outline for this House what the basis of the new strategy is likely to be.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I need to add that we've not been happy with the record of previous governments when it comes to health and safety research, so the task force on research will be recommending that by the year 2000 we will be spending in this province an additional $7.7 million on top of the $5 million that we already spend. We're going to be focusing on taking a look at occupational disease, ergonomics; we're going to look at diagnosis, treatment; and we're going to find some very practical solutions for health and safety which we can share with workplaces across the province in order that we can actually see a reduction in injury and illness.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. During the election campaign and shortly after the campaign, when you were elected, your Premier committed to full funding for the north-south portion of the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton. Following that commitment there has been some debate. In questioning in the Legislature, a year ago I asked you to agree to an independent review of the funding costs because there was a disagreement between what the region believed was the provincial responsibility and what you stated it was.

The independent review has now been completed and it shows a $44-million shortfall between what you have committed for the Red Hill Creek Expressway and what the consultant and the independent review has now shown is needed from the provincial commitment. Therefore, we now have a gap of $44 million.

Will you today commit to the additional $44 million that the independent consultant review has shown is the cost the province has to bring forward for the north-south portion of the Red Hill Creek Expressway to go ahead?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The province obviously remains committed to the expressway and the contribution we committed to was $100 million towards the building of the expressway.

However, discussions have taken place with the regional chair and my staff, including myself, to see how we can find savings, ways to build the expressway in a most cost-efficient way. That has been ongoing, and I believe there has been some RFQ given to the point where the differential is not $44 million, as the honourable member has mentioned. I believe the price is very close to what we said all along: between $200 million and $205 million. I think we have an agreement based on what it is going to cost to complete Red Hill Creek between the ministry and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. Negotiations are ongoing.

Mr Agostino: I have a letter dated June 24, 1997, sent to you by the regional chairman. You keep disputing the figures. You keep disputing the facts. A year ago you bragged about the fact that your $100-million figure was correct and the region's was wrong.

Let me state to you what the regional chairman has said: "Again, this support results in a shortfall in the current proposal in the amount of $43.8 million compared to the previous arrangement." This is June 24; a week ago this letter was sent to you telling you clearly it's a shortfall of $44 million.

When the people of Hamilton-Wentworth believed your Premier when he said he was going to fully fund the north-south portion of the expressway, it meant they were going to live up to their word and their commitment. You have changed the funding formula, you have shortchanged the region by $44 million, and people in the region are questioning your government's commitment to that promise made by the Premier. Your inability today to come forward and commit to the rest of the money is putting the expressway project in jeopardy.

Minister, based on the independent review that you agreed to, will you bring the $44-million cheque to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth so we can go ahead and start the north-south expressway?

Hon Mr Palladini: This is coming from a member who was opposed to building Red Hill Creek Expressway. I am glad to see that he is now on side, and finally. We're on side; we want to build it. We've been saying it all along.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): That is simply not true.

Mr Agostino: Point of order --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Hold it. First off, let's get this straight. The member for Fort William, that's out of order, and to the member for Hamilton East, that's out of order. You have to withdraw those comments.

Mrs McLeod: I'll withdraw the second one, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: No, I just want to hear a withdrawal, that's all.

Mrs McLeod: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Now, you want a point of order?

Mr Agostino: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Clearly that comment by the minister was inappropriate. He knows those are not the facts and I really believe you should ask him to withdraw that. I believe he is misleading the House by suggesting I'm opposed to the expressway.

The Speaker: Now you have to withdraw that comment. You can't accuse somebody of misleading the House. It's against the rules.

Mr Agostino: I'll withdraw it if you can ask him to do the same.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order. Minister?

Hon Mr Palladini: Mr Speaker, I will send the honourable member a copy of a newspaper

article with his picture on it that basically said exactly what I said earlier.

We are committed to building Red Hill Creek Expressway and there are negotiations going on right now with the regional chair and my staff. I believe we are working towards a meeting date, which is probably going to happen some time next week. I am glad to see the member is on side to get Red Hill Creek built.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition that reads as follows, and it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We believe that the heart of educationin our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As Minister of Education and Training, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary school reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I affix my signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by members of the Ontario Federation of Labour and forwarded to me by the president of the OFL, Gord Wilson.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this government's contribution to prevention services made through the WCB has been reduced from $62 million to $47 million, with no explanation as to where this money has gone; and

"Whereas the prevention services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and other safety associations, thereby increasing the demand for the prevention services provided by the centre; and

"Whereas this government has gutted the certification training standards for health and safety committee members and is replacing them with minimalist performance standards which, in combination with funding cuts, have resulted in a 40% reduction in the staff of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre is facing further cuts of $2.3 million to finance the establishment of several new employer safety associations, thereby duplicating administrative costs and services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the gutting of the funding of prevention services provided by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the moneys taken from the health and safety prevention services of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the other safety associations be returned to them."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code relating to public nudity be clarified to provide better protection of community standards;

I endorse this petition with my signature.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by members of the Canadian Auto Workers union and forwarded to me by Buzz Hargrove, their national president.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

Again, that's a lot more than the few crummy days they've offered us on the WCB. I add my name to these workers.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas communities strongly disagree with allowing women to go topless in public;

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

"To enact legislation to require women to wear tops in public places for the protection of our children and for public safety in general."

This is signed by about 200 people in my riding, and I sign it to present it to this Legislature.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition that has been signed by over 300 residents of Cornwall and area. Most of these signatures were collected by Mrs Eileen Harris, 81-year-old president of the residents' council of Glen-Stor-Dun Lodge. Mrs Harris sat at the door of the lodge for over two weeks getting this petition signed.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no dialysis available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas the lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Kingston and Ottawa several times each week, in dangerous weather conditions, to receive this basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised last April to rectify this by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas this promise made by the Minister of Health to date has not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families and friends continuing to drive to Ottawa or Kingston for treatment several times a week during the abovenoted conditions;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Health to follow through on his commitment made last April to bring the long-awaited and much-needed health service to Cornwall area residents."

I will also sign the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of OPSEU and forwarded to me by their president, Leah Casselman.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) provides high-quality professional medical, hygiene and ergonomic services to employers, workers, joint health and safety committees and their communities; and

"Whereas the professional services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to organizations such as the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, therefore increasing the demand for the services provided by OHCOW; and

"Whereas the professional and technical expertise and advice provided by the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers have made a significant contribution to improvements to workplace health and safety as well as the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call upon the government to maintain the funding of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers and oppose any attempt to alter the governance structure or erode the professional and technical services of OHCOW.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that OHCOW be provided with the necessary funds to allow expansion into other Ontario communities in order to provide the professional and technical services needed to reduce occupational injuries, illnesses and deaths."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

WATER CHLORINATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the chemical substance chlorine was added to the people of Milton's pure well water supplies in 1995; and

"Whereas the Halton regional water delivery system in the town of Milton has received the regular maintenance and standard upgrade requirements outlined by the province and is supported by a standby chlorination unit sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat; and

"Whereas recent studies on the use of chlorine additives in drinking water have raised the spectre of chlorine as a possible cancer agent; and

"Whereas the people of the town of Milton overwhelmingly supported the belief that a standby chlorination requirement is sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

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

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Legislature grant the people of Milton's request for a variance allowing only standby chlorination to be used in treating the pure well water supplies of Milton's water delivery system."

I'm proud to add my name to this petition.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition was forwarded to me from my good friends at the United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500, in Sudbury.

"To the Honourable Solicitor General and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

Again I sign my signature to this petition, as I am in full agreement with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions regarding workplace health and safety, this time from members of CUPE forwarded to me by their Ontario president Sid Ryan.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and in the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I continue to receive petitions concerning rural health care from my riding and other rural areas in Ontario.

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities, and that hospital boards, district health councils, the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I am in agreement with these petitions and therefore affix my signature to them.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would be prepared to affix my signature to the last petitions as well, but I have another petition. It reads as follows: "A petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors;

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in full agreement with its contents.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I beg leave to present the final report on referenda of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UN ENSEMBLE COMPLET DE MESURES VISANT LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Mr Palladini moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 138,

An Act to promote road safety by increasing periods of suspension for Criminal Code convictions, impounding vehicles of suspended drivers, requiring treatment for impaired drivers, raising fines for driving while suspended, impounding critically defective commercial vehicles, creating an absolute liability offence for wheel separations, raising fines for passing stopped school buses, streamlining accident reporting requirements and amending other road safety programs / Projet de loi 138, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité routière en augmentant les périodes de suspension pour les déclarations de culpabilité découlant du Code criminel, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules de conducteurs faisant l'objet d'une suspension, en exigeant le traitement des conducteurs en état d'ébriété, en augmentant les amendes pour conduite pendant que son permis est suspendu, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules utilitaires comportant des défauts critiques, en créant une infraction entraînant la responsabilité absolue en cas de détachement des roues, en augmentant les amendes pour dépassement d'un autobus scolaire arrêté, en simplifiant les exigences relatives à la déclaration des accidents et en modifiant d'autres programmes de sécurité routière.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I seek unanimous consent that my time be split with the member for Mississauga South.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Palladini: Four weeks ago, June 5, we were here for second reading of the Comprehensive Road Safety Act, 1997, a bill that targets some of the worst offenders on our roads. Since then we have gone to the standing committee on social development and we have heard from the public, giving them their opportunity to have their say about the bill.

I am pleased that we are now in a position to proceed with this much-needed legislation. What makes this bill so powerful is the support it has from organizations such as the Canadian Automobile Association, the Canadian Industrial Transportation League, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Ontario Medical Association, the Addiction Research Foundation, the general public and even CRASH. I have also heard rumours that the opposition are going to be in favour of this bill.

I appreciate that most of these groups made suggestions on how we could improve the bill. In our efforts on road safety, we are listening and we will keep those good ideas in mind as we implement and come forward with more road safety initiatives in the future. I assure you we will.

Everyone wants the same thing: safer roads. With this legislation we will do that by targeting drinking drivers, suspended drivers, unsafe trucking companies and people who pass stopped school buses.

We are addressing the problem of drinking drivers by providing mandatory education and/or treatment programs that will be paid for by the offender, not the taxpayers. In addition, new fines for driving while suspended will come into effect. They will start at $5,000 and can go as high as $50,000. Fines for a repeat offender will start at $10,000.

Minimum fines for driving while suspended for non-Criminal-Code offences will be doubled, and $2,000 on a second offence. Fines for driving while suspended for Criminal Code offences will range from $5,000 to $50,000. Drinking and driving offences will be kept on a record for a minimum of 10 years, up from five.

We are addressing the problem of repeat offenders. Second-time offenders will be suspended for three years, up from two. A third-time offender must have ignition interlock installed and successfully complete a remedial treatment program. Fourth-time offenders will never get a driver's licence in the province of Ontario ever again.

We are addressing the problem of people who choose to drive while under a Criminal Code suspension. If caught, the vehicle they are driving will be impounded for 45 days. The impoundment period doubles to 90 days if any vehicle owned by that same person is caught being driven a second time by a suspended driver. The impoundment period jumps to 180 days for a third offence.

This is the toughest drinking and driving package in Canada, and will go a long way in reducing the number of collisions, the number of deaths and the uncountable tears that have been caused by an impaired driver.

I think everyone in this House would agree that we could not have come this far without the inspiration and encouragement of the member for Mississauga South, who has made this issue her personal mission for many years. Thank you, Margaret. I know this is a proud day for her. At the same time, I also know she is far from finished with this issue and will keep fighting until drinking and driving is ended in Ontario.

With this legislation we will target unsafe trucks. Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in North America to impound unsafe trucks for a critical defect for 15 days. I've returned with the Wheel Safety Act, which makes wheel separation an absolute liability offence with fines that range from $2,000 to $50,000, the highest in North America.

We are focusing on school bus safety. Anyone caught passing a school bus will face fines that have doubled to a maximum of $2,000 on a first offence and $4,000 on a second or subsequent offence. This initiative was inspired by the member for Essex-Kent and his private member's bill. I congratulate him again on his efforts.

Thanks to the member for St Catharines-Brock, we have taken school bus safety one step further by requiring school buses to stop at all railway crossings. I also congratulate him on his private member's bill.

I am glad we've had the opportunity to incorporate two good ideas from private members into this legislation.

Road safety is everyone's responsibility. I thank the members of this House for their support and for the speedy passage of this bill. This could not have happened without their cooperation, and I want to thank them very, very much.

With this legislation we will be removing some of the worst offenders from our roads, and that will result in a reduction in the number of collisions and deaths on our highways. That is exactly what we set out to do when we first unveiled Ontario's plan for road safety back in October 1995.

I would like again to thank all the members of this Legislature for sharing this particular day and making this bill a reality.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is a very special day in my service for the last 12 years in this Legislature. It wouldn't have happened that we would all be here today to vote unanimously in support of Bill 138 without Minister of Transportation Al Palladini's shared commitment to supporting the initiatives to stop the killing on our roads.

For me it's been almost four years in coming. Obviously I'm full of gratitude and appreciation today that we are finally going to pass Bill 138, which incorporates all of the intent of my first private member's bill, which was introduced in this House in the fall of 1994, and then I reintroduced the same bill with a few minor changes in the spring of 1996.

Having travelled this province and done a great number of open-line radio shows and television shows across the province, I've been able to get a tremendous amount of feedback from the general public about what they really feel about people who knowingly drink and then knowingly drive. This bill isn't about criticizing people who choose to drink; that's a private, individual choice. But it's very much a bill about people who, having drunk, then knowingly drive, because that's no longer a private affair. When drunk drivers take to our roads and streets and highways, it becomes immediately a public issue and a public responsibility.

I'm very proud of Mr Palladini having the courage and the conviction to bring forward this very tough legislation. Frankly, there were times when I was bringing forward my private member's bill dealing with the subject that some of these measures which we are about to vote on unanimously today I was discouraged from incorporating in my private bill. I was told: "You'll never get all-party support. It's too stiff. It's too tough. It just goes too far." Fortunately, it obviously doesn't go too far, because everyone in this chamber agrees it's what we need at this point.

The interesting thing about the subject of drunk driving I think is that in the overall incidence of drunk driving in the last decade we have had a decline, but we have had an increase in the number of those people who drive drunk more than once. So it is the repeat convictions that we are going to try to deter and eventually stop completely with this kind of legislation.

When we introduced the legislation last -- well, it was proclaimed on November 28 last year, which was one part of my bill, the administrative driver's licence suspension, the automatic suspension on being charged: not on being convicted, but on being charged with impaired driving. The amazing thing is we've had now over 10,000 people, just from last November, charged with impaired driving and their licence being automatically suspended for 90 days.

I think what that tells us is that we have, at any time in this province, far, far too many people who drive drunk, because to have stopped, arrested and charged over 10,000 people tells you the amount of police, the deployment of personnel it has taken to accomplish that. What that really tells us is that this is a far bigger problem than we ever really know because we simply don't have the police personnel to do all the RIDE program inspections that we could do and have even greater numbers of charges.

Today is a victory for everyone in this chamber who is going to get an opportunity to vote for Bill 138, but indeed it's a far greater victory for those families who have lost loved ones to the drunk driver. Even recently, just this past holiday weekend, three more people were killed in this province in the last three days by drunk drivers. This bill will go a long, long way, as I said, to stop the killing.

When we talk about drunk driving, that's what we do: We usually talk about fatalities. We don't talk about the families for whom lives are changed permanently, for the rest of their lives, people who are put in wheelchairs, people who lose their opportunity to earn a living because they can no longer physically manoeuvre their torn, ravaged bodies from the injuries sustained from drunk driving.

As I stand today, as I say, it's a tremendous privilege to speak on behalf of all those families for whom the subject of drunk driving means one word in their lives, and that word is "horror." For one of those families, the mother is here this afternoon. In her case, the drunk driving was never proven about the person who killed her son. In fact, that driver was never even charged with drunk driving in that particular incident. But in that particular woman's driving history, there was no question she had already killed someone else; she had put someone else in a wheelchair for life.

And in an accident which she caused -- and she was charged I think only with dangerous driving in the end -- she killed Warren Lavery.

I'm very grateful that Mrs Janetta Lavery has the courage to be here today because I'm only the person who's had the privilege of trying to resolve this issue, at least partway, for all those families. We simply hope and pray that with the passage of this legislation today we will be able to reduce the number of deaths, the number of people who are injured, and hopefully in the long run help those people who still don't understand that not only is drunk driving a Criminal Code offence, but they have a huge responsibility. If they don't have responsibility to themselves, they have a huge responsibility to the rest of society.

On behalf of all those families who have hoped always there would be tougher legislation in this Legislature and in this province, I'm very grateful to everyone who will be supporting this bill today. As I say, it's certainly the most meaningful thing that's ever happened in my 24 years in politics to have my private member's bill on this subject incorporated in the government bill. I feel very strongly about the fact that we are all on the right track and we are all doing this together. It's not one individual; it's not even just one government.

It's been coming for a long time, and now we're going to have the toughest legislation in Canada and it will be among some of the toughest legislation in North America.

I thank everybody from the bottom of my heart.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew North and the member for St Catharines.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Duncan: Indeed it is good to be here today passing this bill at long last. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I'd like to comment about the process that's happened here.

We had our first truck safety bill in February, a bill that was, according to the minister, tough, and he was going to get tough on trucks. He said they wanted to pass that bill right away. Day after day went by and the bill wasn't passed. Then, lo and behold, the Premier said, and was quoted as saying, the bill was too draconian and we would do a more comprehensive bill in the fall. Public reaction was swift and furious that despite its commitments, despite the fact that it had a bill on the order paper, the government was backing off.

No one could quite understand why, least of all the families of a number of victims of flying truck wheels. Had it not been for their passion and their ferocity, I doubt very much that we'd be standing here today. I don't discount the government's desire to do a bill, but I suspect it would have been much later and would have needed even more improvements than we believe it needs today.

We could have passed this bill last Thursday. We could have done it, just as we're doing it today. Instead, a government that is intent on changing the rules of the Legislature insisted on bringing us back here at a cost of about $2 million. Those were the numbers the government members were throwing out in other debates. This government could have done it last Thursday, but instead, two million bucks, just like that.

I must tell you that it is good to see the government House leader and the Minister of Transportation bonding again, because obviously they had quite a falling out last week. Why? Because the Minister of Transportation saw the folly in it himself of not doing this last Thursday, instead racking up a bill of $2 million so that the government could jam its new rules through this House and effectively curtail democracy in the Legislature. It's a shame that the government doesn't apply to itself the same standards it applies to everybody else: $2 million, poof, gone like that. Why?

Because the government House leader, in a fit of pique, would not bring forward this bill, much to the chagrin of the Minister of Transportation.

But we on this side of the House understand full well why: because this government's priority is shutting down debate. It's not about truck safety, it's not about ensuring that we deal with matters expeditiously, because had they really meant that, we wouldn't be here today. We would have done the truck safety bill. Instead, the members opposite prefer to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars so they can stifle debate.

It's absolutely shameless that government ministers like the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would laugh about $2 million. I suppose we have to discuss his ethical dilemma later today, so I imagine in that regard it's probably money well spent. I say to the government members that you have argued in the past about how much it costs to run this place when we want to debate something, but I'll tell you, when you don't want to talk about something, it's easy to shut it down. That's what your rules were all about and that's why it's a shame that this bill had to wait till today.

I could understand why the Minister of Transportation was visibly and publicly angered last week, because we believe he is genuine in his commitment. We saw that minister go through the trial and tribulation of having first the Premier cut the legs out from under him and then the government House leader.

But here we are back today, and now I'd like to turn my attention to a bill we will support. As I said in committee hearings, we support it recognizing that on a scale of 1 to 10, this bill is probably a 7.5. But we proposed a number of amendments to the bill and I'd like to remind the government of those amendments, and I'd like to remind the public that this bill, while it's an important first step particularly in the area of drunk driving -- in fact it's probably a giant step in the area of drunk driving -- there are a lot of things missing from the bill.

For instance, the official opposition made a motion that an advisory board with a sunset clause be appointed to oversee the implementation of all the recommendations in Target '97. What did the government do? Voted it down. It would have been very easy to do. It would have given the public assurance that those recommendations, that those regulatory changes that need to be implemented to deal with the broad range of safety issues, actually happen.

I say to the minister and to the government members that we will be watching, we will be following, and every time you fail to move expeditiously, we will remind you and remind the public that you have not yet dealt with the vast majority of recommendations that come out of both Target '97 and the Worona inquest.

The members of the government also had a chance to pass an amendment to this bill which would have brought Ontario's road safety standards and the parameters around those standards in closer sync with other provinces and the national government. The government has argued that this is the toughest bill. In terms of drunk driving, they're accurate. In terms of road safety, we're on the way. But it won't be the toughest until we do the regulatory changes, and those do not require the consent of the Legislature through a bill to do.

We gave the government an opportunity to pass an amendment to the bill that would see the government no longer do business with companies with bad safety records. The government refused to pass that amendment, and we hope that future bills will include that. In fact, we will bring those amendments forward in two years and we will strengthen the Highway Traffic Act to make it better, to make it stronger, to raise this bill from a 7 or a 7.5 out of 10 to a 10 out of 10.

We talked about a graduated licensing system. We in committee, I think on all sides of the House, were surprised to learn how relatively easy it is to get a licence to drive one of those large carrier trucks. I think we were all surprised by that. We brought forward amendments to this bill that were ruled out of order because they deal with another bill. We say that had the government really been intent on comprehensive legislation, we could have dealt with that aspect of road safety as well.

We talked a great deal about the time periods for reinstatement of licence suspensions for drunk driving. We proposed a slightly tougher version in terms of the lockout devices, in terms of the suspensions, in terms of when licences could be renewed, and the government in turn defeated those.

There were a number of issues, a number of items left out of this bill that would have made it in our view a stronger bill, that would have made it in our view the kind of bill that would not require us in two years -- and we will reopen this in two years -- to have to go back and make more amendments.

There were a number of other less significant amendments that the official opposition proposed and we did so in good faith.

With respect to bus safety, I think the role of my colleague the member for Essex-Kent, Mr Hoy, was noted by the minister, and I want to pay tribute to him especially, but I'd also like to point out to the minister who referenced Mr Hoy's bill that you only got it half right. You've got the fines in it but you didn't deal with the key issue, the essential issue of liability, the same type of vehicular liability we see in other Ontario statutes, as was so well pointed out by my colleague from Essex-Kent.

We have here a bill, a piece of legislation that will contribute to improved road safety. It's a shame that we couldn't do it last week. It's a shame that we had to call the House back at considerable expense to taxpayers because the government saw as a greater priority the need to deal with rule changes in the Legislature. There are members opposite who probably feel that they'd rather deal with rule changes, they'd rather have less debate. They're not interested in talking about issues. We wanted to talk about Bill 138 last week, they wouldn't, but here we are today prepared to support this bill, the first time I believe the official opposition sup