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

August 19, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L215 - Tue 19 Aug 1997 / Mar 19 Aoû 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ERUPTION IN MONTSERRAT

PROPERTY TAXATION

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

RAINSTORM IN SHUNIAH TOWNSHIP

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS

HEALTH CARE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WORKS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

PROPERTY TAXATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HYDRO RATES

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

ONTARIO HYDRO

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HIGHWAY 407

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

WELLESLEY CENTRAL HOSPITAL

COURT DECISION

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

COURT DECISION

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

WATER CHLORINATION

CREMATORIUM IN VAUGHAN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DROUGHT RELIEF IN RENFREW

LABOUR LEGISLATION

RENT REGULATION

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ERUPTION IN MONTSERRAT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In Montserrat, a tiny island in the West Indies, residents have been hit with a natural catastrophe that has devastated two thirds of the island's surface. The Soufriere Hills volcano that had been dormant for 400 years erupted in 1995 and forced the islanders to move to the north end of their nation.

On June 25 of this year, the volcano erupted again, killing 19 people to date, destroying five villages and over 80% of the homes on the island. Currently, the only access to the island is by ferry or helicopter. Before the disaster, Montserrat's population was 13,000 and now, of the remaining 4,000 residents, half are preparing to leave.

Yesterday afternoon, reports of earthquakes around the volcano were reported, increasing the seriousness of the evacuation efforts. Many of those left on the island are in schools, churches and shelters in the north of the island. Twenty-one Canadian citizens are registered with Canada's high commission in Barbados and are expected to evacuate. In Toronto, about 30 people visiting from Montserrat have been stranded here and hope to have their visits extended by the federal government and possibly allowed to work and their children attend school here.

The Montserrat expatriates in Toronto have been very supportive in assisting with fund-raising relief efforts and community support. A fund has been established for relief funds and donations can be made at any Canada Trust branch to the Montserrat disaster relief fund. The Montserrat Association of Toronto has been working very hard during this difficult time, and I commend them for their perseverance.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the Montserratians, and I am appealing to the members of this assembly and the people of Ontario to provide whatever assistance we can.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This government, this Minister of Transportation, seems intent on downloading, on dumping the maintenance bill for more than 1,700 kilometres of provincial highways. Who will pay? The municipal taxpayers, through their property taxes, a sort of levy, a sort of user fee, because municipalities will have no other choice.

The town of Geraldton in the great riding of Lake Nipigon has been asked to take over 12.2 kilometres of Highway 584. Keep in mind that there has been no upgrading of Highway 584 since 1980. Simply put, the people of Geraldton cannot afford this added responsibility. The minister knows that, but he has been unable to convince his colleagues that this sort of buck-passing, this sort of downloading, this sort of added responsibility does indeed place an unfair burden on local residents in Marathon, in Nipigon, in Manitouwadge and today in Geraldton.

Shame on the minister. It's time to reconsider. Put the cheque in the envelope when you download responsibilities.

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): August 15, 1997, marked the golden jubilee of the independence of India, the world's oldest continuous civilization, whose beginnings date back to the third millennium before the common era.

A subcontinent ruled by majestic emperors and possessing a highly developed culture, India's great historic figures include Mahavira of the Jains, Gautama Buddha, Sankara the Hindu philosopher, the Sikh guru Nanak, and later thinkers and reforms such as Dayananda, Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi.

It was Mahatma Gandhi who captured the imagination of India and the world with his non-violent approach to liberation, who led his people to independence as a sovereign nation in 1947.

All Canadians are truly proud to have in India an ally and good friend, just as we are proud of the many contributions to Canada and Ontario that Canadians of Indian background have made and continue to make.

About 350,000 people make up the Indo-Canadian community in this province. Over the years, they have become a powerful social, cultural and economic force. They have contributed immeasurably to Ontario's vibrant growth and prosperity.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I wish the people of India my warmest and best wishes on Indian Independence Day. May the great historic friendship between India and Canada continue to deepen and strengthen, and may we always honour the great saint and hero Mahatma Gandhi who, like Moses, led his people to the chosen land of freedom and independence.

RAINSTORM IN SHUNIAH TOWNSHIP

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): This past July 2, a torrential rainstorm swept through Thunder Bay, causing extraordinary damage to Shuniah township in my riding, including a complete washout of Lakeshore Drive as well as extensive damage to numerous private residences.

A disaster such as this required an immediate response and the municipality's public works department worked around the clock to repair the infrastructure damage. But while the work was done, the cost of rebuilding the roadway has put an exceptional financial burden on the community.

As the local provincial member, I wrote to the ministries of municipal affairs, northern development and transportation, asking for special funding assistance to deal with this unforeseen crisis. So far no assistance has been received. Today I am calling on the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose ministry has been identified as the one where such assistance may be available, to recognize Shuniah's plight and announce that provincial financial aid will be forthcoming.

This disaster was not the fault of the residents of Shuniah township, nor could the municipality be expected to plan for such a disaster. Provincial funding programs are in place for such circumstances, so I have to ask, why is the minister delaying in responding?

Minister, if you feel Shuniah township must justify their need for special assistance, look no further than the recent downloading of policing costs to Shuniah, as they must now find over $800,000 in new money to deal with that harsh new reality. We should not be begging for your help, Minister. Shuniah township needs and deserves the support.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to share with you and the people of Ontario that my community, the city of Sault Ste Marie, is in mourning these days. We're in mourning over the imminent demise of the Ontario Lottery Corp as one of the foundation blocks of the economy of our region.

As I walk around the community and I hear from people, there's a tremendous sense of shock and disbelief. This is a corporation that is strong and healthy. There's nothing wrong with it and this government has deigned in its wisdom to change it in a way that will see it, for all intents and purposes, removed as one of the foundation blocks of the economy of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma.

I remind the government that the lottery corporation, since its inception, has improved its bottom line every year, including the years since its move to Sault Ste Marie. The lottery corporation was moved to the Sault in the late 1980s and early 1990s to help stabilize the economy of our area and to assist in diversifying the economy, to build on what was there but changing and bringing us into the next century, confident that we can compete in the new economy.

You are not listening to what the people of Ontario are saying, Mr Harris and your government. They want you to fix things that are broke and not break things that are working well. The Ontario Lottery Corp is working well in the best interests of our community. Please leave it alone.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Yesterday I introduced a private member's bill that, if passed, will proclaim June 19 every year as United Empire Loyalists' Day.

The Loyalists were Canada's first multicultural immigrants who, for various reasons, stood for the unity of the empire during and after the US gained their independence in 1783. The Loyalist influence was the deciding factor in the passage of the Constitutional Act of 1791 that established the framework for Upper Canada's government. This act, also known as the Canada Act, received royal assent on June 19, 1791.

Among the provisions of the Constitutional Act were the creation of elected legislatures for the two new provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, the forerunners of modern Ontario and Quebec. It was the Loyalists who laid the foundations for the future development of Canada as a country with bilingual, multicultural and regional traditions within the unifying context of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

The Loyalist influence is clearly seen in our provincial motto, which reads, "Loyal in the beginning, so remaining." I would like to ask all the members to join me in recognizing the historic contributions the Loyalists have made and their descendants continue to make to the development of Ontario by declaring June 19 as United Empire Loyalists' Day.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today in the House to congratulate the Canadian Medical Association because they voted yesterday to reject two-tiered health care in this country. They voted to say that the development of a two-tiered health care system, a private health care system for those who are very wealthy and the rest of us having to queue up for what's left over, is not the Canadian way.

Now that doctors in this country have recognized that this two-tiered, Americanized private health care system has no place in this country, maybe this government will start to realize it too because what the doctors talked about were the cuts to health care, and who's doing the largest cuts to health but Mike Harris. Mike Harris, the largest cutter of health care, has taken $900 million out of hospitals. Mike Harris has made sure --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for York South.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Mike Harris continues to cut hospitals in a way that is met by no --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for York South. It's simple. When I sit down, it doesn't mean you can start yelling again. It's rather Pavlovian, I agree.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes. Not that I would ever have done that. I want to make that clear. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: The Canadian Medical Association has rejected what the jeering of the government members provides support for, the idea of an Americanized health care system, the one that would shut down the most efficient, the Riversides, the Women's Colleges, the Wellesleys, the best hospitals we have in this province, the only basis being to save money to pay for the tax cut. But these kinds of sneaky manoeuvres are being caught on to by the people of this province.

We want to thank and congratulate the doctors for recognizing how hollow the health policy of this province is and we look for the government members to do likewise.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would like to advise the Premier, because he just doesn't seem to be getting it, that he is very quickly, apparently with blinkers on, marching us into the abyss in terms of labour chaos in all our communities. The labour movement, the people who represent the women and men who work in our public sector and provide services in our hospitals and schools, firefighters, police officers, virtually every facet of our life, have done everything they can to arrange a simple meeting with Mike Harris so that they can offer up their alternatives to his Bill 136.

Bill 136, if rammed through this House using your new rules to shut down the opposition, will create chaos in all our communities, and at the end of the day it means the quality of life of working people and their families is going to go down to meet your tax cut and your vicious attack on those workers.

Yesterday, twice, Premier Harris, when I asked him, said he would call the office of Gord Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, to arrange such a meeting. To the best of my knowledge, as of half an hour ago, that phone call still hasn't been made. The Premier stands in his place here and elsewhere and says, "Yes, I'll meet," but the phone never rings. Once again, I call on the Premier to honour his commitment, meet with --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am pleased to inform all members of this House about a successful speciality electronics firm in my riding that continues to grow and prosper in an ever-growing competitive market.

Bryston Ltd is a Canadian company that has been designing and manufacturing speciality electronics for professional and consumer markets for over 30 years. When Bryston moved its headquarters to Peterborough in 1994, it had 37 employees. Since then, the number has grown to 57, with another five working in the United States.

Bryston has grown by 40% this year, with anticipated growth in the 30% to 40% range each year for the next five years. By the end of next year they are projecting a workforce totalling 80, and 100 by the year 2000. On August 13 they began a large project that will expand its current factory by more than 65% to accommodate future growth.

Bryston has been recognized by the industry's leading publications as a company that is revolutionizing the industry. Bryston is a leader, not a follower. Their vision of the future and their hard work have set Bryston on a course of great prosperity.

Please join me in congratulating president Brian Russell and all the workers at Bryston for their hard work in making this company a great success. Ontario is indeed open for business.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO WORKS

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Today I am pleased to update members on the results we have achieved so far due to our welfare reforms and the introduction of Ontario Works, our mandatory workfare program.

During the election campaign, this government promised to build a strong economic climate to create more jobs. Today, Ontario is leading the country in job growth. We are turning the province's economy around. As the Premier noted yesterday, in the last five months alone, we have seen 124,000 jobs created. That is more than 50% of all jobs created in Canada.

During the election campaign, we promised to reform Ontario's welfare system, to get people off the system and back to work. That's because we believe that people are better off working. Most people want to work, and Ontario Works is helping this happen. Today, almost 210,000 people have stopped relying on welfare since this government took office over two years ago. Put another way, that is roughly the population of the city of Windsor. In July alone, over 12,000 people left Ontario's welfare system. We now have the lowest number of people on assistance in Ontario since January 1992. These numbers show that this government's reforms are producing results.

To date, 36 communities are implementing Ontario Works and more than 36,000 people have participated in one or more of the program's mandatory activities. We have received 71% of the municipalities' business plans and by next year Ontario Works will be implemented across the province.

Communities are finding creative ways to ensure the best possible range of employment supports for participants in Ontario Works. For example, several municipalities are integrating their resource centres with existing federal employment centres. As a result, the participants in places such as Cornwall, Timmins and Orangeville will benefit from a broader range of employment services at one site.

Community agencies are also responding by creating placements that give participants a chance to apply their existing skills and to develop new ones. This is helping community agencies undertake much-needed projects that they have been unable to do in the past. At the same time, participants are given an opportunity to give something back to their communities.

In communities all across this province, people know that it is better to be working than on welfare. Up north, in places such as Dryden, Ignace, Sioux Lookout, Pickle Lake, they are working together to set up self-help employment resource centres where none existed before. This will help others access the tools they require to get a job.

In other locations, some recipients are doing their placements right at the Ontario Works resource centres. Here participants have been gaining skills in dealing with the public, in using technology, and important firsthand access to a network of job opportunities. As more than half of the participants from Muskoka have found, this valuable experience has led directly to paid employment. In Kitchener-Waterloo, there is more good news. One employment agency alone has already helped close to 130 people get off welfare and into paid employment.

People are telling us that their community placements are making a difference in their lives. They feel the satisfaction of contributing to their community. In Cornwall, one participant helped organize Worldfest's International Celebration of Song and Dance. The experience and contacts she gained led to part-time employment after the event. In Hamilton, seven participants helped a community centre stage a festival in a downtown park. They helped promote awareness of the event, they sought corporate sponsorships, they set up the event, and they worked in the festival.

In Burlington today, I met participants at a reuse centre where they help the community recycle household goods that would have otherwise ended up in landfill sites. The list could go on and on.

I have heard from people on welfare that these activities have led to a renewed sense of self-confidence and self-respect, but most important, they have found something that has been missing for a long time, and that is hope. It is this hope, coupled with a desire to better their lives and the lives of their children, that is making Ontario Works a success.

We believe that giving people the support, the tools and the encouragement to return to productive lives is essential. So far, we are pleased with the progress, but we know we must do more to assist more people to become self-sufficient. We are encouraged that more people are moving towards self-sufficiency as Ontario's economy improves, and we are encouraged that this decline in the caseloads and our other welfare reforms have resulted in savings of more than $1 billion for Ontario taxpayers. As a government, we owe it to people on social assistance to provide them with opportunities to become self-sufficient.

Equally, we owe it to taxpayers to ensure that the dollars are going to help those truly in need.

Later today we are scheduled to debate Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act. It will strengthen our ability to provide people with opportunities to become self-sufficient, because we need to prepare people for a growing economy and an expanding workforce. That is what Ontario Works is all about: a mandatory program designed to help people on welfare acquire necessary skills, make contributions to their communities and get back into the workforce.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): If we were to use the Conservative government's workfare as the example of success and this were a business, you'd all be out of work tomorrow. In Ontario we have over 750 communities. After two years of governing, you have found 36 communities to participate in your program. I would consider that an abysmal failure. It begs us to remember the FSP and the abysmal failure that was when we talk about this government changing the way they do business. I think you're throwing it all out the window.

Let me say at the outset that today we are debating this bill the minister has brought forward, and still today I expected to see regulation so we could have some very meaningful debate. Why is the minister not bringing forward information like, what is the definition of "disability"? What will it mean for people who won't be able to access the system because you've raised the bar so high and cut off people who are truly disabled? That's what we thought we were going to hear today in this minister's statement. We saw nothing but a whitewash, and I believe that whitewash will continue right through the debating this afternoon and onward.

This government used one of the models in the United States, and that was the Wisconsin model of workfare. Today the bureaucrats in Wisconsin have finally admitted publicly that their program was an absolute failure. The people in Wisconsin said that city shelters are taking in 25% more people, food bank visits are up and soup kitchen visits are up. It's an embarrassment for state officials, all the more so because government ineptitude is partly to blame. When people called for help, they found case workers retired, transferred or swamped. They admitted this may not be the best time to streamline staff.

Guess what the Ontario government is doing under Mike Harris: streamlining government, getting rid of staff people. Those who remain are completely overrun. They don't have the technology in place to bring in this kind of change, and it too will be bungled. It will be bungled just like the family support program was, and that will be to the demise of whom? It will be to the demise of children in Ontario, the very group this minister claims to be supporting.

Let us remember that the people most affected will be the same people who won't have a voice at the polls in the next election. Children will be affected by this. The minister has done nothing to fix the issue of child care. In Metro Toronto alone you have 8,000 people waiting for spaces. When they get their 8,000 spaces, they will be able to go out and find work.

This government needs to understand that every time they go down in the polls, they talk about workfare because they believe they will go back to that populist mantra and the whole world will watch what they're doing and think it's just wonderful. There are children in Ontario who will suffer because of what you are bringing in today, Minister.

This is not a good day to throw out the minister. I am interested in what she has to say to be responsible for the people who need government support the most.

I think all of us in this House have to recognize this one fact: There is an inverse relationship between employment levels and welfare rolls. The sooner we all understand this very basic inverse relationship, the better. When people are working, the welfare rolls are down. It becomes the Ontario government's responsibility to make work for these people --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, folks. Order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would say to the member for Hamilton East it's a bit of a stretch for you to accuse the minister of provoking you because she's heckling. It happens in here; it heckles. I think we just have to try and maintain some decorum to get to question period. And I ask the government members to come to order, please. This is the response period of time. They're allowed to make their response.

Mrs Pupatello: It's very frightening to think this minister is responsible for children in Ontario with this kind of behaviour displayed today.

The mere fact that 36 communities have been forced into participation begs the question of how she also expects every community in Ontario to be involved in this program when the response initially was absolutely abysmal. It's because they will be forced to play the political game or receive absolutely no funding.

That is why no minister has yet outlined the requirements for all municipalities in Ontario to receive this special grant you're supposed to be giving them. You will hook them in and force them to participate even though every expert who deals with people on assistance understands that this program will not work. It didn't work in the 1930s. It sent cities into bankruptcy.

I am asking every municipality to have a very close look at the increased costs that will be associated with this bill because they will not have the funding to support it.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a sense, after yesterday hearing statements from ministers and the statement from the minister today, that we're all going to be treated to a spate of these feel-good, "Everything is rosy out there," announcements from ministers that really have a lot of fluff and not a lot of content. I'm disappointed with the minister's statement today because I think it falls in that category: not a lot of substance.

I've been trying to understand, when a government that is so dedicated to its view of change and the zealous approach it put forward, why things aren't changing out there in a way that is actually making things better for people, in this case people on social assistance. In the zeal to restructure, in the zeal to cut back, in the zeal to pull government out of communities, which is an almost biblical belief on the part of this government, they have moved so fast that they haven't taken into consideration a lot of unintended results. Let me give you some examples.

The minister talks about all these people getting out there into jobs. You cut support for programs for youth employment and as a result there are 100,000 more young workers without jobs. Your workfare is not helping them. They don't have jobs. They did have jobs; they don't now. What does that mean?

We've seen growing numbers of documentaries about kids living on streets who are not going to be eligible under your workfare-welfare reforms for social assistance. They're out there working as squeegee car cleaners without places to live. This is a growing crisis. Minister, your announcements here on workfare don't help those people.

You talk about 88,000 fewer children being on welfare. Minister, there are more children than ever before in the history of Ontario living in shelters, living in abject poverty. Families in shelters aren't entitled to welfare. Some of those numbers you're boasting about are families with kids in poverty who have moved into wee rooms in motels, whole families living together in shelters. That is a crisis your announcement does nothing about.

You talk about the effectiveness of workfare. We have a quote from just this past week from the director of Essex county, who told the press that Ontario Works is nothing more than what they're doing already except that it's mandatory. Show me where the progress is, Minister.

Let me give you a real example of the unintended consequences when you don't think things through. For example, in North Bay there was an organization that was doing placements, that was doing counselling. People were working there doing that job. You cut their grant, that organization is gone, and now workfare participants are doing it. You took away real jobs and now people who are on welfare are doing that through a workfare program.

You say people are getting new skills. Let me give you an example of when you don't think through the unintended consequences. In Algoma the new skills people are getting is painting picnic tables. I don't know how far that's going to take them in the new expending job force in the new changing world you referred to in your statement.

You talk about people gaining self-confidence, and I support that and I hope parts of the program will do that, but there were programs that were doing that. I worked through community economic development, Jobs Ontario Community Action, to establish a program like the Good Food Box, where welfare recipients were working and getting self-confidence and gaining skills. You cancelled that, but you're bringing it back through another door and I hope some of those same things will happen.

The shell game in this, the speed with which you move through your cuts, the speed with which you move through your downsizing and restructuring, the unintended consequences are hurting people in this province. This fluffy statement today without substance doesn't change that reality.

Your Bill 142 that we're going to discuss this afternoon really doesn't have a lot of content beyond giving welfare workers more powers, like police, giving them powers to put liens on people's homes. It really is akin to the Quebec Boubou macoutes. People remember those changes, where you turn welfare into a police-enforced situation, and that is not going to help people get back to work.

I guess what I want to say is that we agree change is needed. Change is needed, but it doesn't have to be this way. Your government has stopped listening to people in Ontario. If you would listen to people, if you would work with people, if you would slow down enough to try and get it right, maybe you could make positive change and the unintended consequences wouldn't be hurting kids, families and youth the way they are.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just before question period, I'd like to make an introduction of guests.

I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable G.H.S. Mdhlalose, Speaker of the Kwazulu-Natal Legislature in South Africa. Welcome.

I would like to draw members' attention to the presence at the table of Geof Mitchell, Clerk of the House of Assembly of South Australia. Mr Mitchell will be joining our table for the remainder of this week to observe our proceedings.

I'm sure I speak for all members, Geof, we welcome you and best of luck.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. A few days ago the lid blew off Ontario Hydro and there was obviously tremendous concern at the time. You provided us with some solemn assurances, first, that there was no danger, and second, that notwithstanding that we could be looking at up to as much as $8 billion in costs to repair nuclear generators, Ontario Hydro ratepayers would not be faced with any rate increases.

I heard earlier today that you, in the course of a scrum, offered that you are now considering rate increases. Would you please tell me that I did not hear properly and that you continue to provide us with every assurance that Ontario Hydro ratepayers are not about to experience any kind of a rate increase.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): You did not hear properly. We are not planning any rate increases.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I want to come back to this; it's not that easy. This morning there was some discussion about rate increases. You said something to the effect that perhaps it'll be on an average of 5% up or down; that you might consider, for purposes of encouraging conservation, charging more at peak hours and charging less at off-peak hours. Did you or did you not talk about that today in this morning's scrum? Our friends in the media are anxious to speak with you again, according to how you answer this.

Hon Mr Sterling: The first question the media asked me was whether we were planning any rate increases. I said no. I said that the legislative committee, in considering conservation matters, may want to discuss differential rates to encourage conservation of electricity. But this government will not break its promise with regard to a five-year rate freeze for our customers, our residents, our businesses.

Mr McGuinty: There are over three million residential ratepayers in Ontario. They trusted you when they read this Common Sense Revolution. They read in there specifically that a five-year freeze will be placed on hydro rates to give consumers, employers and industries guaranteed stability in planning their budgets. They know that coming this January they're looking at property tax increases as a result of their downloading.

What they want to know today -- what they want is your assurance that there is no way that their rates are going to increase as a result of what has happened at Ontario Hydro; and furthermore, regardless of that, that they have this minister's assurance, in keeping with the promise contained in the Common Sense Revolution, that hydro rates are not going up for the next five years, no ifs, ands or buts. Do they have that assurance?

Hon Mr Sterling: You have our assurance from before. The assurance stays the same. We are not changing that assurance. We have made the promise. We keep our promises.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'll direct my question to the Deputy Premier of the government that keeps all its promises.

We are receiving conflicting information now on a daily basis. We have every solemn assurance from this government that downloading will not produce any increase in property taxes. On the other hand, we hear from our elected mayors and municipal officials that property taxes are going up.

The latest is from the mayor of North Bay. This is the Premier's mayor. He's telling us that municipal taxes are going to go up 75% as a direct result of downloading. The people of North Bay are wondering, who should they believe? Should they believe the Premier, the man who said he wouldn't close any hospitals, the man who said he wouldn't make cuts to education, the man who said he wouldn't increase user fees or makes cuts to agriculture or the environment? Should they believe the Premier or should they believe their mayor?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I would say to the leader of the official opposition that the provincial government, as he well knows, has accepted a proposal put forward by municipalities in the province of Ontario.

Interjection: You put the proposal forward.

Hon Mr Eves: No, no. You're exactly wrong. You are absolutely wrong. Perhaps certain members have lost their memory over the few short weeks we've been away from this place. There is no doubt that the provincial government put forward a Who Does What proposal. There also is no doubt that the municipalities in the province of Ontario, a group led by Mr Mundell, responded by putting forward a counterproposal to the province, which the province accepted.

We have accepted the municipalities' proposal to delineate responsibilities. We have said from day one and municipalities knew that the municipal support grant of some $667 million was going to be phased out. We told them that. They've acknowledged that. They've known that for a long period of time.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the people of this province are confused and they want your help in this matter. They're wondering whether they should believe their municipally elected officials or the Premier of the province. Just yesterday the mayor of Hamilton told us that he's completed his numbers, completed his review of the impact of downloading, and he says taxes are going to go up at the municipal level by $60 million; that works out to roughly $250 per household.

Niagara region today announced that their 12 municipalities are looking at a $42-million increase, and that means they're looking at, on average, a $200 increase per household.

You're telling us that it's not going up. The mayors out there, the elected officials at the municipal level, many of them Tories, are telling us that they are going up. I want you to tell us why we should believe you and your government.

Hon Mr Eves: Perhaps the leader of the official opposition would like to listen to the former member for Ottawa West. "Chiarelli said the downloaded responsibilities can be absorbed and said the region's estimate of $82 million in new costs is inflated."

I didn't hear the leader of the official opposition criticize Mr Chiarelli when he was sitting here as his colleague. Why won't you take his advice? They're not going up in Ottawa. There's no reason for them to go up. Throughout the province of Ontario, municipalities can find a 2% efficiency.

Mr McGuinty: This minister and this government have a serious credibility problem. You promised that you wouldn't close hospitals -- that's what this was all about -- you wouldn't make cuts to classrooms, you wouldn't make cuts to agriculture, you wouldn't make cuts to environment, you wouldn't introduce user fees, and you especially wouldn't introduce them on the backs of our seniors. Now you're telling us that property taxes aren't going up. I ask you once again, why, why, why should the people of this province believe you?

Hon Mr Eves: Coming from a party that introduced 33 tax increases in five years, it's almost ridiculous that he --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Eves: Municipalities should easily be able to find 2%, two cents out of every dollar they spend, in efficiencies. If they can do that, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why real property taxes should go up in municipalities.

Mel Lastman doesn't think this is a problem. Mel Lastman says: "I can come up with a 0% tax increase. There's no doubt in my mind that it can be done for the new city of Toronto." As I recall, one of the leader of the official opposition's colleagues is the co-chair of Mel Lastman's campaign.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, lawyers for the family of Dudley George issued notices of examination to the Premier and the Attorney General, requiring them to appear for questioning under oath in the civil lawsuit on the wrongful death of Dudley George.

Deputy Premier, to my knowledge, this is the first time a Premier has ever been subpoenaed to appear in such a very serious matter. You must have received your legal advice last night from your lawyers on whether you will try to obtain a judicial order that would get the Premier and the Attorney General out of testifying.

Can you tell us now, will the Premier appear at the hearing and answer questions put to him concerning the wrongful death of Dudley George? If your government has nothing to hide about your involvement in the death of Dudley George and the Ipperwash affair, then let the Premier go to the hearing and answer the questions.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure the leader of the third party is aware that this matter is before the civil courts. I certainly don't have any indication of what the Premier's personal decision will be. I would assume that counsel for either side or all parties in a civil lawsuit will iron out these matters.

Mr Hampton: I thought it was a rather simple question, and I hope the Deputy Premier can come up with a more definitive answer. We spoke with the lawyers who represent the George family, and from their perspective the facts are clear: In the past, the OPP always took the approach of trying to avoid confrontation at protests like the one at Ipperwash, and from their perspective it was because of the direction of the Premier via his executive assistant, Deb Hutton, to have the occupiers removed from the park, nothing else, that the OPP suddenly changed their long-standing role of communicating with the protesters.

What you did is you took away the non-confrontational tools that the OPP had at their disposal and you said very directly to them, "Get the natives out of the park."

I put it to you again, Deputy Premier, will the Premier appear at the hearing to answer the questions?

Hon Mr Eves: With respect to the exact question the honourable member asks, I certainly have no knowledge of the Premier's personal intentions. However, I will comment on the

preamble to his question.

He's very well aware of the minutes of a meeting of the interministerial committee on September 6, 1995. He's also very much aware of the three ministerial directives that came out of that meeting.

They are: from the Ministry of Natural Resources, "The minister wants to act as quickly as possible to avoid further damage and to curtail any escalation of the situation"; from the Ministry of the Attorney General, "The minister agrees that application will be made for an injunction"; from the Solicitor General's ministry, "As a matter of protocol, the Solicitor General's office does not involve itself in the day-to-day operations of the OPP. The OPP will exercise its discretion regarding how to proceed in removing the Stony Pointers from the park and laying appropriate charges."

Mr Hampton: I think the quotations the Deputy Premier has read into the record add a little further to this. You see, nowhere does it say in the directives from the Solicitor General that the OPP should consider whether to remove the protesters out of the park. It doesn't say that. That's the problem. The Premier has given the direction: "Get the natives out of the park." That was the direction from the Premier through his executive assistant. The ministerial work that follows from there is all on the premise, "Get the natives out of the park."

What the Solicitor General did was leave it up to the OPP on how to get the natives out of the park, but you've taken all the other options away. You said, "No discussion." Even in terms of an injunction, you did not allow for discussion. It was hardball all the way. That was a specific change in the OPP approach. They had never taken that approach before; only on the direction of your government.

Will the Premier attend and answer the questions --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Leader of the third party, please come to order.

Hon Mr Eves: As I've said and I say again, the Premier will make his own personal decision as to what he does with respect to a particular civil lawsuit.

I would like to further add to the last

preamble that the honourable member made. I'm not going to try to interpret the words of an individual, the observations that they made of what somebody else supposedly said or didn't say over two years ago. I think the ministerial directives coming out of that meeting speak for themselves. The OPP certainly acted on their own. They were given no direction, either by the Solicitor General or by anybody else, as to how they should proceed. That's the end of the matter.

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

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Deputy Premier, there's a way to answer all these questions: Hold a public inquiry. Let's get all the information out.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Environment, speaking of getting the information out, I have a copy of the press scrum and the comments made by the environment minister today. He said in that scrum very clearly, "higher rates during peak periods and higher rates for the larger amount of electricity you use."

You and Bill Farlinger have been telling people there won't be higher electricity rates, but today you talk about higher electricity rates in peak periods. Which is it? Can you tell all those hardworking people across Ontario who would have to pay those higher rates during peak periods that it won't happen?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): In the scrum this morning, reporters were asking about a number of different issues. One of them was the kinds of policies that could be implemented to encourage conservation, and one of them related to a differential rate classification system. I said that the committee would probably want to discuss that. I said to them also that that was a hypothetical, that it was not under consideration by this government of Ontario and that we intended to stick by our promise.

Mr Hampton: I marvel at your ability to say one thing one day, then to say something else in a press scrum and then to try to change your tune again. Let me put it to this minister this way. In this press scrum you also talk about averages, so I want to pin the minister down. I want to be very clear.

If you're talking about changing the rate package, if you're talking about charging more during peak periods, then the people who will have to pay that are all those hardworking Ontarians who don't have a choice about what time they go to work each day. They don't have a choice about not turning on the electricity at 7 or 7:30 in the morning. They have to get up and they have to be at work at a certain time. They have to have their children off to school at a certain time.

Can you categorically guarantee that you will not be changing the rate structure, so that all those hardworking people don't have to pay more during the periods of the day when they must use electrical power?

Hon Mr Sterling: I have said before, and I'll say it again, we made a promise and we intend to keep that promise. We will not raise hydro rates by some 15% to 25% as was the case during your government's reign.

Mr Hampton: I note that the minister didn't answer my question. The question was this, and I'll put it to you again: If you're talking about raising peak rates, there are all kinds of people in this province who have no choice about when they get up in the morning, when they have to go to work, when they have to use electricity. If you're going to try to raise more revenue off the peak rates, that's going to affect all of those millions of people across this province.

That's the question I put to you, and that's the question you have steadfastly tried to avoid, so I put it to you again: Will you guarantee that you will not try to raise more money through peak rates? Will you guarantee that you will not go after all those millions of hardworking Ontarians who have to get up and go to work every day by attacking their power rate when they must use power? Will you guarantee that?

Hon Mr Sterling: We have made a promise. We intend to keep that promise in terms of what we have said before in the Common Sense Revolution and subsequent statements as to hydro rates in this province. The discussion this morning dealt with what the committee might deal with in terms of conservation measures. There is no intention on the part of this government to consider a rate increase at this time or in the future.

HOME CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to raise a question on behalf of a very young constituent of mine, Sarah Hanrahan. She's 28 months. She has lived all of her short life at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. She suffers from muscular dystrophy. She is tube fed and wheelchair bound.

The doctors have made a decision now that it's time for her to leave the hospital. She is to go home with her mother. The problem is that her mother also has muscular dystrophy. There is another child at home who is perfectly healthy and the mother has no difficulty whatsoever looking after that healthy child, but she has some very serious problems just anticipating how she is going to be able to care for young Sarah.

There is a waiting list for home care in the Ottawa area. They do not have the necessary hours to meet this mother's need. She is going to be discharged this Friday and sent home to her mother because they need the beds at hospital. I'm wondering what assurance you can provide us, Minister, and what assurance you can provide to Sarah's mother.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm very much aware of the disease muscular dystrophy, as it runs in my own family. I too had a cousin who was eight years a resident of Etobicoke General Hospital and passed away recently.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the rules in this province are very clear regardless of what government is in power. Patients are not allowed to be discharged from hospital until a full care plan is in place. I know that the hospital and the doctors in this case will make sure that a full care plan is in place or else people are not to be discharged from hospital.

Second, with respect to home care, we do not have waiting lists for home care in this province. We've cleared those up. I will doublecheck the Ottawa one. I check them every Monday. We checked yesterday. For in-home nursing -- that's one of the things this government is very proud of -- we do have some waiting lists for occupational therapy and physiotherapy, but that's because we don't have the therapists. We need more young people to go into those professions.

With respect to this particular case, though, the patient may need more hours -- that is, I think, the point you're making -- than are regularly available with home care, and certainly we will do everything we can to accommodate that.

Mr McGuinty: Sarah is going to be discharged this Friday. In an effort to fulfil their responsibilities under the child welfare act, the doctors have notified the children's aid society that this little girl is going to be discharged, and they are recommending that the children's aid society inquire into this and that they look at foster care.

What we have in your Ontario is a little girl, 28 months of age, who is about to be discharged from the hospital. She is going to fall through the cracks. She has got a mother at home who cares for her deeply, who wants to bring her into the house. There is no home care available. There is no better person to care for the child than that mother. She is going to end up in foster care because she has fallen through the cracks in your Ontario.

What I want from you, Minister, is your assurance right now that this is not going to happen and that you are going to ensure that the necessary funding is there or you are going to do whatever it takes to ensure that Sarah can go home to her mother, where she properly belongs, and that her mother will have all the assistance she needs to keep her little girl at home.

Hon Mr Wilson: We've just doublechecked, during the time it took to answer the question, with Ottawa, and there are no waiting lists for home care in Ottawa. We will of course, as we do with every case that comes to our attention, do everything humanly possible to help this family. We will exercise our responsibilities, as I know the hospital will. People are not allowed to be discharged from hospital without a full care plan in place. Every time we look at these cases, we find that plans are being developed. We will make sure a full care plan is in place for this young person.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also of the Minister of Health. Minister, you're probably well aware of the real needs of the urban population when it comes to health care, but you've done nothing to ensure that the needs of those in densely urban populations are being taken account of when your commission plays its number games and sets savings targets and population-to-bed ratios.

I'm talking particularly of course about our neighbour the Wellesley Central Hospital, which serves the most densely populated area in the province. It has a very high concentration of the poorest people in our province, a high concentration of seniors and a high concentration of people who are very vulnerable to diseases such as HIV infection, tuberculosis and many of the other ills of those who do not have supports within our communities.

Minister, are you prepared today to tell us that you're going to finally pay attention to the needs of the urban population and intervene in the order to close Wellesley Central Hospital?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The benchmarks the commission is using were set by the previous government, the member's government, in 1992, when you outlined a complete plan for urban health care. We've adopted that and we've modified that, and the commission has been working in that framework.

I remind the honourable member that there are significant benefits. First of all, nobody spends more per person on AIDS than this government. We spend $55.9 million on HIV and AIDS. That's $15.7 million more than the federal government spends on its entire national AIDS strategy for all of Canada. Recently, Dr Anne Phillips, whom you appointed to the head of Ontario's AIDS advisory committee, told me, after doing a North American research project on drug plans, that we have the best drug plan in North America for people suffering with HIV and AIDS, and the list goes on and on.

I remind the honourable member that restructuring will ensure that programs for HIV and AIDS currently located in one location will perhaps move, depending on the outcome of the court case, a matter that's before the court now, but everything will move. All of the programs will be in place and there will be more money available because of restructuring --

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

Mrs Boyd: My question was not about AIDS support. You're quite right. Our government did put those supports in for AIDS people and we're grateful this is one area you have not cut.

The question was about your intervention in the orders of your hospital commission in the case of a high-need urban health program offered by a community-based hospital. You try to perpetuate the myth that you are not politically involved. All of us watched you stop the process in Lambton county to ensure there was a rural health program in place. We watched you dance around the whole constitutional issue with respect to Montfort. We're not saying those were bad decisions; we're saying we know you can intervene when it's important.

What the people in dense urban populations who need specific care are asking is that you intervene in this case. Will you intervene and set up an urban health program that pays attention to the special needs of people in those areas?

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, I have never intervened in any case whatsoever before the commission. You can make up all the theories you want, but history will show this government took the politics out of health care and put it in the hands of the experts.

With respect to an urban health policy, I just want to know what the honourable member is opposed to in Metro Toronto when the urban health policy as established by the Health Services Restructuring Commission calls for 5,207 more nursing home beds badly needed; 4,181 long-term-care community spaces, including in-home nursing and community therapies; five new MRI machines for Metro; the creation of a women's health council, which the Deputy Premier and finance minister announced $10 million for, the first of its kind in North America.

Five times more than is currently spent on women's health research is going to be spent by this government so that women and women's health issues will be the focus of all our health care system and not just one part of downtown Toronto; a Metro-wide rehabilitation system, a coordinated system for children and children's services. Those are the --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: Those are the benefits of restructuring. In Metro Toronto those beds are badly needed.

The Speaker: Minister of Health, can you please come to order. I don't want to warn you again, Minister of Health.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Recently, as you'll know and as everyone in this House will know, Hamilton experienced a disastrous fire, one of the worst fires in the history of the province.

Immediately after the fire occurred, residents had some samples taken by the MOE, and I must commend the staff for their fast action in conducting those tests. As a result of the samples that were taken, I wonder if you could clarify for this House and all the members in my riding what the cleanup process has been and how it is proceeding.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'd first like to thank all of the members who expressed their concern for the people of Hamilton as I was very, very much concerned about this fire as well.

Everyone is eager to have the site cleaned up and the ministry will ensure that happens. The company, Environmental Consulting, stated that the work at the site has proceeded as quickly as possible through voluntary measures.

My ministry became concerned, however, that further progress at the site could slow down, as the environmental consultant and subcontractors indicated on August 7 that they had not been assured of payment. On August 12, the ministry issued a notice of a director's order to Plastimet and Mr Levy, the site owner.

By issuing the notice, the ministry has initiated the legal process that will require the site owner and the operator to continue the site cleanup. The order will call for the recipients to submit and implement a detailed cleanup plan for the site. On August 13, insurance funds were released, allowing a further cleanup procedure to occur. While the property owner is responsible for the cleanup, the ministry will assure the citizens of Hamilton that it will happen.

Mrs Ross: One of the major concerns I've heard expressed to me over a period of time has been the concern about the long-term health effects as a result of the fire. I've kept in close touch with your ministry on this issue, but I wonder if you could explain to the people in this House and to the people at home, to make sure they're kept informed of what's happening, what steps our ministry has taken.

Hon Mr Sterling: The ministry has been working closely with the medical officer of health for Hamilton-Wentworth. Air quality results available to date indicate that there should be no adverse long-term health effects resulting from exposure to any contaminants. This has been confirmed by the chief medical officer of health for the area. We will continue to monitor the aftermath of the fire as continuing sample results are made available to assist public and municipal officials in making decisions about health-related issues.

At a public meeting following the fire, 106 people signed up to have sampling done in their backyards, and we are developing a program to do that. On July 29 a community information trailer --

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): What about a public inquiry, Norm?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I was at that meeting. Where were you?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, I warn you to come to order. While I'm up, the member for Hamilton East, you can come to order as well. Please let the minister --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We're concerned about people, Speaker.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, thank you for your assistance.

Hon Mr Sterling: As I was saying, on July 29 a community information trailer was opened to provide information directly to the residents in the area regarding the cleanup and other fire-related issues. It's manned by both the regional medical officer of health and the Ministry of Environment.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: In addition, we provided a committee of citizens with $40,000 of provincial money, which will help them retain professional expert advice --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, Bill 105 was an attempt to try to bring some fairness to the cost of policing right across this province, but now that the new property tax costs for policing have been released, they appear to be anything but fair. Some examples in the south: Bruce county, $175 per household; Brant county, $354. In the north it's even worse, from $169 per household in Parry Sound, to Cochrane at $508, to Kenora at $711 per house, average cost, for policing.

Minister, is this fair? How do you explain to some of the poorest municipalities and families in this province that they're going to have to pay more for policing than some of the most affluent areas of this province?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This is all about fairness. As the member will recall, the last two reports by the Provincial Auditor have recommended that governments take this action with respect to fairness and equitable treatment in terms of policing costs right across this province. In fact, a colleague of the member across the floor -- I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name -- when we made the announcement with respect to equitable financing indicated to me that he'd been waiting 30 years to hear that announcement.

Various governments of all political stripes had failed to follow through on this promise. We're following through on a promise we made in opposition.

Mr Ramsay: I don't think any colleague in this House would consider this fair. One of the founding principles of this country and this province is that of cost-sharing. As Ontarians, we accept that we share the responsibility to ensure equal access to basic services across this province. Not only is this expressed in how we fund health care and education, but also social services. Why shouldn't Ontarians share equally the cost of basic protections for their families and their property? Why don't we have one-price policing across this province?

Hon Mr Runciman: The estimates that were provided to municipalities are that, estimates. They are indications of actual, on-the-ground costs of the OPP in any given jurisdiction in the province.

With respect to the northern costs, I understand that some of them are quite high, but the costs of policing in some of the more remote areas of this province are indeed high. In fact, I met with the chief of police in Dryden a couple of weeks ago and indicated that at municipal level as well their costs are substantially higher on a per-household basis than those we have to cope with in south, western and eastern Ontario.

The government, through the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has indicated on a number of occasions that if municipalities find themselves in difficult circumstances which they are completely unable to cope with, the government has established at least two funds to assist them.

We have to take a look at each individual case, assess the impact on any given municipality. No Ontarian will be faced with an undue or unfair burden as a result of these changes.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. People are very worried about the environmental impact of Hydro's decision to fire up three fossil fuel plants as replacement power. Greenpeace and the Toronto Environmental Alliance held a press conference today to talk about the impact this will have on people's health.

Minister, I don't think you're going to deny saying this -- I too have it in writing: You yourself said that the air will get dirtier. The experts at the press conference today had several suggestions as to how we might deal with this. I think everybody agrees that in the very short term we have no choice but to fire up some of these plants, but they have some very good suggestions. What I want from you today is your commitment that you will ensure that the legislative committee you've agreed to will be able to examine all the environmental implications of the firing up of these plants and alternatives to this for the future.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would be most anxious to look into the environmental aspect of Hydro's proposed plan and would welcome any other suggestions which either the member or other groups might have to avoid firing up any of these fossil plants, if in fact that's an option.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Will the committee be able to look at it?

Hon Mr Sterling: Of course.

The Speaker: The member for Riverdale is asking the question.

Ms Churley: Whose question is this, anyway?

Minister, I'm glad to hear that, and I'm glad to hear, after you sat down, that you will let the inquiry look at this.

This leads me to a very important question, that is, we need a process that is open and transparent. We need an independent process, not one controlled by your government. A legislative committee with a majority of Conservative members, which we've seen over and over again, means the government will control who appears before the committee, what issues they can address, what resources the committee will have and how they will use them; in other words, everything the committee does. It won't be an independent committee; it will be a government-controlled sham.

I'm asking you today, will you ensure that the committee that investigates Hydro will not have a majority of Tory MPPs and will have the independence to get at the real story behind Hydro and to look to the future and where we go from here?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I didn't even get to hear the last part of the question. The member for Riverdale, finish it.

Ms Churley: The last part of my question is indeed important. I want the minister to assure the House that any committee which investigates Hydro will not have a majority of government MPPs and will have the independence to get at the real story behind Hydro and also will have the independence to look at where we go in the future with our energy needs.

Hon Mr Sterling: By the very definition, all the committees during the NDP government and the past Liberal government were shams, because they were all dominated by government members. I don't believe all of the work those committees did was in fact a sham. I'm talking about majority governments, Mr Bradley. This is a legislative committee. I could not give that assurance without first, of course, talking to the House leader. I'll take it under consideration, but I'd say it would be an unusual departure from our normal practice of business here.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization who also led this government's automotive insurance reform initiative. Minister, as you may be aware, Oshawa has long been known as a city which motivates Ontario and the area has a strong automotive tradition and economic base. This has developed a strong interest in automotive issues in Oshawa. In particular, car insurance rates have been an important concern to car owners.

For years the auto insurance rates have spiralled upwards. The Liberal Bill 68 sparked the increase with a 6.75% increase in one year. Further compounding the matter, the NDP Bill 164 resulted in rates going up by 21% over two years. However, I understand the insurance rates for private passenger vehicles have declined in the last year.

Minister, could you give my constituents --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Thank you for the question. Through you, Mr Speaker, to my colleague from Oshawa, he's indeed correct. The previous two administrations handed Ontario drivers nothing but auto insurance rate increases and I'm pleased to say that on average the auto insurance plan that we brought forward called Bill 59 has provided good drivers in Ontario with up to now a 5.5% rate reduction year over year since it was introduced last year. In fact, the rates have gone down in each quarter year over year since the introduction of Bill 59 last November.

In addition to that, in addition to providing the rate relief to auto insurance that the previous jurisdictions were never able to do, we were able to provide auto drivers in this province the right to access to tort for claims against injuries they had received as a result of an auto accident in which they were not at fault, a substantial improvement under the existing auto insurance product that the previous two --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Ouellette: This is certainly encouraging news for Ontario motorists. However, what my constituents would like to know is what the minister intends to do in order to ensure that this trend continues. Bill 59 also included measures to reduce the costly problem of auto insurance fraud. Minister, what exactly are these changes and how will they help keep auto insurance rates down?

Hon Mr Sampson: My colleague from Oshawa is indeed correct. The challenge is not over the day one introduces the bill. Of course, that's the view the prior administrations, both Liberal and NDP, had. We believe that our responsibility to Ontario drivers is to continue to work with the existing legislation, to work with the stakeholders, to work with the consumers, to try to continue to improve the product so that they indeed can have what they deserve: a fair insurance product in this province at a fair price where the rates don't escalate, like those which the two previous administrations provided Ontario.

We intend to have a full and thorough review, and in fact we put it in the legislation that within two years of introducing the bill we would have that review. We are now working with the stakeholders in auto insurance to make sure that we can speak to that review process when the time is up, two years from last November, a year coming from this November.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, on June 7 of this year, six months late, amid much fanfare, you opened the 407 toll highway. There is no question that from a transportation perspective this has been a tremendous success. Officials in your ministry indicated to us today that you're seeing volumes of between 275,000 and 300,000 vehicles a day and you expect those volumes to increase in September.

A very straight question, Mr Minister: When will you begin collecting tolls and who will provide the technology to do that collection when you do begin collecting them?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for the question and I certainly want to say to this Legislature that the highway obviously is a tremendous success.

You're absolutely right: When are we going to start to charge for this highway? But I do believe we've had an opportunity to allow the people of Ontario to use the highway free of charge.

Basically what I would like to say to the member is that we are in the process of finalizing some of the concerns that were in place, mainly because of the success of the highway. Because of the success of the highway, the tolling technology was not adequate to make sure everyone was going to be deducted when they went through the interchanges.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: I'm glad it's very amusing to the honourable members --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): There will be a supplementary.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Come to order, Minister of Transportation.

Mr Duncan: If it wasn't such a financial mess, we might be laughing with the minister and the government members. I will remind the minister that it was your government that signed a deal with Hughes-Bell without the benefit of public tender, without the benefit of any kind of public scrutiny; signed, sealed and delivered. To date, the cost overruns we estimate on the toll system alone to be $100 million. That does not include the interest costs that are accruing on the capital that taxpayers bear the full risk of because you don't have the technology. You're laughing about it and you're refusing to deal with it.

Will you take responsibility today? Tell us, first of all, when will the technology be available, how much does it cost, what penalties have you assigned to Hughes-Bell, and when will the government take responsibility and ensure taxpayers aren't exposed to any more risk due to your mismanagement and your incompetence, resulting from a bad deal that you signed after you became the government?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to correct the honourable member. This is a deal that we inherited from the NDP. The highway, I've said, is a success. The delivery method maybe could be questionable, but certainly the highway is a success, and it still is a success. I also want to congratulate our government, because we embraced 407. We are doing everything to make sure it works because we have a responsibility to the people of Ontario. But it is a success, it really is. Technology that was in place was not sufficient to handle the amount of traffic volume we're getting.

We as a government made the decision not to toll it in making sure we are going to be able to detect everyone who's going to use it.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Palladini: The technology we had in place was only capable of handling 3,000 vehicles an hour. The technology that we are putting in place will be able to --

The Speaker: New question.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Your megacity bill currently allows the ward of East York only two councillors. My colleague Frances Lankin, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, has tabled a private member's bill to increase that number to three. East York will not have the same equitable representation based on councillor to resident population ratio as the other cities. Will you support my colleague's private member's bill?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, I'd be happy to take her request up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Churley: I'm very, very pleased to hear that because to date, Deputy Premier, we have received nothing but no. I don't know what your colleagues have against the city of East York, because to date the member for Beaches-Woodbine has only heard no. I'm glad you're going to take it up because if you don't, if your caucus doesn't support this or find another way to give them three, they will not have equal representation --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: And don't listen to the member for Don Mills, for heaven's sake, because he said no to this. This is a very sensible suggestion. East York cannot wait until the new megacity council is in place to do this. They will be hamstrung; they will not be able to operate properly. The community will not have fair and equal representation as the other cities do. I ask you to confirm that you will talk to the member for Don Mills and for East York and others and support this very small request for the democracy of East York.

Hon Mr Eves: I can assure that even as you were speaking I was conferring with the Chair of Management Board, who obviously has nothing against East York. I'd be more than happy to take up your request with the minister.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph) : Today my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. To keep our Canada strong and united we must create, promote and maintain economic prosperity across the country. You have stated that one of the best ways to achieve this is to break down interprovincial trade barriers. Only then can workers compete in a more fair internal Canadian market. I know that you recently attended the annual premiers' conference. The media has reported that the premiers came very close to eliminating these trade barriers.

Workers and employers in my riding of Guelph are interested in knowing what work the premiers accomplished in ending job-killing barriers and, more specifically, what work Ontario is undertaking to end interprovincial trade barriers.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I think we all know that the Honourable Bill Saunderson is the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism for the government, and I'd like to thank him for his leadership and his hard work.

At the annual premiers' conference, there were significant gains made in the whole area of reducing internal trade barriers. Everyone in this House knows that Canada has to work harder in this response, but the premiers endorsed that we move forward on implementation of the two-year agreement in two regards. First of all, they directed the ministers responsible to conclude negotiations on the agreement's procurement divisions to municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals, known as the MUSH sector.

In conclusion, they also directed trade ministers to examine, as a major priority, improvements to the agreement's code of conduct --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Elliott: Specifically I'm interested in the changes that Ontario is undertaking for reducing interprovincial trade barriers.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Again, I think this House is very much aware, with the assistance of both government opposition parties that began some of the work, that we have achieved an agreement with Quebec on labour mobility in the construction industry. We're all hopeful that this will be successful so that we have more access to Quebec construction for Ontario contractors and workers.

With the commitment to open up the MUSH sector, our companies and workers in Ontario can look forward to getting access to a much larger market across the country and can be assured of a level playing field for the contracts that we're successful with.

I think all of these actions will mean more and better jobs for Ontarians and all Canadians. It's been ongoing work for all of us in this House since we've been in government collectively.

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government has discontinued the northern support grant which has traditionally compensated the north for assessment deficiency and increased service costs; and

"Whereas the north is confronted with unique costs, severe weather conditions, higher prices, difficult terrain, higher levels of unemployment and a lower per capita income; and

"Whereas the provincial government has indicated its intention to eliminate all municipal unconditional grants, including the conditional road subsidy; and

"Whereas there has been no indication that the Ontario mining tax which was implemented to fund northern support grants will be eliminated or reduced;

"Now therefore

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" be petitioned to fully support and endorse "the position taken by the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, FONOM, in its paper entitled Fairness and Equity for Our North, and that the province be requested to enact a new act to establish and provide on a permanent basis northern Ontario investments for northern municipalities to provide funds to maintain the basic infrastructure in terms of roads, water and sewer facilities and provide funds to stimulate the social and economic development of the north; and

"Further, we the undersigned believe that the amount set aside for the northern development investments be equivalent to the amount set aside for the northern support grant in 1989 indexed on an annual basis."

I affix my signature to this petition, as every northern Ontarian is in support of it.

WELLESLEY CENTRAL HOSPITAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the decision of closing Wellesley Central Hospital. We see this as cutting services, which will negatively affect the overall health of our community.

"We are deeply concerned about our future health care for treatment of acute illness and for emergency care.

"We support the alliance between Wellesley Central Hospital and Women's College Hospital as the only solution."

This is signed by 306 residents of the city of Toronto. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with the petitioners.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 192 people from the London area. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

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

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

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

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Health follows through on the commitment made last April to set up this long-awaited and much-needed health service for Cornwall area residents."

That has been signed by 64 residents of Cornwall and SD&G, and I also signed the petition.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have the following petition to present to the Legislature:

"Over half the people in Ontario are women; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm proud to add my name to theirs.

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition signed by a group of 1,800 constituents who are extremely concerned about the performance of Marilyn Manson at the Ottawa-Carleton Congress Centre on August 1.

These taxpayers strongly object to this group, who promote teen suicide, racial hatred and anti-Christian activity, taking place in a facility which is built and constructed and operated with taxpayers' money. I share their outrage and I am pleased to sign my own name to the petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition signed by more than 3,000 people. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Court of Appeal of Ontario has ruled that it is not an indecent act under the Criminal Code for a woman to go topless in public,

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

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to immediately enact legislation to prohibit women from being topless in public."

I will sign the petition.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the petitioners. This petition has been signed by 52 people of Toronto and we agree with them entirely. I've affixed my signature to it as well.

WATER CHLORINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been signed by well over 300 people, and I'm very pleased to add my name to this list.

CREMATORIUM IN VAUGHAN

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Ontario Legislature, the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ministry of Environment, and it reads as follows:

"Re: Amendments to the city of Vaughan official plan and zoning bylaws to permit a crematory, a cemetery, a columbarium, crematorium and chapel on a 1.769-hectare site at the northeast corner of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue West in the city of Vaughan:

"We, the undersigned, object strongly to the cemetery, columbarium and crematorium that the city of Vaughan has approved so close to our residential community at the abovenoted location in the city of Vaughan. All of us live in the city of North York but in very close proximity to this proposed use. We object to having a large-scale death industry, including a cemetery and the burning of human bodies as a daily event, literally on our doorsteps.

"We are appalled that a conservation authority and the city of Vaughan municipality would do this to us and we ask for your help to stop it. We ask the Minister of Environment to intervene and stop it now. The health of thousands of residents will be at risk. We urge you not to grant approval to this project."

I concur with the petition and I will affix my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by members of CUPE, OPSEU, CAW and United Steelworkers. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support these petitioners and add my name to theirs.

DROUGHT RELIEF IN RENFREW

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that our elected officials work to obtain financial assistance for farmers in Horton township affected by the severe drought and throughout the county of Renfrew."

The member for Renfrew North and myself have been working with the Minister of Agriculture trying to obtain some direct assistance for this very serious situation, and I now affix my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will effectively suspend all labour relation rights from municipal, health and school board employees affected by provincially forced amalgamations; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will hurt average workers in every community across Ontario, including nurses, teachers, firemen and police officers; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 was designed to provide the government with sweeping powers to override longstanding labour negotiation rights for workers, including the right to negotiate, the right to strike, the right to seek binding arbitration and the right to choose a bargaining unit;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support our MPP, Frank Miclash, in his opposition to this legislation and join him in calling upon the Harris government to repeal Bill 136, which creates a climate of confrontation in Ontario."

I have attached my name to the petition as well.

RENT REGULATION

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act;

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with;

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants;

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing;

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the `rent freeze' which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws, which provide true protection for tenants, in place."

I am proud to affix my signature.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people of Ontario are women;

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by many people from my riding, and I'll sign it.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Hamilton East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning the fire in Hamilton. This matter will be debated at 6 pm this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mrs Ecker moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 142,

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

Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la

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

Loi sur les prestations familiales, la

Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 142, the Social Assistance Reform Act. This bill introduces two new legislative frameworks: the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and the Ontario Works Act. I will be followed by the member for York-Mackenzie, Frank Klees, who will speak to the specifics of the Ontario Works Act, and the member for Chatham-Kent, Jack Carroll, who will address the specifics of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

This legislation keeps two of the major commitments in the Common Sense Revolution. We promised major reform for Ontario's welfare system. We promised the creation of a new and separate program for people with disabilities.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Point of order, Mr Speaker: It's not clear whether the member is saying she is splitting her time between those people and she needs to get unanimous consent in order to split her time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles Morin): I didn't hear anything so please carry on.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much. We promised the creation of a new and separate program for people with disabilities. With this legislation we are keeping both promises.

For people with disabilities, this will create a new program which significantly improves income and employment supports. For Ontario's welfare system, self-sufficiency will become the goal. We have been guided by three principles in these reforms: fairness, accountability and effectiveness.

Social programs simply must be fair to both the people who need them and the taxpayers who pay for them. There is a mutual and interlocking set of accountabilities. Ontario Works participants are accountable for their own efforts to become self-sufficient and to join or rejoin the workforce.

Government is accountable to taxpayers and to those for whom the programs are designed. In addition to short-term financial support, government must both provide practical steps that will aid in a rapid return to employment and encourage the economic climate that will ensure those jobs will be available.

Programs that merely provide financial assistance that make no contribution towards assisting, for example, welfare recipients back into the workforce are a double failure. They let down both people who need assistance and the taxpayers. They perpetuate the cost and they prolong the problem.

Effectiveness means far more than spending dollars where they are most needed. Effectiveness means programs that work and that are seen to work. Effectiveness produces positive results -- the shortest route to self-sufficiency and a job in the case of people on welfare. For people with disabilities, it produces better control over living and job supports, more assured income and a better chance of securing and retaining work. Fairness, accountability and effectiveness.

Let me now address the two reform packages in greater detail, beginning with the Ontario disability support program. People with disabilities have been telling Ontario governments for years that the system wasn't working. Their income support came from welfare, and that fact has limited society's view of what people with disabilities can do. It has failed to match their own self-expectations. It has categorized them as permanently unemployable, a label and stigma that is false, unfair and wrong. Put most simply, the old welfare program did not meet their needs.

For people with disabilities, employment supports and services were delivered under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act. There were some success stories, but there were also many horror stories from a system staggering under arbitrary rules and processes.

I've spoken before of the man who needed artificial arms for a training course as a mechanic. When the training was over he got his licence, but the program took the arms back. He wasn't deemed unemployable, because he was a licensed mechanic, so he couldn't get disability benefits. He couldn't get help from another program because that supplied prosthetic limbs only to assist in acts of daily living, not for employment aids. And on it went.

This isn't a criticism of the people working in the system, those who deliver those services. The fault lies with the system itself. Inside and outside government a great many people knew what was wrong, but somehow the necessary political priority to fix it never materialized. It has now. These criticisms were made forcefully and repeatedly to us during the consultations we conducted. People with disabilities and the organizations that represent them asked for a separate program to meet their needs; we agreed.

They asked for more personal control and choice, more flexibility and practicality in the supports to employment that were available to them; we agreed. They asked for an end to mandatory counselling. It should be available for those who do need it, but not forced on those who don't; again we agreed.

The important new focus has to be on abilities, not disabilities. The new program has to look at what people can do and want to do, not what they can't do, and it will. The final instruction from the consultations was simply to get on with it, and we are.

The purpose and goal of this legislation is a comprehensive and effective program for people with disabilities. It will meet their unique needs. It will provide greater fairness and consistency.

Our first objective was that the reformed program begin with clear and understandable criteria for eligibility. They will assess how a disability restricts activities at home, in the community and in the workplace. We will end frequent retesting and reassessment. Obviously, retesting is needed and useful in cases where conditions are expected to improve, but in others repeated assessments are personally intrusive and a waste of time and money.

We know that some people with disabilities need lifelong support. For others, the needs are of shorter duration or cyclical. In both cases, many people with disabilities want to live and work with as much independence as possible. So our second objective is that the new program provide greater opportunities for independence.

There are unique costs that result from disability, and it is only fair that these be recognized more fully. Under the old system, for example, when a person with a disability found employment but the job did not work out for whatever reason, there are delays in the reinstatement of benefits. They have to reapply, leaving them for a period without disability benefits. That practice will end. Benefits will be reinstated immediately if the employment cannot continue.

There are other improvements in the new program. We intend to raise the limits on cashable assets and on retention of compensation awards. We will remove the fees for technological aids that assist in daily living. We will permit loans against life insurance policies to assist with the costs of such serious illnesses as AIDS and cancer.

All families in Ontario want to help their children to a secure future. That is particularly true for the families of people with disabilities. Those families spoke loudly and clearly during the consultations. They wanted and they will have the ability to make contributions to their loved one without triggering a financial penalty. They will now be able to buy specially equipped furniture or appliances or bathroom fixtures, for example, without that cost being deducted from the disability benefits their family member receives.

They wanted and will have the ability to make annual contributions towards other costs to improve the quality of life of their family member, such as vacation, travel or housing supplements. They wanted and will have higher limits on inheritances and more flexible rules on their use. They wanted and will have more generous rules governing family trusts.

The final major theme we heard repeatedly during the consultations was that people with disabilities do work, can work and want to work. So the third objective is to assist them towards that goal with practical employment supports that produce real and measurable results. The range of potential supports will be broader, from employment planning assistance and skills development through technological aids and devices to interpreters and ongoing job supports. The range is very wide and will be tailored to individual needs.

It might include a voice-activated computer, for example, or specialized training or job coaching. Consultation and advisory services for the employer, the new employee and his or her fellow workers will be available both initially and on an ongoing, on-demand basis. People with disabilities that create a substantial barrier to seeking, getting or keeping a job will have much more choice and much more control over the supports they need and receive.

In replacing rather than simply amending the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act, we are recognizing the judgement of people with disabilities themselves. The existing act had its successes, but its weaknesses were so widespread that fundamental change was needed. That act is being replaced. We intend to see that the Ontario disability support program is significantly more effective than its predecessor.

Among other changes, there will be more resources going directly to services and less to administration. The current training allowances under the VRS Act will be reinvested in employment supports under the Ontario disability support plan. When the system is completely implemented, spending on employment supports for people with disabilities will increase from approximately $18 million today to close to $35 million.

Another change has to do with drug and alcohol addiction. Under the current welfare system, people with drug and alcohol dependencies are included with people with disabilities, regardless of their specialized needs. That will no longer be the case. In future, for those requiring treatment for addiction, there will continue to be substance abuse programs available through the Ministry of Health. If income support is necessary, those individuals would apply for financial assistance under Ontario Works.

The new Ontario disability support program, then, has three clear objectives: It recognizes unique needs; it supports independence; it supports employment. Moreover, it takes into account the shared responsibilities of governments, communities, families and individuals. It translates the principles of fairness, accountability and effectiveness into reality.

We were therefore particularly pleased at the initial reaction that welcomed these proposals. Mr Gary Malkowski, of the Canadian Hearing Society, a former NDP member of this Legislature, described the bill as the most positive kind of announcement we've had in some time. The NDP member for Beaches-Woodbine said on June 5 that the proposed legislation has the potential of becoming one of the most significantly positive programs for people with disabilities in Ontario. I thank them both for those comments and I agree. It is this government's intention to ensure that potential is realized.

We remain open to additional ideas and suggestions while the legislation is being considered and the regulations developed.

Let me now turn to the changes we are proposing for Ontario's welfare system. It is difficult to imagine an area of public policy that was more in need of fundamental reform. When we assumed office just over two years ago, Ontario's welfare system was out of control. Previous NDP and Liberal governments increased payment levels to record heights. And the end result? The number of people on welfare tripled between 1985 and 1995. Costs went up by a factor of five, from $1.3 billion to $6.8 billion annually. In just one decade NDP and Liberal governments had spent $40 billion on welfare.

When we became the government, 12% of Ontarians were trapped on welfare. Canada's richest province had the highest per capita welfare caseload in the country. I think that's a shameful record. Even the previous government recognized that the system wasn't working. Former Premier Bob Rae said, "It doesn't make sense to pay people to sit at home." One of his community and social services ministers said: "If there's one thing just about everyone agrees with, it's that Ontario's welfare system isn't working. It's an expensive system. It's a confusing system." But that recognition did not translate into needed reforms. By June 1995 there were 1.3 million people trapped on welfare.

We were elected to do, actually do, what previous governments had only talked about and it is important to note that these legislative reforms are the next and most important step in a series of concrete reforms, many of them already in place.

We started with the obvious: People are better off working. First came jobs. Our government's economic and fiscal policies are aimed straight at creating a climate of sustainable economic growth. The results speak for themselves: 124,000 new jobs in the last five months alone. To give people on welfare the skills and experience to help them seek, find and hold jobs, we introduced mandatory workfare. Doing nothing is no longer a choice.

But our reforms did not stop there. Welfare rates were reduced. The new rates are still 10% above the average of Canada's other nine provinces. Recipients are allowed to earn back the difference between the old and new rates without penalty. It was and is the most generous earn-back provision in the country.

To protect the system for those who truly need it, we must stop those who abuse it. We established a welfare fraud hotline, the first of several moves to reduce and eliminate this theft from taxpayers and those on the system.

To stop those on welfare from collecting benefits from government programs they are not eligible for, we are developing new information-sharing agreements with other provinces and Ottawa and between ministries. This is necessary, for example, to stop welfare cheques going to prisoners. We tightened eligibility for teenagers, for people living in common-law relationships, for people who left jobs voluntarily or refused employment. Those and other reforms are already showing results.

There are 210,000 fewer Ontarians relying on welfare, an unprecedented reduction in the caseload. An independent 1996 survey found that more than 60% of those leaving the system left for employment-related reasons. Over $8 million has been recovered through the welfare fraud hotline. More than 36,000 people have already participated in one or more of the mandatory Ontario Works activities in the more than 35 municipalities already delivering the program. Participants' experience has been overwhelmingly positive. So has that of the municipalities and organizations working with them.

Those initial reforms were important. They proved what could be accomplished with a different approach. But they are just a beginning, a downpayment on the commitment we made to Ontarians to deliver fundamental welfare reform. This legislation before us today simply continues down that path. As promised, it will fundamentally change the welfare system from handing out cheques to getting people back to work, from trapping people in dependency to encouraging self-sufficiency. This bill was designed using the same three principles referred to earlier: fairness, accountability and effectiveness.

A welfare system has to be fair to the working Ontarians who pay for it. It has to be fair to those who need its help. A fair welfare system has to be a program of last resort designed to get people back into the workforce. A fair welfare system has to ensure that people are better off at work than on welfare. Welfare is not a way of life. Welfare is about to become a way back to work.

These changes in both philosophy and practice have been criticized, but the criticism ignores several essential points: there is no humanity in warehousing people in the name of social assistance; there is no compassion in fostering dependence instead of building self-respect and self-reliance; there is no fairness in wasting human potential by not acting to fix what we know is not working.

A good welfare system provides income when people have nowhere else to turn. A good system simultaneously helps them find the fastest possible route to a paying job, of the jobs that Ontario's growing economy is producing. Government must be actively accountable for designing and delivering the programs and we will be. Those who receive welfare must be actively accountable for participating in those programs and they also will be.

I want to draw the members' attention to six changes in particular proposed in the bill: (1) to include sole-support parents; (2) newly mandatory services for children; (3) the future recovery of a portion of taxpayers' investment from welfare recipients who own their own homes; (4) new measures to reduce fraud; (5) an improved delivery system; and (6) the ministry's role in monitoring compliance.

First, the changes for sole-support parents. We know that the longer a parent is on welfare, the tougher it is to get off. We know that children are better off when their parent is working. We therefore intend to provide single parents with the same opportunities available to others on welfare. Participation in Ontario Works will be mandatory for single parents with children in school. If child care is needed, it will be provided. The government has committed $30 million to meet these needs. The inclusion of sole-support parents is one of the most effective ways of breaking the cycle of dependency that can be so depressingly familiar: Grow up on welfare, live on welfare.

Second, we are proposing an improvement in access to basic services for children. Until now, basic vision and dental care for children in financial need have been discretionary under the General Welfare Assistance Act. We believe that those services should be mandatory for all children who are beneficiaries of Ontario Works, and under the new program they will be.

The third key change here deals with recovery of some portion of the taxpayers' investment. An important authority conferred by the Ontario Works Act relates to the ability to place a lien on the residence of a person on welfare where circumstances warrant. The purpose is to allow taxpayers to recover a portion of their investment and support, but only when a home is eventually sold or refinanced or when ownership changes. No one is going to be forced to sell their home to satisfy such a lien.

A fourth change would improve our ability to fight fraud. Estimated fraud levels have ranged from 3% to 10%. The Provincial Auditor has stated that fraud may be as high as $100 million a year. Various commentators have said that those figures are either way too high or way too low. I say they're way too much and no amount of fraud is acceptable. This form of theft from taxpayers is not going to be tolerated, not just because it takes money away from those who truly need it. Welfare fraud destroys the credibility and justification for a welfare system in the minds of those who pay for it. It stigmatizes those doing their best to get off the system.

The Ontario Works Act provides two broad approaches to reducing and eliminating welfare fraud. There are tougher rules for who can get welfare and tougher penalties for those who abuse it. The new legislation also gives government the authority to use new identification technologies. We must be certain that only those who need welfare will receive it.

One of the technologies with great potential is finger scanning. Members who have heard or read misinformed criticism of this technology should know that finger scanning is not fingerprinting as used by police authorities. It is a much more sophisticated approach to individual identification and verification.

The process of electronically scanning a finger produces a unique identification number. It can only be reproduced when the same individual's finger is scanned again. Having the number does not allow the re-creation of the fingerprint and therefore protects privacy. The only purpose is to prevent the claiming of benefits under multiple names or false identities. It is just one tool, but an important one, and it is now being tested and evaluated by Metro Toronto. If it can be used on a cost-effective basis to reduce fraud, we plan to introduce it province-wide.

The fifth key change in this bill is structural. The Ontario Works Act contains the first substantial legislative changes to how we actually deliver welfare programs and services in more than 30 years. The existing system, delivered by two levels of government, created needless duplication and waste. The bill provides for one welfare system delivered at the municipal level. Municipalities have a proven track record in delivering welfare. These governments are closer to their communities, they are more flexible and they can be more cost-effective.

At the same time, we will reduce the number of municipalities delivering welfare from some 200 to approximately 50, thereby streamlining administration. Municipal and first nation delivery agents will be able to build on their experience and strength in providing programming that is sensitive to local needs. In addition to the changed delivery system, the bill also provides for a more effective and streamlined appeal process.

The sixth and final key change concerns the role of the ministry. The legislation ensures that across the province, Ontario Works will be delivered within a comprehensive framework of standards and common systems. The ministry will monitor compliance and ensure the standards are respected. I should emphasize that this applies to assistance under both the income and employment portions of Ontario Works.

If welfare is based on mutual responsibilities, if we are going to require people to participate in program activities as a condition of eligibility, there is a quid pro quo. Government and its delivery agents, in this case municipalities, have an equal responsibility to offer people an integrated program of the services and supports they need to become self-sufficient. The act provides the ministry with the authority to hold delivery agents responsible for making those services available

In

summary, our experience with Ontario Works already shows that the new approaches are working. The proposed legislative changes will help them work better still. For participants in Ontario Works, community participation is allowing them to improve their employability and make contacts with prospective employers. Referral to basic education and jobs-specific skills training is providing the opportunity to upgrade qualifications. Job search assistance and employment placement are delivering direct help in finding and getting a job.

These aren't just theories. Ontario Works participants themselves are telling us they work.

I'd like to read from an excerpt from a letter by a participant from Brockville:

"The placement has given me an opportunity to demonstrate my skills. Some of my co-workers and a few business associates have offered to supply me with employment references. As a result of my Ontario Works placement, my self-esteem has improved tremendously. I am a much happier, confident person today and I am only in my third month. I strongly support and recommend this program, and I truly believe anyone would benefit from participating in Ontario Works."

A 22-year-old single mother in Sault Ste Marie recently said this about her experience with Ontario Works: "It's a great opportunity for me to get job experience. I love it, being able to do something with myself, knowing I can give my kids a future. I don't want to rely on the government. Now I feel better about myself."

The purpose of the Ontario Works legislation is exactly that kind of outcome, to give people on welfare the opportunity to get off. The three components of mandatory workfare -- community participation, job supports and job placement -- are being tested. We find they work in theory and in practice.

The programs that will result from this bill are fair to taxpayers and to those on welfare. All involved are clearly and specifically accountable. The positive results already available to date prove the effectiveness of these new approaches.

The Social Assistance Reform Act fulfils our promises to people with disabilities, to people on welfare and to the taxpayers of Ontario. The Ontario Works Act significantly improves the job prospects of people who are