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

October 29, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L116 - Tue 29 Oct 1996 / Mar 29 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

EDUCATION ISSUES

LUPUS DISEASE

RHONA MICKELSON

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATIONAL DONATIONS

AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

JOHN GREYSON

HAROLD SYME

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUCKING SAFETY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

NATIVE AGREEMENT

HAZARDOUS WASTE

ROAD MAINTENANCE

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ANIMAL WELFARE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

USER FEES

ABORTION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

PAROLE SYSTEM

TVONTARIO

FIREARMS CONTROL

TVONTARIO

SCHOOL FACILITIES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES TRIBUNAUX

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ROAD MAINTENANCE

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): TVO provides quality programming to northwestern Ontario and is essential as a service provider in the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation region.

Because of this government's actions, the Wawatay radio network will not operate today in protest of the government's plan to privatize TVOntario. Since 1984, TVO has carried the Wawatay radio network on its satellite video signal. This partnership provided Wawatay with an economical means of providing a native-language network radio service across the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. Distribution of Wawatay's broadcast signal will not be viable without the assistance of TVO. First nation communities in the northwest are concerned that the sale of TVO would more than likely lead to the elimination of Wawatay's native-language broadcast services.

Wahsa distance education, which is also distributed through the TVO system, will also be jeopardized if privatization by the Harris government proceeds. Wahsa provides an opportunity to students in 23 first nations to complete their high school education without the expense and emotional stress of leaving their homes and families. The services that are provided in northwestern Ontario and to the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation by TVO are unique and essential to the healthy development and future of our region.

Because of the minister's actions, the airwaves of Wawatay radio network will be silenced today to show what can be expected if the government continues with its privatization plans. Minister, your decision to sell Ontario's network will result in the elimination of first nation language services for 35 northern first nation communities.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I think it's time the Minister of Education and Training exercised his primary role as an advocate and proponent of our education system. The minister appears to be unaware of the high quality of education in Ontario. Our quality education system is being threatened for political and financial reasons as a result of this.

It's time the provincial government recognized the high quality of education presently offered to students in Ontario and refrained from further unsubstantiated derogatory comments on the provincial education system.

We must recognize the serious impact on students of further funding reductions to education. Cuts hurt kids.

Parents and ratepayers support and value local governance of their education system, and it's not just they who feel this way. The Minister of Finance stated in June 1996, "School boards are accountable to their community and the government is confident that they are in the best position to determine the priorities of their constituents."

I hope the minister will also acknowledge the value of locally elected school boards as advocates and representatives of local communities.

It's time the Minister of Education entered into realistic and meaningful consultation with all --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

LUPUS DISEASE

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Inflammation of the joints, heart disease, kidney disease, facial rash, memory loss: The list of symptoms is long and frightening. This disease can affect any organ or system in the body and can affect any man, woman or child, and there is no cure.

October is Lupus Awareness Month, the disease of a thousand faces. Lupus is a disease in which the immune system loses its ability to tell the difference between foreign substances and its own cells and tissue.

More people have lupus than AIDS, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis combined. Data show that between 1.4 and two million people have been diagnosed with lupus.

For the vast majority of people with lupus, effective treatment can minimize symptoms, reduce inflammation and maintain normal bodily functions. New research brings unexpected findings each year. The progress made in treatment and diagnosis during the last decade has been greater than that made over the last 100 years.

With hard work, determination and a little luck, I am confident a cure can soon be found.

RHONA MICKELSON

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On October 22 the disabled community lost a very special friend. Rhona Mickelson, founder of Star Tracks Performing Arts Centre and Talent Agency for the Disabled, passed away from heart failure.

At the age of three, Miss Mickelson was playing with her dolls when an improperly constructed patio roof gave way at the family home at San Antonio, Texas, caving in on her. The resulting spinal injury left her a paraplegic and required the use of a wheelchair.

In university, she noticed during film studies that able-bodied actors were used to play the roles of people with disabilities; thus the idea for a talent agency for the disabled was born. Her efforts opened doors for people with disabilities in the world of film, advertising and employment. She found work for people with disabilities as models, in magazines, films and commercials. Rhona Mickelson lived on a disability pension and supported Star Tracks out of her own pocket.

Rhona was a personal friend who was always there for me, with a smile, with a laugh, with optimism abounding.

Whatever damage was caused from the accident, the spirit of a remarkable woman survived. There are examples of courage everywhere, from the tenacious desire of Terry Fox to the determined perseverance and courage of Rick Hansen. Rhona Mickelson personified all that and more. Her unfailing spirit and selfless concern for others is a remarkable legacy that will never be forgotten.

Rhona, you are among the leaves, the trees -- you will always be among us.

Our deepest sympathies go out to her sister, Penny, brother, Stephen, and father, Harry.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Earlier today I attended a press conference which called attention to the lack of action by the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services with respect to allegations of abuse against youth in correctional facilities, and in particular the death of James Lonnee at the hands of another youth while both were locked in a single segregation cell at Wellington Detention Centre.

Many citizens in the province are outraged by the lack of action by the minister and they are fearful that youth who are incarcerated may continue to experience the kind of abuse and mistreatment which has been alleged in a statement of claim against the minister by a number of these youths.

A campaign has begun to bring the attention of Ontario citizens to the seriousness of this issue. The treatment of youths who are in custody, who are at the mercy of the correctional system and those who run it, should be of great importance to all of us. How do we expect youthful offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and change their behaviour when they experience abuse and degradation at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them and teach them other ways to behave?

How can we expect parents and members of the community to support law enforcement agencies when such allegations are made and the minister accepts no responsibility for either those under his authority or those under his care?

You will see that many of us are wearing black ribbons today. These ribbons are in memory of James Lonnee and all youth who have suffered abuse and mistreatment within the correctional services. They remind us of our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the rights of those who are incarcerated by the province are protected by the province.

EDUCATIONAL DONATIONS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Doing more for less. That's what we're all trying to do, at home and here in government.

The Scarborough Board of Education has heeded our call on behalf of Scarborough taxpayers. The Scarborough board negotiated nearly $4 million in private sector donations so that every student in Scarborough will soon be surfing on a state-of-the-art, high-speed interactive wide area network. I am told by school board officials it is the largest donation ever made to a public school board in North America.

Scarborough educators realize how important it is for our young people to have access to the technology leading us into the 21st century and beyond.

Silicon Graphics Canada, a world leader in computer technology, will provide equipment, licensed software and expert support valued at $3 million. Shaw Communications contributed $750,000 to provide high-speed fibre optic cable to eight schools, with every other school in the city of Scarborough linked to these sites. The University of Toronto will provide access to some of its information technology services and donate $100,000 to partner with a Scarborough elementary and secondary school. In the spirit of cooperation, Scarborough will share its technology with at least 23 other boards across the province.

The Scarborough board should be commended for being able to do more with less. They are looking to the future with optimism, showing us how limitless are the possibilities when we all work together for the taxpayer and for the kids.

AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I'm pleased to inform the House that on Wednesday, October 30, the Kent County Agricultural Hall of Fame Association will hold its eighth annual induction ceremony. The Kent County Agricultural Hall of Fame is the first of its kind to recognize the achievements and services of both men and women within the realm of agriculture. This year, five new members will take their place of honour in the hall of fame.

Helen Coatsworth has kept west Kent and wider readership informed for more than half a century, has been a long-time member and office holder of the Women's Institute, and at age 89 years is still writing weekly columns for the Wheatley Journal.

Ed Chinnick has been involved in many facets of agricultural development, including his key role in the formative years of the Western Ontario Breeders Association.

Paul King has had an impact on agriculture locally, nationally and internationally, including service as president of the International Seed Trade Federation.

Lewis Sherman dedicated his life to the betterment of agriculture, including the Ontario Farm Products Appeal Tribunal.

John E. Smith was responsible for many innovative ideas beneficial to the fruit production and marketing industry.

All of the achievements of these unselfish people are too numerous to mention but have had a tremendous effect within the realm of agriculture and rural communities within and beyond the borders of Kent county.

JOHN GREYSON

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): John Greyson is a Toronto filmmaker whose film Lilies -- certainly controversial but highly acclaimed, nominated for some 14 Geminis -- opened on Friday night at the Carlton Cinemas. Of course, Mr Greyson was there, as is to be expected, and of course he spoke, introducing his film.

Well, it was a scenario that could have been scripted by Kafka or Huxley, because in Mike Harris's brave new world what did John Greyson, this acclaimed filmmaker-director, get for introducing his film and for noting that it was one of the last films to be funded by the Ontario Film Development Corp, a fund now gutted by Mike Harris's Tories, and calling upon people in the audience to let their displeasure and concern about that be known the next day on Saturday during the Days of Action here in Toronto? John Greyson found himself arrested by two of Metro's finest for trespassing, at the behest of the ownership and management of Carlton Cinemas.

This is bizarre. This is an incredible infringement upon the rights of a cultural spokesperson to speak out as we expect them to. It's something about which I expect the Minister of Culture, if we dare call her that, would express outrage. I call upon the Attorney General to ensure that those frivolous, absurd, illegal charges of trespassing are at the very least stayed, and preferably withdrawn, by his crown attorney.

HAROLD SYME

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Canadians are known across the world for their deep respect of the democratic process. In my riding is a constituent I know all members of this House will appreciate, as he has demonstrated his commitment to democracy for over 50 years. Mr Harold Syme, now in his 80s, has worked hard as a volunteer for a great many candidates in his lifetime. He has chosen candidates who best represent his values. Individuals such as Clifford Case, Lex MacKenzie and John MacBeth have benefited from his guidance and hard work.

Today, as a senior, Harold is concerned about the state of this province and the generations who will succeed him. As a result, he has again chosen a direction that best represents his values. He wants a sensible approach to getting this province back into shape while continuing to ensure the most vulnerable members of society have access to essential services. The approach he backs is the approach taken by this government.

Harold was recognized by the Premier this weekend for his dedication towards making Ontario a better place to live. As a beneficiary of his assistance, I too express my appreciation to Harold Syme for his contribution to this province and this country, and for his support of this government.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to introduce to the members of the Legislative Assembly, in the Speaker's gallery today, Mr Liam Jewell, who was a participant in the 1996 Olympic games in kayaking. Welcome.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It's really odd that this place is so hot before question period has even started. Surely we could do something about the heat so that it's not cold one day and too hot the next. It's time you started moderating the place around here.

The Speaker: That's not a point of privilege, actually. It may be a point of whining; I'm not sure.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Wait a minute. When he complimented you it was a point of privilege.

The Speaker: That was a point of privilege, that's right. Actually, we've opened the windows. That's the best we can do.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): In the absence of the Minister of Transportation and the Premier, my question is for someone who knows something about unsafe trucks, the Deputy Premier. This government's record on truck safety is a disgrace. Four out of five Ontarians are scared to drive on our highways, as they should be; 95% of Ontarians still feel that trucks are unsafe on our highways. Your government has been in power now for 18 months. Can you tell me why there are more than 100 persistent violators -- trucking companies -- still on the road today, 18 months after you've taken office?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I have a potential conflict with respect to this question and would refer this question to the Chair of Management Board. I presume the honourable member knew that. Thank you very much for the --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You can't answer and refer.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is right. He didn't answer. He referred the question because he said he had a conflict.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): This is a topic of concern to the minister and this particular government because obviously there have been safety concerns, there have been unfortunate accidents, unfortunate incidents over the past many years, frankly, and it's about time somebody came to grips with this. Indeed, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Transportation introduced legislation to raise the fine for vehicles, and I believe this increase in minimum fines will have some impact.

Having said that, I know the Minister of Transportation is still studying this issue, looking at more effective means to address the concerns on our roads.

Mr Gerretsen: The OPP constable, who is a member the Truck Troopers, stated this morning in the media: "These new fines are going to be insignificant. We don't think $400 is much of a deterrent for companies."

Back in February the Minister of Transportation promised to bring in demerit points for drivers of unsafe trucks and tough new fines within three months at the very latest. That's what he stated. Yesterday, nine months later, in addition to weak new fines, as they have already been described by the constable involved, the minister told us to be patient with demerit points.

Minister, in those nine months people have died. When is your government going to take real action, instead of bogus photo ops and public relations exercises, to get the unsafe trucks off the road?

Hon David Johnson: I just remind you of real action this government has taken: Ontario now has the highest minimum fines for safety-related offences, such as defective brakes at $400 here in Ontario -- only $300 in Quebec; mandatory training for wheel installers; higher maximum fines of up to $20,000; air brake training for truck drivers; 35 more enforcement officers have been put into place across Ontario.

Finally, over seven years, which go back to the previous NDP government and to the Liberal government before that, overloaded gravel trucks were permitted to drive on our highways, and the minister has now lifted the axle weight moratorium to prevent that from happening. There is a specific piece of action taken by this government not taken by the two previous governments.

Mr Gerretsen: The public is demanding real action. A coroner's inquest held more than a year ago made 31 recommendations that they felt could save lives and prevent more tragedies. Minister, can you tell this House how many of the 31 recommendations actually have been followed? When are you going to change the practice whereby mechanics of trucking companies can give safety certificates to their own fleets? When will you institute automatic suspensions like we have for other driving offences?

Hon David Johnson: I will simply reiterate that in my capacity as Chair of Management Board this government has taken the issue seriously. We are most concerned about safety on our streets and have implemented all the activities I mentioned previously. The Minister of Transportation is studying further means. I believe there will be further legislation coming forward. I tell you again that this government takes the issue seriously. I look forward to further action in this regard.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I have in my hand a copy of the statement of claim that was issued by 12 young offenders who are suing you and your government for the treatment they received at Bluewater and the Elgin-Middlesex centres. This document contains some very shocking allegations about the way your government treats children in its care.

Apparently ministry staff manipulated these youngsters by inciting them to riot. After the riot they shackled the children outside in the cold for hours without proper clothing. It seems that some 40 young persons were handcuffed behind their backs, shackled and then taken to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, where they were forced to run a gauntlet of guards armed with batons. They were beaten, stripped, left naked in cells for hours, denied medical attention and forbidden to shower for days. One youngster was kicked in the head until he was unconscious.

Minister, these are the children we're talking about, children in your care, children whose safety and security depended on you and your officials. You are ultimately responsible for everything that happens in your ministry. What is your explanation?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member asking the question is a lawyer. He is well aware that these are unproved allegations and we will be submitting a statement of defence.

Mr Gerretsen: We're talking here about kids who were stripped naked and beaten by ministry staff. This sounds like something out of Amnesty International, yet for months you've been refusing to comment on these disturbing events, supposedly from fear of jeopardizing the ongoing investigations. You have squelched a report by the child advocate about the ill treatment of these children. On a personal level, I find your apparent lack of concern for these children very troubling.

Even if only half of these allegations are true, that would be extremely serious indeed -- allegations of torture, beatings, cruel and inhumane treatment, allegations of blatant disregard of these youngsters' human rights and dignity and the use of excessive force.

In light of these serious allegations, I ask you to stand in your place and commit to ensuring that these investigations are wound up quickly and to holding a public inquiry immediately so that we can get to the truth. Will you commit today to holding a public inquiry as soon as the investigations are over?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated when this issue was initially raised that we had to await the outcome of the police investigation. That's a question that should be posed to Chief Fantino in the city of London, whose force is conducting that investigation. The parallel internal ministry investigation will be completed I think within a short time frame following completion of the police investigation. They are trying to do them as individuals are interviewed and the police indicate they will no longer have contact with that person, and the ministry can go in and conduct an interview and pursue that particular avenue.

I am as frustrated as anyone. I have indicated that in terms of seeing a completion of this, but this is a police investigation and I am not about to direct the police with respect to how they conduct an investigation. I should point out, Mr Speaker, if you give me another moment, that I understand the London police have dedicated a significant number of officers in an attempt to expedite this matter.

Mr Gerretsen: We know that parents of some of the children in your custody are calling your office frantically -- we've heard about that earlier -- fearing for their own children's safety. We know that the office of the child advocate has been making these allegations known to your office for months. We also know that James Lonnee, one of the shackled children transferred to the Elgin-Middlesex centre, actually died in jail, murdered under the supposedly watchful eye of one of your staff.

Minister, your avoidance of giving us clear answers on this issue can no longer be tolerated in light of these public allegations. Will you commit to holding a public inquiry on these disturbing events and finally to taking responsibility for the tragedies that took place?

Hon Mr Runciman: I want to dispute the member's comments with respect to the child advocate. In fact, we have a letter from the child advocate, who indicates that she is pleased with the response the ministry has made in terms of immediate and long-term strategies to address recommendations outlined in her report. I think we're moving as expeditiously as possible on a whole range of fronts related to the young offenders system and the corrections system as a whole. I think we're doing this in a very appropriate and responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is also to the Solicitor General. That

interpretation of the child advocate's comments is a -- I can't say anything else, but it misrepresents what she was talking about, what she was referring to. It has nothing to do with the activities that flowed from Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, James Lonnee -- and I can go on -- Vanier, Metro West Detention Centre.

My colleagues and I have been raising these issues with you. We wear black ribbons today in memory of James Lonnee and of the children who were abused while in custodial care in your ministry. You have on every occasion stonewalled answering questions; you've deflected questions; you have hidden behind the veil of investigation after investigation. There are more investigations going on in your ministry now than I can even count.

Minister, you've got to break through this, because we heard today that the youth who are no longer in custody fear for the safety of those remaining Bluewater and Elgin-Middlesex youth who are still in custody. Further than that, parents are worried about their children who are in your care.

Minister, when will these investigations be completed? When will you make public all of the details? We cannot continue to have you stonewall with respect to these important issues of custody of children.

Hon Mr Runciman: There have been a number of investigations; there's no doubt about that. But I think that many of these are going to bear fruit in a very positive sense with respect to the future of the corrections system both on the youth side and the adult side.

I have just today received a report from Norman Inkster, the former head of the RCMP, who conducted an internal review of the management and accountability procedures within the ministry. I have not had the opportunity yet to review Mr Inkster's recommendations, although I think generally they are favourable in terms of the initiatives we are undertaking. I intend, as promised, to release that report publicly, hopefully this week.

Ms Lankin: According to the coroner's office, James Lonnee was the first youth who has ever been murdered in a correctional facility. This is serious and of an import beyond any of the partisan to and fro that takes place in this House. Parents are worried about their children who are in custodial care of your ministry, and the public is concerned about what's going on in our institutions.

The statement of claim today claims that these youth suffered violations of their constitutional rights under sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were all violated. All of those are international covenants in force in Canada.

I've seen the spectacle of you standing here in your place answering questions and rewriting ministry policies. Minister, we have to have a full, clear airing of all of these issues. There has to be a public inquiry and public review of the steps you've taken before parents and the public can be satisfied. Will you agree to that?

Hon Mr Runciman: I remind the member that there is a mandatory inquest with respect to a death in custody, and that will occur. We have undertaken a number of initiatives with respect to recommendations that were made to the previous government in terms of improving training and hiring processes for correctional officers. We have already instituted those, which will give significantly more input in terms of training when individuals go into the adult stream or the young offender stream, that kind of training which was missing and was pointed out by Judge Inger Hansen when she looked at the whole question of Bell Cairn.

We have also issued an RFP to take a look at the corrections culture and human resources challenges which we know have been there for many, many years, systemic problems which past governments failed to come to grips with.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, this is an issue of your ministerial responsibility and, frankly, your ministerial incompetence. In this whole sad saga, all you've done is try to blame previous governments for events which occurred during your tenure of office.

You've set in motion numerous investigations, none of which has resulted in any action except the charging of young offenders with mischief. You've not released the child advocate's report. Your internal investigation isn't complete; you keep extending its time period. No senior officials in your ministry have been disciplined as a result of your not being informed about the allegations of abuse at Elgin-Middlesex. Now you're being sued by the managers who were the subject of those allegations because of your inaction. You're being sued by the youth who allege mistreatment within your facilities.

Frankly, increasingly you're being seen by the parents and the rest of the population as being both unable and unwilling to take these matters seriously.

Your announcements concerning the hiring and training of corrections officers mean nothing when you've also announced that you're going to get rid of 1,200 jobs in correctional services. Who is going to get hired and trained?

You are the minister. When are you going to accept responsibility for what's happening in your ministry and the safety of youth who are in the custody and care of you as the minister?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think I've already answered the question.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Yesterday in the media the Minister of Education was blaming school boards and teachers for his cuts to education. I want to ask the Minister of Education a question about a particular board: the Lakehead Board of Education.

The Lakehead Board of Education did not increase property taxes even though you cut their budget significantly. As a result of your cuts they made a decision to reduce their special education classes by 50%, and one mother, Beverly Rizzi, told us her daughter is in a grade 8 class with 41 students.

I would like to know what you think the Lakehead Board of Education should have done differently. They're your cuts. You're the one taking the money away. Where would you have made the cuts? What decisions would you have made differently?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the leader of the third party for the question. I could make a couple of suggestions that have been made to our government on where reductions might be found outside the classroom. For instance, I would refer them to the Sweeney report, which your government asked for, that said 47% of expenditures in our system happen outside the classroom.

I might refer them to submissions that were made to us by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association last year which looked at various areas where up to $1 billion could be reduced from our spending without hurting the classroom. I'd ask them to have a look at what reductions might be made from some instruments we provided for school boards last year to make reductions, some of those being in school administration and other areas. That's what I would suggest to the board.

Mr Hampton: This is more of the same. Everyone in Ontario recognizes that this government is cutting education and affecting students in the classroom except the Minister of Education. He's more interested in spin-doctoring than in education.

Let me try again. You say that school board trustees, elected by the same people as you -- they're locally, democratically elected -- are not cutting properly. Let me use the example of Tilbury District High School, operated by the Kent County Board of Education.

A young woman named Kim Wright went back to her high school this past week and found that instead of two guidance counsellors there is now one, and that guidance counsellor is hard pressed to deal with all the kids who need her help; classes and grades have been doubled up; when a teacher is sick, the class is cancelled instead of a supply teacher being brought in; and students are afraid they will have to go to another high school to get their classes.

Minister, you owe it to people. They're your cuts. You're the one taking money out of education to finance your phoney tax scheme. How would you have cut differently? You owe it to those boards of education. How would you have done it differently at Tilbury?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We had a report from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association last year which indicated there were reductions available, which they recommended, that would total up to $1 billion. Of course our reduction last year on the operating side amounted to $233 million, about a 1.8% reduction. I believe those reductions can be made without affecting classroom size, the quality of education or the way it's delivered in the province.

Our government is very clear about the fact that we will have a more accountable and a higher-quality system of education, and most important, a more affordable one. Unlike the leader of the third party's government for five years, we are unwilling to send the children of Ontario a bill for their own education by raising the debt of the province.

Mr Hampton: Again I ask the minister to answer a specific question. I've given him examples from two boards of education and all I've gotten back is more spin-doctoring.

Since you've become the Minister of Education these are the things that have been cut in school systems. Libraries and resource centres have been cut because obviously you don't think they're important. Custodial services have been cut. Transportation has been cut. Lunchroom supervisors have been cut. Teachers' preparation time has been cut. And that's all coming out of children and their classrooms. Special education has been cut.

You had on Saturday literally tens of thousands of people here in the streets of Toronto opposing your education agenda. So I think you owe it to people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Government members, come to order.

Mr Hampton: You're the one who's taking the money out of the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the government members please come to order. I have great difficulty hearing the question.

Mr Hampton: You're the one who took $800 million out of education last year. You're the one who's proposing to take $600 million out of education this year. Where would you cut? You owe it to these boards to give them a hand. Where would you make the cutting decisions?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to be very clear about this. This government said to the people of Ontario, and has acted on that commitment to the people of Ontario, that we would have a system that was more affordable, that we would find savings inside of our education system that did not affect the classroom, and those savings are available. They're available and they've been pointed out to the previous government that they're available in countless studies that point to the waste outside of the classroom.

Let me give you one quote: "What the Metropolitan Toronto School Board needs to take a look at is how much money is going into administrative resources in school boards that don't even run schools. Maybe that's what should be looked at in this community, to save money and provide more resources to the kids in the classroom." If you're wondering who that's a quote from, it's from the previous Minister of Education, a member of your government, sir.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is likewise to the Minister of Education. I'd like to read you a quote: "Not only have there been some instances where classroom education may have been affected and should not have been, but there have also been tax increases at the local level that are not acceptable to this government." Do you know who said that, Minister? You did. You finally admitted that kids are affected in the classroom, that students indeed are paying the price. For 17 months you said you had a plan to protect the students from your cuts. Minister, tell me today what you're going to do now that you've admitted that your cuts are hurting students.

Hon Mr Snobelen: To the honourable member opposite, I want to thank him for the question. I'm sure he'd understand if I enjoyed the quote from the member for Windsor-Riverside more than the quote he just read, but that's the case.

This government takes very seriously any reductions in our system that affect the quality of education. We have doubled our investment in information technology in the classroom. We have a course instituted at the EQAO which will be measuring quality across the province. We now have a College of Teachers. We have taken a variety of initiatives over the course of the last 15 months specifically to improve the quality of education, the measurable difference in quality of education across the province. Anything that affects classroom education is unacceptable to this government and we will take the actions necessary to make sure that does not happen.

Mr Patten: Minister, you haven't addressed the adverse way in which people are reporting back how students are affected. You have no problem announcing cuts, you have no problem taking $1 billion perhaps out of education totally and you have no problem obviously in creating a crisis.

Minister, tell me, what are you going to do about the students at Nottawa Central school in Collingwood? This school has no wheelchair ramps, no cafeteria, no gym, no money for repairs. The hallways barely meet the fire code for width. Kindergarten students are forced to share washrooms with senior students and there are more students in portables than there are in this crumbling school. What are you going to say to these students? What are you going to say to the parents of these kids? We hear that more money is coming out. How are you going to protect those kids in the classroom?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the member opposite for the question. Obviously our government is very concerned with classroom education. We are monitoring the response of school boards across the province to what was a very modest reduction in operating costs last year -- about 1.8%. We believe quite clearly that there is evidence those reductions can be made without affecting classroom education. Of course, we are monitoring those situations and we intend to take the action on both the funding side and on the governance side that is required to make sure every child in Ontario has the opportunity for a quality education. We will do that. Previous governments have failed to do that.

Specifically regarding your question, I believe it's somewhat ironic you would ask that question today inasmuch as we are reviewing and will be bringing out a program that will have a quality of schooling across the province that is not matched, in this decade certainly. We are looking at innovative ways to make sure we have the classroom structures we need going on to the next millennium. The reason I find it so ironic is that your government, and their government, sat idle on the issue of capital funding while 8,000 portables were brought into our system over the last decade.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Attorney General. A group of 35 people assembled in Waterloo last night to fight the changes you made to the family support plan. Once again it was confirmed that you haven't fixed the problems, that you've created new problems.

For instance, Susan Harris said she'd been receiving regular payments for over a year. She has three children. Her last payment was October 9. She should have received her next payment last Friday. This may not seem a big delay, but Susan lives from cheque to cheque. The family support office told her that her payments are on schedule, but they don't seem to have the money. She has proof it's been paid. So where is the money? Susan now has an empty fridge and no food to feed her kids.

Minister, I ask you again, how much longer are women and children in this province expected to do without the money they depend on to buy food for their kids?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I've indicated before, I'm not going to respond to an individual case. If the member wants to provide me with details, I am prepared to look into it. But as I've indicated before, we're reorganizing the plan so that once and for all it can work, to the better benefit of those who need it.

We're in the course of the reconstruction of the plan and I would hope that within the next couple of weeks we will have the difficulties we've been experiencing completely worked out so that the plan will begin to work better, so that our new centre can be opened and we can get cheques to people faster and be able to deal with --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister, order. Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): People can't wait for the minister to fix these things. As a direct result of your laying off 290 staff and closing eight offices of the family support plan, we have raised examples again and again in this House of women and children who are going without because of a decision you made in order to try and finance the tax cut, and that's the reality, Minister. You may not want to answer to the individual cases, but we tried to fax this case through to your office starting yesterday and the phone lines are jammed, so I will raise it with you again today; the fax lines are jammed so I've got to raise it today.

Lisa Miller from my riding received regular support payments since August 1994. The last cheque she received, of $326, was on August 27. She's got two kids, a six-year-old and a four-year-old. She had to go to Coats for Kids, which is a clothing depot, last week to get winter coats for her kids. She had to go to social assistance last Friday and get financial support from the public because the money she is entitled to from the payor is not coming in. Minister, when are you going to realize the effect of your cuts and why are you financing the tax cuts on the backs of these women and children?

Hon Mr Harnick: It should be noted that the member has provided me with a number of difficulties, almost every one of which we have answered. It's interesting to note that almost every one of the complaints that this member has brought to us has been a complaint of long standing. They're indicative of very serious problems that have existed with the plan for a long time and we --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): No, that's not true.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): You're a liar.

Ms Lankin: That's not true. Tell the truth. Start telling the truth, Charles. It's outrageous you stand there like that.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Apologize.

Ms Lankin: Withdraw that. That's not true.

Mr Hampton: You are a liar.

Mr Pouliot: Somebody's lying. What a bunch of ripoffs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask you to withdraw. The fact is that you were out of order. You cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. To the member for Beaches-Woodbine, you can either --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The Attorney General --

The Speaker: Order. Member for Cochrane North, come to order.

It's simply out of order. You either withdraw or don't. It's your decision.

Ms Lankin: I'll withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I ask the leader of the third party to withdraw as well.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon as well.

Mr Pouliot: I shall withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: And the member for London North.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Whom did I accuse?

The Speaker: Member for London North, I heard your accusation.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I'll withdraw.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, I said it too. I withdraw and I meant it too.

Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, the Attorney General --

The Speaker: To the members of the third party, I can ask the Attorney General. If that's what he said, he has a chance to withdraw it. I did not hear him and I did not hear the member for Welland-Thorold.

Hon Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, what I said --

The Speaker: No, I just need to know if you said it or not, and you can withdraw or not.

Hon Mr Harnick: I didn't say anything of the sort. What I did say was that we have answered the requests that have been made and the vast majority of those complaints have been endemic of the problems with the family support plan for a long time.

NATIVE AGREEMENT

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): My question is also for the Attorney General. In the past there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding between the municipalities and the first nations along the Grand River watershed about proposed developments. Along the watershed there are 12 jurisdictions, Ontario and Canada. This often means that there is a lack of communication between all parties. There are frequent misunderstandings. Could you please explain how the recently signed Grand River notification agreement will improve this situation?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Lake Nipigon, you know you can't -- withdraw, please.

Mr Pouliot: I already did. The record will attest to that.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, will you please withdraw. This is the final offer. Please withdraw.

Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw indeed.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Grand River notification agreement is something that the member for Algoma began negotiations towards in 1994. I'm pleased to say that agreement was signed on October 3, 1996, in Brantford by the 14 jurisdictions involved. It allows for reciprocal notification among parties and provides them with an opportunity to comment on proposals in which they have an interest.

This agreement is consistent with our government's approach of helping communities remove barriers to economic development as set out in our aboriginal policy framework. It also supports the framework's principles of openness, equality and stability in relationships between aboriginal people and their neighbours.

I'm pleased to say that we continued this initiative because it was a good one and it was a good agreement for the communities along the Grand River.

Mr Preston: Why is the signing of this agreement so significant and how will it improve relationships in my community?

Hon Mr Harnick: This agreement is the first of its kind in Canada. It's an important first step in establishing relationships based on goodwill and cooperation. The agreement is about being good neighbours and communicating with one another and showing mutual respect for each other's concerns regarding development of the lower Grand River watershed. Having opportunities to share concerns early in the development process will lead to better relations between first nations and municipalities in the Brantford area.

Again, this is the first agreement of its kind in Canada. We're very proud of it and the benefits that will accrue from it.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While all members of the assembly welcome the statement that has just been made about the agreement, surely you would agree and the minister would agree that it should have been a ministerial statement and not a question in the House.

Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have the right to ask any question of any member I want in here and I don't need --

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for Algoma, the government can decide how its questions are put and what subjects they're on.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Early on Sunday morning of this week there was a fire in an abandoned chemical laboratory here in Toronto. In that building were some 200 to 300 abandoned containers of highly toxic chemicals. Some of these containers ruptured or exploded and released their poisons into the air, endangering everyone and anyone in the vicinity. To date, we're not sure of the extent of the damage caused and the injuries sustained.

You are charged with ensuring that precisely this kind of thing doesn't happen. You and your ministry are supposed to track down abandoned toxic chemicals and see to their safe disposal. What I want to know, Minister, is why did you not fulfil your duty in this case?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): If the member had been here yesterday, the member for Riverdale asked me this specific question and we talked about it.

I want to clarify to the member for Riverdale that the Ministry of Environment was not allowed on the site until 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon and was there last evening and will be removing all of the toxic materials and worrying about going after the owner of that building later to recover the costs, which are expected to be rather minor because the amount of material there is not very significant in terms of the quantity. The problem is being addressed by the ministry and I'm proud to say that we are being active --

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): What are you doing?

Hon Mr Sterling: They're taking the material away. Didn't you hear me?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It seems those are his comments, all you are going to get. You should put your question.

Mr McGuinty: I want to suggest to the minister that one of the reasons he did not discover this is because he slit his own ministry's throat when he agreed to laying off 752 staff people and cutting the ministry budget by 35%.

I want to elaborate on this scenario a bit more. Several homeless young people were living in this abandoned building. We now learn that three young people have been admitted to hospital for chemically related injuries sustained in this fire. Three youths are in hospital today with toxic chemical injuries because your ministry failed to do its job in terms of providing the necessary protection.

Minister, do you feel any responsibility whatsoever for the chemical injuries sustained by these kids?

Hon Mr Sterling: I guess the government of today and the governments of the past should all feel responsibility in dealing with toxic wastes, which have been neglected by previous governments to deal with the real problems of getting rid of these wastes.

Basically what has happened over the past 10 or 20 years is that governments have continued to put off the decisions as to how to deal with PCBs, for instance, which I believe were part of the waste material here. They put off the decision and put off the decision. As a result, we have literally thousands of storage areas in this province where PCBs are stored.

Mr Crozier: What are you doing?

Hon Mr Sterling: This government is going to face the problem and deal with PCBs so this particular kind of problem will not come up in the future. We will be the first government, the government after the NDP government and your government, sir, which continued to ignore the problem and allowed it to grow. Therefore, I believe we should all take responsibility on this and come to some reasonable conclusions as to how to deal with these wastes.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, but in his absence I'll ask it to the Chair of Management Board. Early this fall your government released a pilot project, an area maintenance contract in the Chatham area, in order to privatize all the winter and summer road maintenance in that area, the idea being that you give the pilot out and you give it a chance to operate so you can assess: Do we go forward or do we make modifications?

We find out yesterday that the Minister of Transportation announced six new area maintenance contracts are going out to tender now and you intend to privatize the entire system, from what we understand, within a three-year period.

My question is very simple. You haven't had the pilot project operate because it hasn't started. What kind of studies or what kind of reports do you have that prove you're going to save any kind of money for the taxpayers of Ontario by privatizing winter and summer road maintenance?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): We have had the benefit of the previous tender process, the previous RFP process from the pilot project around Chatham, and that's been very, very beneficial. We've gone through the process of doing the RFP and we've learned from that particular process.

The government, the Ministry of Transportation, through the business plan process, have reviewed this whole general area of how to provide excellent services, winter maintenance and summer maintenance, to ensure high standards on our roads in Ontario, have set those standards and are now proceeding to save the taxpayers some $4 million to $5 million by implementing across the province of Ontario increased involvement from the private sector but at very high standards to ensure safety for the motorists of Ontario.

Mr Bisson: You have no numbers to prove that what you're saying will happen. If you look at every other jurisdiction where privatization has happened, in every case we find that it costs the taxpayers more money in the end. In British Columbia, when they set out to do this and it was studied five years later, they were supposed to save the taxpayers $160 million. What do we find out at the end? It cost them another $100 million in addition to what it cost in the first place.

What's more interesting is that I have here a report called the Highway Operations and Maintenance Program Review. It's authored by whom? By the Ministry of Transportation of the province of Ontario. I want to read from what the conclusion was when it came to privatization: "Total contracting of highway maintenance operation is not appropriate," if only for the fundamental reason that it does not generate significant economic savings.

Minister, your own ministry says you're not going to save any money. How can you go forward with this particular plan to privatize? Is this really an ideological drive by this government and is it really about giving big business more opportunity to come to the trough and make bucks at the taxpayer's expense?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, we have indicated very clearly that if there isn't a saving to the taxpayer, we will not be proceeding.

But I think we must remember that even at the present time, summer and winter maintenance of our roads is already about 60% privatized. We're proposing to increase that, but not on the British Columbia model. You've raised the prosect of the British Columbia model. It did not work, and we learned from the experiences in British Columbia, so we will not be going that way.

We will be ensuring high safety standards. Part of this process is to maintain high safety standards for the people of Ontario, and we will be receiving bids in various areas. The estimate is $4 million to $5 million in saving for the taxpayers of Ontario.

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. My constituents in the riding of St Catharines-Brock are very concerned about their environment. They've been asking me how they can be involved and what they can do for the betterment of their community. I'd like to ask you about the use of voluntary agreements by your ministry and specifically how these public and private sector agreements benefit the people of Ontario.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): My ministry is using voluntary agreements as just one tool to achieve some policy objectives through cooperation rather than the intrusive behaviours of past governments. We view these voluntary agreements to be in addition to the regulatory environment that industry and businesses are required to meet. Therefore we are going to have the ability not only to bring pollutants down to a standard but to bring them even lower than that.

These agreements are seen in addition to rather than instead of government regulation. These voluntary agreements, as the former Minister of Environment and Energy would point out, were instituted by the previous government, and we're carrying on a good policy.

Mr Froese: I recently had the opportunity to present, on your behalf, an environmental award to Zehrs Market at the St Catharines Pen Centre store for using cutting-edge technology to reduce silver discharges in their photo development lab. I would like to know how, under the pollution prevention pledge program, the St Catharines Pen Centre location of Zehrs Market was singled out for recognition.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'd like to thank the member for participating in this program that honoured the St Catharines Pen Centre location of Zehrs. They were given a certificate of pollution prevention achievement for achieving the highest level of participation in the pollution prevention pledge program.

Specifically the photo finishing department of Zehrs received the award for implementation of the environmental code of management practices for mini-labs and for the installation of state-of-the-art, at their expense, onsite silver recovery equipment. The changes made by this company have resulted in a discharge reduction of 99.9% of the pollutants. I think they're to be congratulated by all.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Chatham-Kent Health Alliance has been the target of your government's drastic spending cuts, resulting in the closure of one of Chatham's two hospitals. This is creating a panic among the already underserviced residents of Chatham and surrounding area.

Can you assure this House and the people in my community that there will be no closures of the remaining hospitals in the area, namely, Sydenham District Hospital in Wallaceburg and the Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): At this time the ministry is not involved in a substantive way in the local hospital restructuring.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Chatham and the health care leaders there who, I am told, although I've not received anything official from the area, are voluntarily looking at a merger of two of the hospitals in the city of Chatham. It's a most unusual occurrence that I think the local people should be congratulated on because they're way ahead of the politicians on this one. They know they have to restructure their system.

Mr Hoy: Mr Minister, the member representing Chatham-Kent said you were pleased with the report and that the community did not have to be dragged to the altar on this one, so obviously you know something more than what you're stating here.

The alliance estimates its losses of all revenue as high as 28% over the next three years. Will you guarantee that Chatham will receive its full and fair share of funding, $31 million that is required for capital projects, to ensure quality health care at Chatham's remaining hospital?

Hon Mr Wilson: When we receive the official request for capital funding, we will certainly consider it. I'm very encouraged by what I've heard from the area so far and I would ask them to keep up the good work. They're ahead of many other parts of the province in the direction they're going. They're finding those efficiencies and getting rid of the waste and duplication in the system, and I congratulate the local people for doing that.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, I want to seek your assistance today on an issue that affects 25 non-profit organizations in the heart of my community. You may know from reports on CHCH-TV and in today's Hamilton Spectator that there are 25 non-profit organizations that face possible eviction, depending on the outcome of a review currently taking place within your ministry.

The operators of Jackson Square provide office space to these 25 non-profit organizations at no charge as part of their contribution to volunteerism in our community. The adjacent Hamilton Eaton Centre had its assessment rate cut on vacant offices it had on the third floor. The operators of Jackson Square are seeking to have this office space they give free of charge treated the same way. If this doesn't happen, we could lose these organizations from our community.

I'd like to ask you today, if that request is denied, will you ensure that you review the policy so that these 25 non-profit organizations can remain and our community can benefit from their contribution?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'd be very happy to take the question from the honourable member under advisement and get back to him with a response.

Mr Christopherson: I want to thank the minister. That's exactly what I was seeking and I appreciate any help that he can offer to these non-profit organizations.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I have been receiving quite a number of calls from my constituents regarding the restructuring proposal for Kingston-Frontenac and Lennox and Addington. Could the minister please inform the House of his recent decision regarding municipal restructuring in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm pleased to inform the House that yesterday I approved two restructuring proposals from Kingston-Frontenac and from Lennox and Addington. These are the first restructuring proposals to occur since the municipalities were given broader restructuring powers earlier in the year. They were local solutions to local problems.

I commend the residents of the two counties and their elected leaders for all the hard work and effort they put in to these restructuring proposals. I would also like to thank all the members from the Kingston area for their ongoing advice and assistance in making these proposals become a reality.

Mr Fox: Mr Minister, could you please tell us why these restructurings are so important for Ontario and what the results will be?

Hon Mr Leach: It's indeed a pleasure to respond to the member. Aside from the fact that these were local solutions, the two restructuring proposals will have a number of benefits to the local residents. The proposals will result in fewer but very much stronger municipalities, and the total number of municipalities in the two counties will be reduced from 30 to 10. That's a reduction of two thirds. In the meantime, this will mean that municipalities will be able to better coordinate services and reduce unnecessary overlap and duplication, resulting in great savings to the taxpayers of that area.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the minister responsible for native affairs and it has to do with the Ipperwash situation. You had responsibility for providing the government with advice around handling this issue. It now is clear, from evidence that your ministry has presented, that there was evidence there was a burial ground in the park. At the time of the occupation, which was around Labour Day 1995, were you aware that within the government there was evidence that there was a burial ground in that park?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Certainly it has always been our position that if there is a burial ground there, we are prepared to take whatever steps have to be taken to respect that burial ground. That has always been our position. We have conveyed that to Chief Bressette. We have indicated that we will try to accommodate Chief Bressette in any way we possibly can to ensure that site is respected. That's always been the position of the government and that's been conveyed to the chief.

Mr Phillips: This is an extremely serious matter for the people of Ontario. You will know that you did not answer my question, and I'll ask it again. You had the responsibility, on behalf of the native people of Ontario, for providing advice to the people who were dealing with that situation. It now is clear that within the government of Ontario there was evidence -- written evidence -- that there was a burial ground within that park.

My question is very clear and very important: At the time you were providing advice, around Labour Day of 1995, were you aware that within the government of Ontario there existed evidence there was a burial ground, and did you tell the government, in its response, about the fact that this burial ground did exist? It's extremely important you answer the question clearly. Were you aware and did you provide advice at the time?

Hon Mr Harnick: It has always been our position that if there is a burial ground in that place, that burial ground will be respected. There have been allegations about a burial ground there; there is no definitive answer as to whether there is a burial ground there. We have indicated to Chief Bressette that we would endeavour to take whatever steps had to be taken to prove the existence of a burial ground and to ensure that sacred land would be protected. We have conveyed that to the chief, we have made that position clear from the outset, and that remains the position of the government today.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You are looking at restructuring of municipalities, and one of those areas we understand you are examining -- you yourself have said it's one of the options -- is the potential of amalgamating the different municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto into one municipality.

One of the things that puzzles me about this, and that I want to ask you about, is why you are in the process of making decisions as a government on this issue, as seems to be the case, even before you receive the recommendations of Mr Crombie, given that you set up that commission and his work specifically to give you advice on this issue. Could you confirm that you're in the process of making decisions prior to receiving his report?

Second, if indeed you are going to move to one regional tier in Metropolitan Toronto, how are you going to ensure that the tie-in that needs to be there between local municipalities and individual citizens, which local municipalities have concerns about, is maintained in a structure that's as large as two million people being governed by one tier of municipal government?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can advise the member opposite that there have been no decisions made. We are dealing within our government with that issue. We expect to be making some decisions in the very near future, and the representatives on the Crombie panel will have some advice to provide us. When we get that advice, we'll consider it and then we'll make a decision.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to serve notice that I did not receive an answer to the question on Ipperwash, which is extremely important to me, and I'll be requesting from you an opportunity for the minister to appear in what we call a late show here, which is an opportunity for a fuller answer from the minister.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I also have dissatisfaction with the answer from the Chair of Management Board.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario re cuts in health care:

"Patient care is in jeopardy as a result of a crisis in our health care system due to underfunding and cutbacks. Doctors are asking for common sense to prevail with the government and are calling for the level of funding to match the level of care Ontarians need.

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

"That the government of Ontario stop cutbacks and underfunding of the health care system and match the level of funding to the level of care Ontarians need."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Minister of Labour's own backyard, specifically the Waterloo Regional Labour Council.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has begun a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear that they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

As I am in agreement with this petition, I add my name to theirs.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Further to a previous petition which already has my signature, I present to the Parliament of Ontario today my fourth petition on condominium overcrowding containing many more names.

"Whereas the present Condominium Act of Ontario does not give the condominium corporations the legal right to limit the number of people who occupy each unit in the complex, thus causing overcrowding situations in many buildings; and

"Whereas this overcrowding creates excessive demand on services and facilities of the condominiums leading to tensions, violence, fire and health problems, increased maintenance expenses and depreciation of values;

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

"We strongly recommend that the Condominium Act of Ontario be amended to give condominium corporations, through their own rules and regulations, the legal right to limit the number of persons per unit and a right of entry to ensure adherence to the rules. The rights of condominium owners and taxpayers must be considered and supported in order to alleviate the inequitable situation."

I endorse the intentions of this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario continue to be outraged by the decisions of the Health Services Restructuring Commission and certainly are not prepared to accept the conclusions. I have a petition signed by Florence Richardson that I'd like to read to the Legislature.

"To the Ontario Legislature:

"We do not believe you have made the best choice for the health care system in northwestern Ontario. We are deeply concerned with the speed and the amount of bed reductions you have dictated.

"We are also concerned with your intention to close three hospitals out of the five currently operating in Thunder Bay. These hospitals, although seeming to be concentrated, are in fact providing essential regional service. By reducing the total number of beds from 954 to 526, and in the process eliminating psychiatric and chronic care hospitals, the 428-bed reduction will leave the lives of our families, friends and ourselves at risk.

"If it was your intention to act on behalf of the interests of the public, we, as members of that public, ask you to reflect upon your conscience, for you will be ultimately responsible for the error in this decision."

I sign my name to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the department of work environment, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we recently heard that the province of Ontario is planning to eliminate the Occupational Disease Panel in the near future, we urge you to reconsider this decision. Several of us have worked with the panel over the years and have always been impressed by the extremely thorough and rigorous way they have approached the difficult and often contentious task of determining the work-relatedness of disease; and

"Whereas the integrative research reviews of the scientific literature developed by the panel are highly regarded and often cited by the international occupational health community; and

"Whereas the Ontario workers' compensation system has been described as a model for how scientific research can be successfully used in the development of occupational health policy; and

"Whereas we in the United States know the true cost of the contentious, protracted and often seemingly arbitrary results produced by a workers' compensation system that relies on the courts to arbitrate these matters; and

"Whereas the Ontario model is not only more rational but also more cost-effective for the community at large;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, hope you will reconsider your decision and maintain this highly regarded and valuable institution."

I add my signature to theirs.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition which was presented originally to the member for Simcoe East and I'm presenting it today on his behalf. In accordance with the standing orders, I'll summarize the petition by saying that it has to do with the law relating to mistreated animals and it's been signed by approximately 1,400 people in the riding of Simcoe East, and I present it today.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the 800,000 children who ride the school buses of Ontario are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy from unsafe drivers who are not stopping for school buses; and

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce since not only is a licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved, that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That private member's Bill 78 be passed. The bill doubles the existing range of fines for identified drivers and establishes vehicle owner liability.

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I affix my name to it.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm presenting this petition regarding the spring bear hunt on behalf of the member for Simcoe East. It contains over 240 signatures, some of which are from my own riding. It is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and reads:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I affix my signature to the petition.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition against the $2 user fee that is charged to seniors and it's addressed to the assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Minister of Health has started to charge seniors a $2 user fee for each prescription filled since July 15; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an Ontario opposition MPP in a July statement to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government of Ontario to repeal this user fee because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, it is not sensitive or accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors, and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their duty by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I'm affixing my signature to this document.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to present my petition for the fourth time to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, illness or injury;

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic;

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require elective procedures to be funded;

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion;

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

"Whereas there's mounting evidence that abortion is indeed hazardous to women's health;

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control;

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993, at an estimated cost of $25 million;

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

I'm pleased to affix my name to this petition.

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;

"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.

PAROLE SYSTEM

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

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given rehearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with a jury hearing;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I agree with this petition and I have so signed it.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition here from the Kingfisher Lake first nation regarding the Harris government's destructive policy to privatize TVOntario, and it reads:

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

I am pleased to support the chief, council and residents of Kingfisher Lake in their efforts, and I attach my name to this petition as well.

FIREARMS CONTROL

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

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearm smuggling and trafficking, and a ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic in illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the street and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I have signed this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I also have another petition, signed by the residents of Sioux Lookout and the New Life Assembly ministries. Pastor Mike Davis and his congregation are also concerned with what this government is doing to TVOntario and to our first nation communities. The petition reads:

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

That's signed by a good number of people in Sioux Lookout, and I also attach my name to that petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

"Whereas Nepean's high schools are significantly overcrowded;

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

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

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

I've affixed my own signature thereto because I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Cochrane South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Chair of Management Board concerning privatization of road maintenance. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Also pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his questions given by the Attorney General concerning native affairs and Ipperwash. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I talked briefly with the Attorney General, who is unavailable tonight and said it would be fine with him if we dealt with it on Thursday night. I wonder if I might get unanimous consent of the House to move that to Thursday night.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES TRIBUNAUX

Mr Tilson, on behalf of Mr Harnick, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to improve Ontario's court system, to respond to concerns raised by charities and their volunteers and to improve various statutes relating to the administration of justice / Projet de loi 79, Loi visant à améliorer le système judiciaire de l'Ontario, à répondre aux préoccupations exprimées par les oeuvres de bienfaisance et leurs bénévoles, et à améliorer diverses lois relatives à l'administration de la justice.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Last week we spent two days on clause-by-clause of Bill 79, which is the Courts Improvement Act, and several amendments were made. We had some debate on some of the issues and I will now proceed to make some comments with respect to Bill 79 with respect to the third reading of that bill. I would again like to highlight a few of the purposes of Bill 79 and report on the amendments that were made in committee, which have been made since the second reading of this bill.

Bill 79, as I indicated during the second reading debate, has four distinct purposes. Firstly, it creates the office of the case management master, which will allow for the expansion of civil case management. Secondly, the names of Ontario courts will be changed to clearly reflect their function and status and make them more recognizable to the public. Thirdly, the bill gives charities more flexibility in their affairs by allowing the Attorney General to make regulations to relieve charities of the time and expense to obtain court approval for non-controversial issues.

Finally, fourthly, the bill will make a number of housekeeping and other minor amendments to the Courts of Justice Act and the Children's Law Reform Act.

At the outset, I would like to bring your attention to the amendments made to the bill by the standing committee on administration of justice last week.

There were two legislative drafting errors, which were corrected, dealing with the composition and mechanism of the appointment of the Family Rules Committee and the Charities Accounting Act.

Another change concerns the regional courts management advisory committees. The committees are composed of judges, lawyers, court administrators and members of the public. These committees provide advice and recommendations on any matter that affects the operation of the courts.

I would like particularly to single out the member for London Centre and former Attorney General, who spoke at some length during second reading debate. I believe members of the committee and certainly this side of the House respect the knowledge and information that she had available to give at that time. She spoke at some length during second reading debate and at committee about the need for some mandatory requirement for meetings of the regional courts management advisory committees. The Courts of Justice Act currently requires that these committees meet at least four times a year.

In our view, this requirement was no longer necessary since the members of the committee should decide the number of meetings that are required. However, we certainly understood and she made quite clear her position with respect to the meetings of these various committees. The bill was therefore amended to require that there be at least one meeting per year. I'm sure this doesn't satisfy the complete concerns of the member, but hopefully it offers her some satisfaction.

Another amendment to the bill was the renaming of the Trial Court of Ontario to the Court of Ontario. The Court of Ontario is the overarching court which links both the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice. Both of these courts have appellate functions, and as a result it was considered inappropriate to refer to the overarching court as a trial court.

Lastly, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice will remain the president of the Court of Ontario but will no longer be referred to as the Chief Justice of the Court of Ontario.

During the committee debate, I said that we believe the current names of the courts were intended by Mr Scott, the former Attorney General, as interim steps only in a process that was never, and likely could never be, completed. Therefore, in order to properly reflect the true function and nature of the Ontario courts, Bill 79 renames the Ontario Court (General Division) as the Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) as the Ontario Court of Justice. We believe these changes will go a long way in satisfying the concerns which have been raised by the judiciary and will clarify the various levels of Ontario's courts.

All of these amendments that were made at the committee were relatively minor.

Bill 79 allows us to move forward with a key recommendation of the Civil Justice Review. As you are aware, the Civil Justice Review is a joint project of the ministry and the judiciary. It also includes members of the bar and the public. It was created to consider the issues of delay and cost in the civil justice system.

The central recommendation of the first report of the Civil Justice Review, which was released in March 1995, was the implementation of a province-wide system of case management. Case management involves the setting of firm time standards and the judicial monitoring of cases from commencement to resolution. Judges, rather than lawyers, will determine the pace of the litigation and we believe this will help move cases through the system faster.

Case management masters will play a crucial role in the development of case management in working with teams of judges to ensure that time standards are met and costs are kept to a minimum.

The introduction of the office of case management masters and the expansion of case management throughout the province represent only part of the government's civil reform package. I am happy to list some other steps that have been or are being undertaken.

On March 11 of this year the simplified procedure rules came into force for cases under $25,000. These new rules are aimed at speeding up the process and lowering the cost of cases at the lower end of the monetary spectrum. The electronic filing project in Toronto, business process engineering, short- and long-term technology strategies, continuation of the Toronto alternative dispute resolution projects and other mediation strategies form part of the reform of the justice system.

Lastly, I am pleased to say that work has begun on the consideration of new regulations to be made under the Charities Accounting Act. These discussions will include lawyers, chartered accountants and representatives of the public. As we have noted earlier, the function of the regulation will be to allow charities to deal with certain non-controversial matters without the time and waste of resources involved in making formal court applications, as is required now, at least prior to this bill.

The amendments of the Charities Accounting Act which allow the making of regulatory guidelines will cut through unnecessary red tape and encourage people to volunteer their time for worthwhile charitable organizations.

Those are essentially the comments I'd like to make with respect to this bill. In closing, I would again like to acknowledge the input from members of the opposition during the proceedings before the standing committee on administration of justice that led to the bill which is now before the House in the current form it's in.

I can't emphasize enough that the support from the third party was appreciated. The member for London Centre, Mrs Boyd, took the time to really consider this bill. We certainly appreciate the non-partisan approach to a bill that will allow us to improve the efficiency of Ontario's civil courts.

Bill 79 represents only the tip of the iceberg. The present government will continue to improve the civil justice process in Ontario. I expect there will be more issues and improvements that will have to be considered as a result of the final report of the Civil Justice Review, which is expected very shortly.

In closing, I would like to thank all those individuals who have given their time and energy to allow us to come forward with this legislation. Their dedication has resulted in the provisions you see before you in Bill 79, as amended, and we will continue to consult with these individuals as we move forward with the implementation of case management and the other objectives I have touched on today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am pleased to be able to address this bill briefly this afternoon, as I did on second reading, and to express some of the concerns that remain about this piece of legislation, or perhaps about some of the other legislation that has not been forthcoming while this legislation is proceeding.

First of all there are many components of this bill that I believe would develop a consensus in this House. There would be some considerable support, since all three parties have certainly indicated the need for some of the changes that are being made. For that reason I don't expect this to be particularly controversial.

What I am concerned about, however, related to the court system and not addressed in this bill, are the very significant cuts to the budget of the ministry of justice, or the Attorney General's department as we call it provincially. Last April in the budget the government announced some $120 million in justice cuts, of which $60 million and 606 jobs came out of the Ministry of the Attorney General. You cannot have that drastic and that rapid a reduction without affecting the services that are provided to the justice system.

As is the case in so many other ministries of this government, we're seeing an ideological desire to see government downsized extremely rapidly and drastically, and for that reason I think we're going to see some problems arising in the court system.

Mr Harnick, the Attorney General, promised there would be no reduction in core services at the time the Provincial Treasurer announced these substantial cuts. Yet despite the promises to attack what you would call hard-core crime, Mr Harnick announced that 70 crown attorneys, or 15% of the prosecutors, would in fact be cut.

This doesn't sound like a law-and-order government to me. They portray themselves as a law-and-order government, but when it comes down to investing the necessary funds to carry out the responsibilities of the justice system, we see them abdicating that responsibility by making rather significant cuts.

Here are some statistics that I think will be of particular interest to members in the House and will convince the government members, I'm sure, to reconsider this bill, withdraw it and start over again: Over 50,000 criminal cases were lost in 1990 due to unreasonable delays in the justice system, and right now there are fewer provincial court judges in Metro than there were at that time and the backlog is growing. Surely you require those justices to carry out the responsibilities of the courts. If we do not have them, we can only anticipate that the backlog will continue to grow.

Again according to press reports, court delays and backlogs at this time threaten about 50% of criminal cases in Ontario, mainly because they're taking too long to come to trial. There have been decisions of the court that said if these cases take too long in coming to trial they might even be dismissed. Much to the chagrin of many of us who observe the court system, but nevertheless it's a fact, when the government is making these cuts we're bound to see this happen in the future.

According to ministry statistics 49% of the 1,105 outstanding General Division cases in Metro have been in the court system for more than eight months and about 30% of cases in Peel have been in the system for that length of time. In response to this potential crisis Dave Moran, executive assistant to the Attorney General, has stated the ministry may use a team of experienced prosecutors and go in and blitz the backlog regions. We shall see if indeed that happens. But certainly there is a problem out there. A lot of people are going to be concerned that people who may be guilty ultimately will be let off because their case has not proceeded through the courts.

It's clear to us in the opposition that there is a shortage of personnel in the most serious problem in Ontario at this time. There are as of September 23, 1996, only 461 prosecutors in Ontario, down from 481 earlier in the year. The government has not replaced 20 crown attorneys lost through attrition this year, and indications are that this trend will continue and the crowns who on staff now will face an ever-increasing caseload.

Roy McMurtry had something to say about this. I well remember that Mr McMurtry, a former attorney general, a distinguished member of this House and member for Eglinton, has been critical of this government. He has called for more judges and staff for the Ontario Court of Appeal, stating that it will be unable to resolve cases within the case management framework recommended by the Civil Justice Review.

Chief Justice McMurtry has stated that the US appeals courts have at least four to five times the number of judges, law clerks and lawyers for the same caseload and that Ontario has fewer appellate judges per capita than any of the other Canadian provinces.

This is Roy McMurtry; this is not somebody in the opposition. This is a Progressive Conservative, and I must say the word "Progressive" should always be in front of the word "Conservative" when speaking of Roy McMurtry. That is his evaluation. I always took into account his views when he was in the House previously. I thought he came forward with some reasonable initiatives that were supportable. He is not a member of the Reform Party. He is not a member of the right-wing fringe that now dominates this government, with the present whip shaking his fist, showing that he has full control over his caucus in this regard.

These problems will not be addressed by the creation of new court facilities, by changing the names of the courts or by spending public funds on new signs, letterheads and official forms. I'm glad to hear one thing, that as a result of the pressure from the opposition the government is now not going to spend money on new letterheads and signs and forms. That's something positive we've been able to achieve. I could just imagine how they were getting the presses and the sign makers all set to change all of these at a great cost. Now we find that they're not doing so.

Perhaps with some of those savings we'll have some money to make up for the very deep cuts that have been made in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Despite the fact that the minister has made representations -- and I've supported those representations -- his colleagues have cut him off at the knees and have taken away a lot of the funds he needs to carry out his responsibilities. I'm very sympathetic to him in that regard and to all the rural Conservative members here who are worried about that, and justifiably so.

Whatever reason there is, there's no justification for the waste of what could be $2.5 million of taxpayers' money on signs and letterheads for the courthouses. So here we are, we've played a role, we've stopped the government from doing this. The printing presses have been stopped, I'm told, and the sign painters have been told that the government will not proceed. It is nice to know that the opposition can certainly have some effect in that regard.

The Attorney General can demonstrate his real commitment to reinvesting in the justice system by investing in sufficient staff to handle the growing caseload and court backlog in a timely, efficient and professional fashion. That would do more to build public confidence in the justice system than any name change or new facility could accomplish, and I hope the government moves in that direction.

As I said, we find some parts of this bill to be supportable. It's not a revolutionary bill the way some of the bills we see coming into this House are revolutionary. This has less to do with dogma, this has less to do with ideology than most of the agenda of this government. For that reason, we're quite conciliatory. In fact, I anticipate this bill will be completed this afternoon, as we can be very reasonable about that.

The bill on VLTs is another matter. I'm not going to speak on it this afternoon, but it's another matter compared to this. I'm drawing a comparison with this bill, which has a consensus in this House, which really represents Conservative policy. I think people would agree that this is nothing different from what the Conservatives would have promised or what we'd anticipate they would do. However, the VLT bill is another matter, because it was not in the platform and not found anywhere. That's why it's taking a little longer to be considered by members of this House.

In this case there isn't a secret report from the police to do with this bill that should be produced before this bill goes further. I compliment the parliamentary assistant; he's provided all the information that's needed for this bill. That sets a good example for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Solicitor General, who should be providing the secret report from the police on criminal activity in gambling to this House. We have a good example, by my good friend the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General in this case providing the information.

Would that, as they used to say in Latin class, the government would do the same on the situation with the VLT bill. "Would that" I think was the ablative case. My former teacher, Vince Dugo, would have told me that indeed that was the case. I cannot confess to being a Latin scholar, but I do remember the ablative case; I think it was the ablative case anyway.

I wish the government would use this pattern in other bills. I know the critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for London Centre, spoke at some length the other day and was very constructive in her remarks. She found a few things she thought needed fixing, but she was very constructive in her remarks as well because she recognized that there was no secret report the government was hiding on this bill, as it is on Bill 75.

She understood that this bill was in keeping with what the government probably said it was going to do, unlike Bill 75, the VLT bill, which will allow for video lottery terminals in every bar and every restaurant in every neighbourhood in Ontario. I wanted to get that in one more time, that that's what that bill is going to do.

I anticipate we'll have a few speakers from this side. The member for Kingston and The Islands, who has had some experience in the courts, I know will want to offer some opinions on this, I think more informed than those of many of us who don't have a direct dealing with the court system on a daily basis and hope not to be in court for any purpose other than the swearing in of new judges.

That reminds me of another aspect of this bill that is important: the appointing of masters. I hope this won't be done on the basis of patronage positions. I hope there isn't a long lineup of Tories out there looking for jobs in the court system who will be looking for the job of master because we started to see a move away from that. When Ian Scott was the minister of justice, we started to see a system put in place. When the member for London Centre was minister, we reviewed the judges.

There was a panel out there that looked at them and said: "Okay, it doesn't matter whether these people" -- I'm on to the judges now, not the masters -- "are Liberal or Conservative or NDP or have no political affiliation. How do they fill the job? What qualifications do they bring to it? What resources personally do they bring to that particular job?" I think that was positive, because it was bringing to an end the politicization of the system.

I would have thought, for instance, my good friend the member for Ottawa-Rideau, a former judge himself in the court system of Ontario, may have had some inside track on such a job because he was a Progressive Conservative. I'm told that over the years in the federal system from time to time there were political considerations, when Brian Mulroney was appointing Tories and other parties were in power and probably appointed, once in a while, highly qualified people who were of their own political lineage. I understand that.

I don't think anyone even objects to the fact that, for instance, Mr McMurtry, whom I mentioned, has his esteemed position, because he's a person of quality, a person of high qualification. That doesn't matter in this case; it's simply a matter of looking at how qualified the person was.

I worry a bit about the masters, whether there might be a tip of the hat to those who are in keeping with the Reform Party, sorry, the Conservative Party that sits across from us. Is that a Freudian slip, when you say that?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Yes, it is.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Yes.

Mr Bradley: That's what it is, a Freudian slip. I hope that doesn't happen.

Anyway, you can tell I have an intricate knowledge of the details of this bill this afternoon. There are a few lawyers in the House who have no doubt advised the minister on this matter. I simply make this plea in the latter part of my address, because I certainly don't intend to speak for 90 minutes on this occasion; more like 20 minutes would suffice --

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr Bradley: To which? Oh, the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I don't think the court system will work the way the Niagara Escarpment system works, but I want to compliment the member for Carleton, who is here today, the Minister of Environment and Energy, who now has responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. As he heads out the door, I implore him to appoint people who are going to protect the Niagara Escarpment, as I know he wants it protected. The door opens; he has departed.

I hope they are non-partisan appointments, because I think this system works better when the only component is not what a person's political affiliation happens to be. In other words, there are a lot of other considerations. Good people out there -- I remember when the Liberal Party was in power there were Conservatives who were appointed to various positions, New Democrats, people who had no political affiliation, and indeed there may have been some Liberals who were appointed at that time as well --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): No.

Mr Bradley: The odd person. I know that will surprise you, but that did happen. I think it's particularly in the --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Was it a mistake?

Mr Bradley: I don't consider it a mistake. Mr Villeneuve, the Minister of Agriculture, says, "Was it a mistake?" I don't think so. I think appointing people of various backgrounds is very important, and that's why I hope the government, when it's appointing these masters -- and the former Attorney General tells me it's a somewhat detailed, technical type of job, so she has assured me that we're less likely to see partisan appointments in this case.

But I hope the presidents of the Conservative associations across Ontario have not got their list ready for the position of masters, because I know this government has stated its desire to see people off the public dole. We don't want to see several Tories entering the public dole in terms of all these appointments that are made simply because they are Tories or they went to the fund-raisers or things like that. I can't believe that in 1996 that could possibly happen, but I certainly implore the government not to do that.

Finally, as we always say, I reiterate for members of the House the need of this government to put the necessary resources into the court system, the justice system, to ensure that it's working efficiently and effectively, because if you want to be known as a law-and-order government, you have to walk the walk and talk the talk both. That's a saying that we use, I guess, in the 1990s now.

In other words, you have to be prepared to invest the funds in the justice system to ensure the safety of people in this province, to ensure that we will not see people going loose, people escaping the justice system simply because their case is taking too long. I can't believe that all the cuts that are taking place are going to have a positive effect. I think in fact they're going to have a negative effect on our judicial system and that again we will pay the price somewhere along the line.

I want to, as I say, give a sufficient opportunity for my colleagues in the Liberal caucus to discuss this a little later on. I know there's a long lineup of speakers who wish to offer some opinions on this subject, even though I anticipate the bill will be completed this afternoon, to the relief of the government whip.

I don't think he may even have to round up the troops at the conclusion of this debate because I say, generally speaking, I think we've got a consensus in this House and I'm pleased when that consensus is developed and pleased to be able to once in a while be in accord with what the government is doing when it doesn't embark upon a revolutionary course but on a truly commonsense course, as it is in this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions or comments?

Mr Tilson: The member for St Catharines gave his usual inspiring speech. I would like to correct him on a couple of things.

First of all, the bill deals with the civil courts, not with the criminal courts --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Indeed, indeed. He spoke about Chief McMurtry's request for more judges, and I might remind him that that request must be fulfilled by the federal government. The other issue, of course --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: I'll be looking forward -- perhaps the member for St Catharines will deal with the federal government and the cuts that it's making to the system in all kinds of things, whether it be education, whether it be health. Indeed, that's a problem that we have here in Ontario.

The other issue was that there was only $66 million in reductions. The member spoke of substantially more than that. The Attorney General made this clear in the Legislature last March and April. The difference in published amounts is due to the government move to accrual accounting methods.

The member has spent some time on the masters, and I will say that the whole purpose of the creation of the masters is to eliminate much of the bureaucracy that's been going on in the system. Anyone in this House who is a lawyer knows exactly what lawyers do: They have a tendency to sometimes slow down the process.

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, no.

Mr Tilson: I'll look forward to the member for Kingston and The Islands talking about that, but we all know that happens. In other words, the agenda of many of these trials is in the hands of the lawyers. We're simply saying that's inappropriate. The system moves slowly and we hope the masters will relieve much of that problem.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I always appreciate the comments of the member for St Catharines. One of the most interesting portions of his speech was when he alluded to the amount of information that has been provided to the opposition on this particular bill. As members would know, this bill, while important, is not what anybody could call earth-shattering. This is a technical bill that deals with issues surrounding the courts, and most of those can be supported by members on all sides.

However, he pointed out that in Bill 75, a much more controversial bill, we over here in the opposition have been looking for information that the government appears to have and does not wish to provide us with. I talk about a police report on the video lottery terminals, or slot machines as they're more commonly known, that has not been provided to the opposition and the public of Ontario.

As we look at the possibilities of criminal involvement and the mob, so to speak, being involved in video lottery terminals, that is information that any member of the House, and indeed the public, would want to know about. It seems to me that this kind of information is necessary for the people of Ontario to make a reasoned and understood decision on having video lottery terminals in every bar and restaurant in every neighbourhood in the province of Ontario. As we stand here speaking of Bill 79, the contrast with Bill 75 is completely significant. I appreciate the member for St Catharines bringing that to our attention so that we might see the paradox in the government's position.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): With respect to Bill 79, I will speak to this bill and not the other bill that my friend opposite was speaking to. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of civil justice in the province of Ontario. We talk often about criminal justice in this place, but the law-abiding taxpayers of Ontario frequently have disputes which arise in the ordinary course of business, and it's absolutely important that we have a civil justice system that functions efficiently.

We have been faced with a system in recent years where a normal civil action would take four, five, six, seven years to get to trial in what has been rather inappropriately called the Ontario Court (General Division), to be quite properly renamed the Superior Court of Ontario in this bill, so that it's, like the other provinces in Canada, a superior court and named a superior court. But to have justice delayed like that for five and six and seven years for cases to get to trial is outrageous and not an appropriate service to taxpayers.

With this bill and with pre-trial masters there'll be some reduction in that, I hope, particularly in the pre-trial stages and in the motions stages. This is absolutely imperative if the government is going to provide the judicial service, the justice service to taxpayers in Ontario, not only to individuals but also to their businesses and proprietorships so that they can have access to the courts for which, after all, they pay.

I'm also pleased that the bill will correct the appellations of judges so that all of the judges in the province of Ontario, whether appointed federally or provincially, will be referred to by the same titles for the first time in the history of this province. I think that's appropriate to avoid confusion, unnecessary differences between different levels of courts, because every case is important.

Mr Gerretsen: I certainly agree with the comments that the last speaker has made and also the comments that my colleague from St Catharines has made. I think we have to recognize the fact that certainly lawyers are probably the category of people who are the most to blame for delays in courts and in the justice system. Being one myself, I know that's probably not a very popular stand to take among my colleagues, but I certainly concur with that.

I think the government could have gone one step further, though, in this bill. It could have, for example, raised the Small Claims Court limit beyond the $6,000 that it is now, and I believe it's $10,000 here in Metro Toronto. It could have raised it to $10,000 or $20,000, because certainly it's almost inexcusable in a lot of cases where people are arguing over $7,000 or $8,000 to have a three- or four-year time delay take place before a matter comes to trial.

There is nothing that puts our system of justice in ill repute as much as the delay factor. The fact that there are competent Small Claims Court judges around, quite often members from the local bar associations --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): There are?

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, there are -- who could in effect adjudicate upon these matters in a very efficient, quick and expedient manner speaks a lot for itself.

There's absolutely no reason why the government can't raise the limit from the $6,000 to a much more reasonable amount of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. It certainly worked when it was increased recently, about five or six years ago, from the $1,000 to the $6,000 limit. People are getting justice in a much more expedient fashion. I think that's what the public of Ontario is looking for.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines has two minutes to respond.

Mr Bradley: I am always happy to hear from members of the legal profession on these matters. It's very helpful.

I did want to mention why I think we're seeing so many cuts in the court system. It's why we're seeing cuts in the education system and the health care system and services to disabled people and so on, and that is, obviously, it has to finance the tax cut. This government is bringing into effect a 30% cut in provincial income tax. That will benefit the richest people in our society the most. Because the richest people already make the most, they're going to get the most money back from this.

As a result, we have to have this government making cuts, because they would have to borrow, by the calculation of my friend the Liberal critic for finance, some $13 billion in order to give you and me and the people of this province a tax break. I don't know why. No economists I've ever found will tell me that it makes sense to borrow money to give a tax break. They say: "Once the budget is balanced, once we have a budgetary surplus, this may make some sense. But until that