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

March 26, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L047 - Tue 26 Mar 1996 / Mar 26 Mar 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANDEANA ZENHA

HEALTH CARE

RAYMOND DRISCOLL

ECONOMIC POLICY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION REFORM

LAND USE PLANNING

MARIPOSA SCHOOL OF SKATING

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

POLICE COMPLAINTS

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

HIGHWAY 27

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

COMMENTS OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

INJURED WORKERS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

PETITIONS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

MASSASAUGA PROVINCIAL PARK

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

PAY EQUITY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

TAX REDUCTION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

EDUCATION SURVEY

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANDEANA ZENHA

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Never has a father's love been more apparent, and unless you have experienced -- as have the members for Parry Sound, Algoma and Brant-Haldimand -- the loss of a loved one, you cannot appreciate the love of a father.

I speak today on Mr Zenha's behalf. Joe's vigil is over. Mr Zenha doesn't know who changed their mind. Mr Zenha doesn't know why there was a change of mind. What Mr Zenha does know is that the decision made is a first major step in Andeana's recovery. She and her mother will fly to Texas immediately, where treatment will begin, providing the 17-year-old with a new lease on life.

Joe has asked that I thank publicly all those in this House who effected this decision. Joe wants me as well to thank the people of Sudbury and to thank the people of Ontario for their massive show of support through letters, prayers, money, faxes and in many, many different ways. Finally, Joe wants me to tell the House that often the best solutions are achieved when legislators drop their ideological differences and work together for what is right.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On Monday morning of this week, I attended a meeting in Sault Ste Marie and a press conference of health professionals and consumers to defend the right of workers to have a say in how their workplace changes and how the services they deliver get restructured and to raise a red flag regarding the cuts to health care implemented and expected by this government.

Jobs and services are under attack in an unprecedented way across the province as the Harris agenda unfolds. Sault Ste Marie is very vulnerable and in double jeopardy in any exercise of major downsizing in the public sector. Jobs we lose are very difficult to replace, and it's not just a matter of a short drive down the road once we lose a service. As it relates to our health care and, most particularly, our hospitals in Sault Ste Marie, we have done the work, we have streamlined. Any further cuts will most certainly mean a reduction in both the amount and the quality of service.

I will not stand by and watch services move to Sudbury or Toronto, places experiencing their own cutbacks. I will not support contracting out that sees jobs and money leave my community. I understand the difficult challenge faced by the boards and administration of our now, for all intents and purposes, one hospital; however, I do not think we should simply be compliant. We have to fight back. Quality of services, indeed quality of life and the very viability of our community are at risk here.

I have people calling me and coming to my office telling me stories of their disappointment, frustration and pain as they and their loved ones try to access the medical --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

RAYMOND DRISCOLL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I stand to mark the passing of a wonderful citizen, Mr Raymond T. Driscoll of Otonabee township near Peterborough. Ray served his country, his community and his family. He served in the navy during the Second World War, was elected as school trustee, hospital board member and reeve for many years. In his untimely death, Ray leaves behind his wife, Lillian, and children, Julie, Daniel, Richard, Jane, Jill and Joann. Raymond T. Driscoll was my uncle and a lifelong role model for me and others in the community. I trust all members of this Legislature will join with me and extend our thanks to people like Ray Driscoll who serve their community with distinction.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a lot of questions.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Oh, oh.

Mr Duncan: "Oh, oh" is right.

What do you call it when you adopt the failed policies of the Republican Party and Newt Gingrich? What do you call it when you brand all of those who disagree with you as special interests? What do you call it when you cry about a debt load and then proceed to borrow $5 billion for a tax cut? What do you call it when you bring in a tax cut and then introduce massive new user fees, cut public education and close hospitals? What do you call a job creation plan that involves getting rid of teachers and firing 20,000 civil servants? What do you call it when you label environmental safeguards as useless red tape?

What do you call it when your idea of getting tough on crime means reducing the number of police officers?

The answer to all of these questions is one word: Mikeonomics. It's been tried in many places and many times. However, the lessons of history are something that Mikeonomics has chosen to ignore. This should come as no surprise because Mike Harris himself once said, "Too much knowledge is a dangerous thing." This statement is a good illustration of the intellectual roots of Mikeonomics, which are the same as those of weather forecasting: rarely accurate, devoid of memory and therefore cheerful about being wrong. As Ontario prepares itself for this bellyful of Mikeonomics, fasten your seatbelts; it won't be pleasant.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Yesterday we witnessed an unbelievable spectacle: the Premier of the province telling people that his cuts to hospitals, to schools, to communities and to law enforcement have nothing to do with the tax break he is giving to the wealthiest people of the province. The Premier obviously thinks that the people of Ontario can't add and subtract. Let me give the Premier a little arithmetic lesson so he will understand what people in community after community have already figured out.

The budget of the hospital corporation in my constituency has been cut by almost $600,000. The hospital corporation runs a hospital in the town of Fort Frances, one in the village of Emo and one in the village of Rainy River. The hospital corporation knows it will face further cuts of $600,000 next year and another $600,000 the year after that, for a total reduction of $1.8 million over three years. The two small rural hospitals have annual budgets of about $1.5 million per year each.

The board of directors of the hospital corporation is faced with the unsavoury option of closing one of the small rural hospitals because the Premier and the Minister of Health have cut the budgets. The Premier may not be able to figure it out, but the people who live in the small communities of Emo and Rainy River understand that their hospital will be closed and they understand at the same time that while their budget is being cut, the Premier is going to make money available for the wealthiest people in Ontario.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Last Thursday I had the opportunity to travel to Waterloo to discuss education with students from Waterloo Collegiate high school.

Organizers of the debate were disappointed to have to leave an empty chair on the stage for the length of the debate. That empty chair was set for none other than the invisible minister, Elizabeth Witmer, whose riding incidentally we were in that evening. Stranger still was that Minister Witmer couldn't get a Tory member to replace her. I ask, where was the member for the riding of Kitchener, where was the member for Kitchener-Wilmot? How disappointing, given that John Sweeney, also from Kitchener-Wilmot, has shown such leadership in the area of education reform.

When Minister Snobelen released his toolkit -- or as the director for the Waterloo region separate school board calls it, toy kit -- the former chairwoman of the Kitchener board of education, Elizabeth Witmer, was on the phone to her riding at 7 am, apologizing for the government. Yes, even the minister knew the toolkit was useless. She told her people she was trying to make Minister Snobelen understand, but she had failed. Yes, Minister Witmer knows those cuts will affect the classroom.

To the minister from Waterloo we say, "I'm sorry" isn't good enough. Those of us who looked at an empty chair all night think the Conservative members from the Waterloo region did an enormous disservice to their community.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I just came from a mock funeral attended by environmental and housing advocates from across Ontario. We were mourning the loss of affordable housing, apartments in houses, public transit, wetlands and woodlands, biological diversity, specialty crop lands, clean groundwater and public transportation in the planning process. Today, Bill 20, the Tories' new, regressive Planning Act comes a step closer to law.

Over 23,000 people from across Ontario were involved in a four-year process to reform planning in Ontario under the NDP government. A delicate, difficult balance was formed between development and environmental protection interests. Now, in just a few short months, years of reform and public consultation are out the window.

We now have a bill which was written for developers mostly by developers. Mike Harris is sacrificing the environment for profits for his pals. Bill 20 will mean open season for land developers on wetlands, ravines and significant natural features.

I say to this government, they are going to see down the road what a huge mistake they're making, because there are going to be more appeals to the OMB. The laws are now so unclear that people won't know which way is which, and I say, shame on the Minister of Environment and Energy for not getting more involved in this process and for signing off on such a regressive bill.

MARIPOSA SCHOOL OF SKATING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Over the weekend, thousands of people across the country and around the world were glued to their television sets watching the 1996 World Figure Skating Championships from Edmonton.

I am pleased that my riding of Simcoe Centre was able to play a

part in this spectacular sporting event. Barrie is very fortunate to be home to the Mariposa School of Skating, which has produced world champions Brian Orser and Elvis Stojko. This year, Mariposa sent six national seniors champions to compete for a world title.

Elvis Stojko, Jennifer Robinson and the pairs team of Michelle Menzies and Jean-Michel Bombardier did a fine job for Canada. Across the Atlantic, fans also cheered for Steven Cousins and Markus Leminen, the men's champions from Great Britain and Finland. Both of these athletes train in Barrie.

Not only does Mariposa attract skaters from around the globe, but it encourages the ethics of sportsmanship and hard work among all its athletes. Whether they always bring home a medal, and Mariposa has won many, the people of Simcoe Centre can tell you that, both on and off the ice, the skaters of Mariposa are always first class.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, you will be aware that last September Ontario Hydro issued a discussion paper entitled Competition, Customer Choice and Convergence: A New Structure for Ontario's Electricity Industry. That paper concluded that a total privatization of Ontario Hydro would cause electricity rates to rise by as much as 32%. Lo and behold, when that paper was submitted in January to the provincial commission studying the future of Ontario's electricity system, all references to rate increases caused by privatization had simply disappeared. Minister, what changed between September and January?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Right now Ontario Hydro is facing some competitive challenges. We have had a number of rate increases over the years. The government has taken its first step in trying to meet those challenges by introducing a rate freeze over five years. In addition to that, we have established the Macdonald commission to look at the competitive issues facing Ontario Hydro, and it is due to report to me at the end of next month. It's my understanding that this commission, in travelling across the province and receiving submissions from a number of groups, has in fact received over 200 submissions.

The member asks me specific information about one of those, that it may have changed from the fall until the time it was submitted. I would say, in response to that, that in meeting with people from the very time I became minister until presently, many of them have come forward with a number of different ideas that changed regularly as they have listened to other ideas being put forward by people with regard to rates. I don't think anyone in the entire world has a definitive answer on what would happen with rates in any situation of change.

Mrs McLeod: I am absolutely amazed that the Minister of Environment and Energy has just referred to the Ontario Hydro management report on what would happen in privatization to hydro rates as "a submission" which could then be changed and altered as different views were heard. Presumably, Ontario Hydro had evidence behind the report that it made public in September that showed hydro rate increases of as much as 32%. Presumably, there was some reason why those estimates disappeared when the report was made by Hydro to the Macdonald commission studying privatization.

The minister will be well aware that in that presentation to the Macdonald commission Ontario Hydro's president, Al Kupcis, said he didn't know, he had no idea, what impact privatization would have on hydro rates.

Minister, I ask you, what prompted you and Hydro officials to back away from the conclusion that they came to in September that privatization would increase rates by up to 32%? While you're at it, don't you think it's irresponsible for Hydro management to make a statement that they have no idea what would happen to rates under privatization?

Hon Mrs Elliott: With all due respect, when someone comes before the Macdonald commission with a report, it is not my report, it is the report of the presenter. It is up to them to put into that submission what they feel is appropriate. This was in fact, if you're referring to Ontario Hydro's report, their report. They are entitled to put in it whatever they choose. I would remind my colleagues that we are about to make changes to Ontario Hydro, so we are the recipient of advice and ideas.

Mrs McLeod: I would, with all due respect, suggest to you, Minister, that there is one real reason behind the change in the report that Hydro put out in September and the report that it made to the Macdonald commission, and that one change was a political appointment, the responsibility of your government and your Premier, and it was the appointment of Mr Bill Farlinger, the Premier's friend and a clear promoter of Hydro privatization as the chair of Ontario Hydro.

Minister, you were quoted last week as saying that the government had not made a commitment to privatize Hydro. But last week Mr Farlinger told the Canadian Club, despite the fact you've got a commission studying it, supposedly independently, "We have to break Hydro up so that we have competition in generation, and that inevitably will involve some privatization."

I suggest to you it is only too clear that you are not prepared to talk about rate increases because the Premier and his friend want to privatize Hydro at any cost for ideological reasons, and damn the impact on the ratepayer.

Minister, will you make public all the information that was used by Hydro last September to conclude that privatization would cause Hydro rates to rise by as much as 32%?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Within Ontario Hydro itself, we have the Power Workers' Union with one opinion, we have the society members with another opinion, we have the managers with another opinion and we have the chairman with yet another opinion. I would put to you that there are hundreds of opinions in this province as to how to go forward with Ontario Hydro.

My commitment, and the commitment of this government, to the people of Ontario is to reform Ontario Hydro with three things in mind: achieving the lowest rates and achieving reliable power and safe power for the people of this province.

Mrs McLeod: I wasn't seeking opinion; I was seeking the minister's concurrence to table evidence, the evidence that Hydro used, and I trust that she will see fit to follow up on that request.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'll place my second question to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, you indicated last week that some $1 billion could be saved in what you term non-classroom spending. You implied with your response that boards should not be in the business of laying off teachers and hurting classroom education, in spite of your budget cuts, if they would just somehow cut administration.

We want you today to be a little more specific about what you think can be cut in what you call non-classroom spending. For example, and again I want you to be specific, of the $1 billion that you told us last week could be saved, how much do you feel can be saved through the amalgamation of school boards, and when do you think those particular savings will be realized?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we've had a report on the amalgamation of various school boards across the province. The Sweeney commission reported I believe now about a month ago, and I have asked the MPPs to go out and talk with people in their ridings, because I think it's important that we have a lot of input on this issue. They will report back to me by the end of May and we'll consider the input of MPPs from all parties in this chamber.

Mrs McLeod: The problem is that the budget cuts are happening right now. Any plans you might have, whether through amalgamation or otherwise, to find what you call out-of-classroom savings are not going to be implemented for who knows when, if ever, and in the meantime boards are trying to cope with your funding cuts today, they are laying off teachers and that is going to hurt classroom spending.

I think it's reasonable, Minister, to expect you to be more specific about what you think boards can do now to make those cuts without laying off teachers and without hurting classroom education.

I want to give you one specific example, because you did tell MPPs to go out and talk to their local boards. Let me use my local board, the Lakehead Board of Education, as an example. The only amalgamation that's been recommended with that particular board is amalgamation with an unorganized township of Kashabowie, and yet the Lakehead Board of Education is expected to find, I think, at least $2.5 million in savings to meet your $1-billion target.

I ask you, Minister, do you expect the Lakehead Board of Education to find some of those savings through this amalgamation, and if not, where do you think the Lakehead Board of Education should find $2.5 million in administrative savings?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The ministry will be releasing its grant information to the boards across the province in the very near future, so particular boards will know exactly what the grant formula will be for next year in the very near future.

However, I'd like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Sweeney commission report did not talk simply about amalgamation of boards, and that's not something that we've booked savings to. We most certainly would consider changing the governance structure of education if it led to more affordability, more accountability and a higher quality of education in the province. We'd consider those kinds of governance changes.

I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Sweeney commission identified that 47% of spending on education across the province happens outside of the classroom, by that commission's definition, and that the commission suggested that should be lowered to 40%. I think that if the Leader of the Opposition does some mathematics, she'll find that 7% represents almost $1 billion in savings, so I would recommend to her that she read the report.

Mrs McLeod: I have indeed read the report and I am aware of the total body of recommendations, none of which will be implemented, if this government intends to act on them, in time to stop boards from having to deal with the cuts that will be in the grants announced this week. Those cuts are going to mean teacher layoffs and those cuts are going to mean cuts to classroom education, and this minister refuses to give us any other alternative.

Let me take you back to my specific example, because I want to try to get you past this general statement that you keep making that somehow boards should be able to avoid teacher layoffs by finding this mythical administrative savings cut. The Lakehead board will not find savings from their amalgamation with Kashabowie. You may be aware Kashabowie doesn't have a board of education, it doesn't have any schools, it doesn't have any trustees, it only has three students, and those three students go into school in the Lakehead anyway.

That might look like an amalgamation on paper when you point to a list of school boards amalgamated, but they certainly aren't going to find any $2.5 million of savings there.

There's something else that the minister must know, because in your own ministry documents it very clearly shows that the Lakehead Board of Education in 1995 will be spending 88% of its dollars on what your ministry calls instruction. Only 12% of their education dollars are going to everything else, from business administration to general administration, to plant operation and maintenance, to transportation, to capital expenditures and debt charges, and 88% goes to what the ministry calls instruction. Where do you expect that board to find $2.5 million in cuts?

Hon Mr Snobelen: As I said a moment ago, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will understand that our grants for the school boards have not been released yet. They will be released in the very near future and we'll know what each individual board will have available in terms of grant next year.

However, though I can't talk specifically about the board-by-board basis, I can talk to the Leader of the Opposition and reaffirm for her that Ontario, by almost anyone's measures, spends significantly more than the national average.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Windsor-Sandwich is out of order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe, and our government believes, that the local boards of education are committed to delivering education in an affordable way to the taxpayers, parents and students of Ontario. I believe, and I'm sure that if the Leader of the Opposition were to look at the various reports that have been done on this subject, there is a lot of room to make improvements in the quality of education in Ontario, without affecting that quality, to find a more affordable system. In fact, I believe we must do that for the future of the students of this province, and that's what this government is committed to.

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Attorney General. It's following up on the question raised by my colleague from London Centre yesterday regarding what we believe may be a compromising of the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The attorney will know that the government agreed to a public inquiry into the events around this place last Monday. The attorney will also know that at the same time five complaints have been laid with the office of the police complaints commissioner. I want to make clear here that the office of the police complaints commissioner is separate and distinct from the public inquiry that the government has agreed to. As you know, it is an ongoing body that at any time members of the public concerned about the conduct of police officers can lay complaints to under

part IV of the Police Services Act.

The office of the police complaints commissioner is a system of civilian review of regional, municipal and OPP conduct. In accordance with the act, a final report of the police complaints commission's investigation will be provided to the commissioner of the OPP, who has the responsibility to decide if there should be disciplinary action or indeed if there should be criminal charges laid or some sort of public inquiry into possible criminal activity.

Does the Attorney General agree that there are two separate processes in place here, one specific to the events of March 18 and the other an ongoing investigating office that deals with police conduct in general?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We are looking at all of those issues as we attempt to draft terms of reference for this inquiry that will be satisfactory to the opposition. Yes, I do acknowledge that the police complaints commission is independent, that the police complaints commission has complaints before it and that the police complaints commission is dealing with those complaints.

Mr Wildman: I'd like to make clear here that since we are dealing with two separate processes, the Ontario Provincial Police commissioner is ultimately responsible for deciding what disciplinary actions, if any, are warranted against OPP officers, indeed if criminal charges could be laid. The commissioner of the OPP, as the attorney is aware, is directly responsible and accountable to the Solicitor General of this province. The Solicitor General has already stated that in his judgement, the police acted appropriately.

As a matter of fact, the solicitor may have prejudiced the outcome of any such investigation by the complaints commissioner, and certainly any response to it by the commissioner of the OPP, because the police involved, or their lawyers, I suspect could claim that the Solicitor General has already been quoted as defending their actions.

As the chief law officer of the province, are you not concerned that the Solicitor General's statements could prejudice the investigation -- we're not talking here about the public inquiry -- and possibly the outcome of the complaints that have been laid before the police complaints commissioner?

Hon Mr Harnick: The office of the police complaints commission investigates independently of the government. The judge who heads that commission will perform that investigation. It's my recollection that what the Solicitor General stated he has always qualified as being those issues he personally observed.

Further, it is important to note that no one has any information about the individual complaints filed, no one knows who filed those complaints, no one knows the nature of those allegations.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harnick: I appreciate that the opposition asks this question without any intention of listening to the answer, because what they are doing is trying to make one giant stretch that they know they can't make, because those individual investigations that the police complaints commissioner is involved with are known only to the police complaints commissioner. That is the only individual who knows who made the complaints, the facts, the nature of them, and those will be investigated by that independent person.

Mr Wildman: The Attorney General will know clearly that while the investigation by the police complaints commissioner is independent, the results of that investigation go to the commissioner of the OPP, who reports to the Solicitor General of this province.

Since you raised the comments and the sequence of events, perhaps it would be useful to look at the actual quotes. On Tuesday, the Solicitor General was clearly aware -- he indicated he was -- of complaints being laid before the police complaints commissioner, and yet he said, "At the police complaints commission, there are already, I understand, two complaints that are possibly filed; at least they've been filed with the police service and may be formally filed with the police complaints commission, and perhaps others will follow."

Then on Wednesday, on his way into cabinet, after having had the opportunity to view confidential police videotapes, the Solicitor General stated: "I think they," the picketers, "were given fair warning. I think the tape indicates they were given fair warning and the picket lines broke down. I think there has been a breakdown in control by picket captains. In fact, I understand there were even physical altercations between picket captains along the line. I think it indicates that certainly the warnings were delivered in a variety of fashions, through megaphones, through the tapping of the shields, and those kinds of things occurred."

The Solicitor General was clearly aware that the complaints had been made against the police with the commissioner. He had access to confidential information. As the chief law officer of the crown, aren't you afraid that his comments carry a significant amount of weight in this matter, that they could indeed prejudice the actual investigation as perceived, affecting the outcome of the investigation and how the OPP commissioner might act on those outcomes? If that is the case, would you not agree that the Solicitor General should at least step aside while these investigations are ongoing to ensure that there is not any --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question's been asked.

Hon Mr Harnick: First of all, the Solicitor General has nothing to do with these ongoing investigations, and the acting leader of the third party knows that. If we also listen to the remarks of the acting leader of the third party, we know by listening to those remarks that there is not one single thing that he says, not one single thing, that impacts on an individual investigation of private complaints laid before the police complaints commissioner. Not one single thing.

Not only that, but when asked about this --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): What a joke. Go back to private practice.

Hon Mr Harnick: At least I'll have a private practice to go back to, Mr Cooke.

There is not one single thing that is mentioned that impacts on those individual investigations. There is nothing.

Further, the Solicitor General has made it very clear in this House, when asked about it -- and I notice that the opposition is afraid to ask him about it today -- that the observations that he made and that he commented on were what he saw. Again, I reiterate that the Solicitor General has absolutely nothing to do with the investigations that will take place.

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's very clear that the government is using a double standard around here, and this is a classic case of "That was then and this is now." My question is for the Solicitor General.

Clearly, the response from your Premier yesterday indicates that he doesn't understand the process that's involved in a complaints process. You know very well, Mr Solicitor General, that it's entirely inappropriate for you to comment on issues that are under investigation by the police complaints commission. It is an investigation, and you, of all people, who stood in this House again and again and again over the history of your membership here, know that it is inappropriate for a minister to be involved in any way or make any comment about an investigation, particularly when you are ultimately in charge of the operation.

The issue is totally separate from a public inquiry, as you know, and yet you tried to put this off as a complaint about the public inquiry. It is not, and you know that. You know your comments could influence the result of the investigations.

Let me just remind you that whenever there was any question of integrity or ministerial conduct under the previous government, your caucus was the first to raise concerns. Your Premier was one of the first to raise concerns about ministerial integrity and competence.

On May 28, 1991, for example, in talking about the Solicitor General, Mike Harris said: "The concern was whether the minister's actions were appropriate vis-à-vis the integrity of the arm's length of the justice system." But today the shoe is on the other foot. It is you, Solicitor General, who crossed the line. Will you live up to the words of your own caucus colleagues in similar situations? Will you do the honourable thing and tender your resignation?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm not about to take any career counselling from the member for London Centre or her gracious friend Gordon Wilson. I want to say as well that if there's anything shameful it's the conduct of the third party and the member for London Centre and her colleague the acting leader with respect to what they've done in terms of misrepresenting what I said. In terms of taking quotes out of context --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If the member is so inclined to use the word "misrepresenting," we sometimes find that offensive, and I would ask him if he would consider withdrawing it.

Hon Mr Runciman: If it offends you, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw, but it was quite clear, if you even listened to the tapes, certainly I made it abundantly clear I was not taking sides in what occurred on Monday. I think this is nothing more than very shameful political posturing on the part of the third party.

Mrs Boyd: Both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General have tried to separate their office from the position of their personal views, and in fact the Attorney General said the Solicitor General never commented on anything he didn't see directly. Well, go back to the statement he made on Wednesday morning. He said: "I think there was a breakdown in control by picket captains, and in fact I understand there were physical altercations between picket captains along the line. I think it indicates...." He did not observe that.

He may have observed confidential information that was given to him as the Solicitor General as the head of the police force in this province, not that he could use politically to try and lay blame in this case, and that is exactly the issue.

I would tell the Solicitor General that his integrity is clearly tarnished here. He has not lived up to his ministerial responsibilities. He has not kept an arm's-length relationship from the police complaints commission investigation. "The only arm's-length approach we have seen has been an arm's-length approach to accepting ministerial responsibility," said Mike Harris in May 1991, and on June 4, 1991, the now Premier stated in this House: "Not one of us is untouched by the Solicitor General's failure to live up to his ministerial responsibilities. Why will he not show some integrity and at the very least step aside?"

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Minister, will you follow your Premier's words, follow his advice and do the right thing before any further damage is done?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated earlier that I'm offended by the tone of this questioning. I'm especially offended by the member posing these questions. I want to remind the members of the third party and the members of this House that that member, as the Attorney General, signed a deal with Karla Homolka, a deal with the devil that most Ontarians find completely repugnant. When she's calling for resignations, I ask her to take a long look in the mirror.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Can we get some order in here? The member for Algoma, do you have a point of privilege?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The Solicitor General, if anything I've ever seen compounded his error before, that performance just now did that in terms of the respect for the justice system in this province. This member, a member of the cabinet, the Attorney General, all of us here and the general public are fully aware that this government asked for an independent investigation of the case the solicitor has just raised, by an independent member of the judiciary, who decided and made a report which was made public that completely accepted and justified the decisions made by the previous administration. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General --

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Take your seat. Order. There is nothing procedurally out of order in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I recognize the member for London Centre for her final supplementary.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It does concern me that you would feel that there was nothing procedurally out of order in the Solicitor General's response. It seemed to me, and we were obviously totally uninvolved in the questioning, to be an unwarranted personal attack on a former minister of the crown and entirely inappropriate.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: What the Solicitor General has done is to show his disrespect for the justice system. More than anything else, this demonstrates the inappropriateness of his conduct. The Solicitor General has shown no integrity in the issue at hand around the police complaints investigation. He can stand in this House and first of all not accept his own personal responsibility, and then try to destroy the reputation and the ability of the current Attorney General to accept the kinds of advice that have been given by the judiciary in a case.

It's absolutely disgusting and it's very typical of this member -- very typical of this member. It is the way he behaved again and again, going after minister after minister and attacking their personal integrity.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Boyd: It is exactly the kind of issue that we ought to be dealing with. If one of our ministers or a minister in the Liberal government had tried to act as judge and jury the way you have, you would have been the first to attack. On June 20, 1994, in this place, Mike Harris said: "Now you are acting like judge and jury and saying, `I'll decide which cases are serious enough that the minister can intervene on or not intervene on.'... She hasn't understood the fair rules of what a minister should do or ministerial conduct at any time that I have seen her in the performance of her duty."

Mr Minister, face up to the fact that you've made a mistake. You've made more than one mistake. You made a very big mistake here today. You commented on issues where you should have known better. You allowed your temper and your own feelings to overcome you in the exercise of your ministerial duties. You have tainted the process, and you are responsible. This is about your ability to act with integrity in this province as the Solicitor General. Step aside.

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated in the initial answer that the member has been selectively using quotes from a scrum, and if the full quotations were utilized, it certainly was quite clear that I indicated that I would not take any sides and had not reached any judgements with respect to what happened on Monday other than my own personal experiences which I observed when getting through the picket line. I have no intention to resign on the basis of what the member has put forward, and I don't believe there's any justification for the call.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in response to a question on March 20 in the House, you agreed to a third-party independent review of the funding dispute with the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton. You confirmed this outside the House as well. Let me quote, referring to the minister:

"He says the region's estimates are too rich and is prepared to have a third party intervene. `It would certainly prove one thing -- whether (Regional Chairman) Terry Cooke is right or whether we are right,' Mr Palladini said yesterday. He said he would stand by findings of the review."

Today he is quoted in the Spectator as saying: "There are no more funds. I just don't have the money in my budget. I feel $100 million is one heck of an amount of money to commit to a municipal road at this time."

Minister, let me remind you that the commitment to the expressway was not at this time. The commitment to the expressway was by your Premier, Mr Harris, in December 1994, and that commitment was to fully fund that expressway. You don't realize that the regional numbers are correct. Minister, you don't realize that you have shortchanged the region by $50 million. You are backtracking. You are doing your best to skate and damage control and you have betrayed the region.

Minister, can you tell me what has changed between Thursday and today, why you have gone back on your commitment of a third-party review of the cost of the expressway, and why you have betrayed the region once again?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would just like to, number one, say to the honourable member across the road here that I haven't gone back on my commitment. I've agreed to an independent proposal. I just want to build the highway. That's all I want to do, and we've committed $100 million to do it. So my commitment, this government's commitment, is there. It has not wavered. I don't know what else the honourable member would like me to say.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you obviously have proven once again you don't understand the issue. The regional chairman has said that your $100 million is at least $50 million short. The chairman of the committee has said it's at least $50 million short. It is established that the money you have committed to the expressway will not cover the provincial costs. It is clear you have fallen short by $50 million to the commitment that you made. You are really playing fast and loose with your words here. I really believe your government and yourself have been nothing but masters of deception to the region in the way you have handled this issue.

Your commitment, the commitment that the Premier made in December 1994 for a full six-lane expressway -- let me explain this to you clearly. That commitment would have meant $182 million of provincial money towards the cost. Minister, I realize you're not listening. Just listen for a second so you understand the issue. Minister, the Premier's commitment was of $182 million of provincial money. The scaled-down project is $150 million. What you have given is $100 million. Therefore, there's a $50-million shortfall.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. I'm not sure why you stood here on Thursday and committed to abide by the independent review and today you have said no. Why are you misleading the people of Hamilton, Minister? Why are you telling the House one thing and saying something else outside? Can you tell me, Minister, will you once again have another opportunity here to save the political career of your four Tory members, to go back on the betrayal you have made --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question has been asked.

Mr Agostino: -- to help Hamilton-Wentworth and again commit yourself to a third-party review of the funding and commit yourself to abide by that review to see who is right?

Hon Mr Palladini: I think I would like to go on record that the honourable member is actually misleading the facts, because I agreed to an independent proposal. I'm going to reiterate: I just want to build the expressway.

As far as the funding the member is referring to that this government has committed, number one, there is probably in excess of $80 million that's presently on the ground on the expressway, so if we add the $100 million, it brings it up to $180 million, as he's referring to. But I want to correct the member. There was never a set amount discussed or committed by this government. There were various proposals on how to build a highway, how many lanes, but there was never a set amount.

I want to say to the honourable member once again, and to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, that this government wants to go ahead and get the job done.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Agostino: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The minister said I was misleading the House.

Interjections.

Mr Agostino: It's this minister, this government, that make it clear he is misleading the House.

The Speaker: Order. I wish the members would not use that word any longer. It's been used by you, it's been used by him, and I would ask you to reconsider and not use that word "mislead."

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Attorney General. Recognizing that both he and his colleague the Solicitor General carry a very important portfolio for the protection of the administration of justice in this province, I have in my hand the news release that was issued by the Attorney General on March 18, following the publication by the Honourable Patrick Galligan of his findings, in which the Attorney General said: "I am accepting Mr Galligan's advice.

This government will move quickly to take action on the two recommendations made by Mr Galligan." He further stated: "Mr Galligan stated that the decision taken by the prosecutors was driven by sheer necessity. The authorities were faced with the unpleasant fact that if Paul Bernardo was to be prosecuted for murder, it was essential that they have Karla Homolka's evidence and cooperation."

After hearing the response of the Solicitor General to the second question of my colleague from London, when he was dealing with issues related to the investigation by the police complaints commission, does the Attorney General believe that the comments made by his colleague were appropriate with regard to the Homolka case and Mr Galligan's recommendations? If he doesn't believe they were appropriate, does he repudiate them and does he regret the fact that the Solicitor General didn't have at least the compunction to withdraw his remarks subsequently?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to say for the record that those comments were made independently and inappropriately, and I withdraw them.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I fully subscribe to the remarks that I made about Mr Justice Galligan's report. I indicated very clearly what my position was. Certainly, the Solicitor General has now indicated that those remarks were his own and that they were independent.

Mr Wildman: We appreciate that the Solicitor General has withdrawn his remarks now rather than when he could have done it before. I also regret the fact that he has seen fit to leave the House in the middle of a question that deals specifically with his integrity.

Since the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were dealing with the issue that we raised in terms of the Solicitor General's comments in relation to the police complaints commission investigation, is the Attorney General aware that in the press on March 21, the public domain, the Solicitor General is quoted as saying:

"I think the tape" -- that is the confidential OPP tape to which the Solicitor General has access as the minister responsible for the police -- "indicates (strikers) were given fair warning and that the picket lines broke down. I think there was a breakdown in terms of control by picket captains."

Doesn't that indicate that the Solicitor General has taken a position with regard to the situation on the picket line and the actions of the police, and if that does, does that not then in a general sense -- not specific to what the Solicitor General himself saw -- perhaps prejudice the investigation by the police complaints commissioner?

Hon Mr Harnick: I reiterate my remarks that the police complaints commissioner investigates independently. He is an independent individual who has no connection with the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Further, as I indicated before, the particular issues that we are dealing with involve individual complaints, of which no one other than the police complaints commissioner has any information. We have no information as to who filed the complaints. That is within the realm of the police complaints commissioner. We have no information as to the nature of those complaints. We have no information as to who is involved in those complaints.

So it is something to which there is no connection, and that is why the police complaints commissioner will continue, as he is obligated to do, to investigate the complaints that have been put before him and at the same time we have indicated that we are going to have a public inquiry into the nature of everything that went on on that Monday, and we are in the course of trying to deal with terms of reference that will satisfy the opposition parties, who have given us their input, and we are now weighing that information.

HIGHWAY 27

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, in the north end of the city of Etobicoke is a stretch of highway that is currently the responsibility of your ministry. This roadway, Highway 27, has businesses adjacent to it which cannot build laneways for access because the speed limit is too high. I am pleased to note that the city has supported the businesses' interest to have the speed limit lowered. I would like to know what your ministry can do to help solve the problem.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): This government is committed to ensuring municipalities have the freedom and flexibility to make decisions about their road system. Highway 27 is a road which serves mostly a local purpose and it just doesn't make sense for the provincial government to support these types of roads.

Highway 27 is one of the roads which we are going to be looking to transfer, allowing the municipality to make the decisions on its own. This could mean a huge reduction of red tape for businesses who no longer would have to go through several weeks of levels of approvals in order to get businesses going. Less red tape, less time and less hassle can lead to businesses with more time to make money and invest in this province.

Mr Ford: I'm certainly glad to hear that. By way of supplementary, I'd like to ask when the minister expects Highway 27 to be transferred.

Hon Mr Palladini: This government will always show responsibility. In order to allow municipalities some time to adjust, we are looking at phasing in transfers over a three-year period. As far as Highway 27, I am not exactly sure at what time, but this process will begin sometime in April 1997. We are going to be phasing in numerous highways across this province. We've already started that process and we are going to be phasing in more highways in 1997. Eventually we hope to achieve what this government wants to achieve in the best interests of fiscal responsibility and hopefully finish by April 1998.

But we will allow municipalities ample time to make the adjustments in order to meet their commitments.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. On November 29, you, the Minister, ordered the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to close down norOntair. On Friday, norOntair will be closed down. The 17 communities that were receiving service from norOntair will now be getting service from private carriers. In some cases -- Elliot Lake, for example -- the service that will be provided by the private carrier is inadequate to the community needs.

Yesterday, you told this House that Hornepayne, Chapleau and Gore Bay would be served by Voyageur Airways and that the government would subsidize the contract. Therefore, I have a number of questions and I think the people of Ontario have a number of questions regarding that announcement. We want to know if the contract to Voyageur Airways was tendered, we want to know what the cost of the tender was, we want to know if the communities that may lose private air service will qualify for this subsidy and we want to know if you will positively guarantee the 17 communities that they will continue to have air service, not just in April but in the foreseeable future.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): That's a good question; there are a lot of questions there. As the member mentioned, to get the financial house in order in this province, we've reduced the subsidy to the ONTC board by $10 million. We allowed them the flexibility of selling off the government-subsidized airline that cost the taxpayers of the province over $4 million. The private sector has picked up the role that used to be subsidized by over $4 million.

The assets, in excess of $14 million, have gone towards helping the ONTC preserve and enhance its services in the north. So the money stays in the north. There will be interest on that money, or reinvestments will create wealth and secure the role of the ONTC in the future to expand the economy of northern Ontario.

The question revolves around the communities mentioned. There was an interim agreement entered into by the ONTC board, and I say an interim, short-term agreement. When that expires -- and I think that's the question most northerners want to know -- will there be air service in the future? I think that the answer is yes, that the private sector is showing its ability to grow into this. At the end of that period, I'm sure there'll be a tender if there is a subsidy that's required. The subsidy, I might add -- and allowing the sale of the assets to be reinvested in the north -- is far more efficient and helpful to northerners than subsidizing the whole airline.

Mr Michael Brown: The minister is flying by the seat of his pants on this issue. I asked the minister specifically: What did the tender cost? Where there a tender? There was no answer to that. Will other communities that may lose their air service or have inappropriate levels of air service qualify for this same deal? How much will that cost the taxpayers of Ontario in total? Give us the answer to very simple, straightforward questions.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the member knows full well, the ONTC board has been working with a group of municipal advisers and they've been working with the affected communities. They're the ones that entered in and announced yesterday the three communities would be served. I can ask the board to report back to the member on the details around that question.

COMMENTS OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General. Now that you've had a little break and a little opportunity to cool down, I want you to think about the way in which you withdrew your comments. You made a comment that you were expressing an independent opinion, so I think it's very important for the people of Ontario to hear from you, the person who is responsible for policing in this province, whether you really think it is ever possible for a Solicitor General to maintain his integrity and express a personal opinion about a matter that is under police investigation.

Is that not the same issue as an Attorney General making a personal comment about a case that is before the courts?

The issue of independence and arm's-lengthness from investigations and from process is extraordinarily important. Would the Solicitor General please tell us how he thinks, by saying that what he said on Monday or what he said on Wednesday was his personal observation, he in any way can justify making comments about a matter that is under a police investigation?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): In response, at the outset I want to apologize to the member for London Centre for my earlier remarks. I want to emphasize what I've said when responding to this question today and before, that if you go back and take a look at the complete text of the scrum, it was certainly quite clear -- and I went out of my way to ensure that anyone talking to me in that scrum was aware -- that I had formed no judgements whatsoever with respect to what occurred on Monday with respect to complaints lodged against police on an individual or group basis.

Also, when I've spoken with respect to the events of Monday, I've talked about the experiences that I and the Minister of Transportation and the member for Oshawa experienced and our own observations about that particular incident, which is not the subject --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: You don't want me to answer this question -- which is not the subject of any of the complaints that have been lodged.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): How do you know? How do you know that?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Beaches-Woodbine is out of order.

Mrs Boyd: The important issue here is the member stood, as did the AG, and said that neither of them has any idea what the matters are under complaint, no idea what issues are there. There were certainly public complaints made about lack of warning, and we've already read out three or four times what this minister said about there being an appropriate warning. I can do it again, if he'd like to hear it.

If you don't know what the subject of the complaints would be, how can you possibly stand there and say that your remarks in no way prejudice the investigation? This is absolutely evidence that you have stepped over the line and, Minister, you should resign. This is ridiculous.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not going to question the independence of the police complaints commission. I think they can reach a conclusion with respect to any individual complaints, which I am unaware of, on the basis of the facts. I'm certainly quite prepared to support the public release of any recommendations or conclusions coming from the police complaints commission to ensure that there is no suggestion whatsoever of any pressure being brought to bear on the commissioner.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Recently, on Tuesday, February 13, the Honourable Cam Jackson, minister without portfolio responsible for workers' compensation reform, met with injured workers in my community. In the meeting with them -- and I must say they were very appreciative of the opportunity to do that -- they related their experiences in their workplaces, how they were injured, their experience with officials and staff at WCB and their suggestions for reform.

My question to the minister is on behalf of the injured workers he met with in my office and indeed all those around the province he has met recently. Minister, what have you been hearing from injured workers across the province during your consultation?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Workers' Compensation Board]): I want to thank the member for his question, and I want to indicate to members of this House that in the opportunities I've had to consult with injured workers directly in the province several themes have come out very predominantly. The injured workers I met with in the member for St Catharines-Brock's riding indicated problems that they'd experienced with adjudication at the Workers' Compensation Board.

In fact, one of the individuals I met, who was a truck driver, was ready to go back to work on a Monday but got a phone call on the previous Friday saying the WCB had ordered him to take voc rehab at Downsview. This individual had had his documentation lost on two separate occasions; he had to rephotostat it.

The bottom line is that we're getting concerns being expressed from injured workers about the size of the bureaucracy at the Workers' Compensation Board. Frankly, there's every reason for injured workers to be concerned when in 1985 there were about 3,800 employees at the Workers' Compensation Board and now there are almost 5,000 employees there and yet we've had a 40% drop in the lost time for injuries in this province.

There's a legitimate question being raised by injured workers with respect to looking at the administrative structure of the board but also to looking at rehabilitation services as well, which many have indicated have not allowed for them to return to work early, in a timely fashion, and to return them to their pre-accident state so that they can continue with the productive work that they deserve and that they believe they're entitled to.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to draw your attention to

part VI,

section 23(

k) of the standing rules of order in relationship to your earlier response to me that there had been no violation of the orders of the House in the Solicitor General's response to the member for London Centre.

Section 23(

k) says that a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she "Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder." There are sections before that which similarly say you must call to order a member who "Makes allegations...." or "Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member."

I suggest to you that this may be the most appalling example of a minister responding to a question by launching a personal attack on a member of the opposition and, in this case, a former minister of the crown. But I would also suggest it is not the first time in this House, including today, that ministers have responded to questions by launching an attack based on totally non-factual statements which members of the opposition have no ability to respond to.

You have indicated that you want to observe a decorum in the House and to enforce the rules of order. I humbly suggest to you that unless you're prepared to administer the rules of order in a fairhanded and even way, there cannot be decorum in this House.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, I'd like to speak on that point, and I'd like to agree with the leader of the official opposition. You have not hesitated -- and yesterday was an example in this place, where you threw out my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon for an incident which I would say was very insignificant compared to what the Solicitor General has done in this place today. You then wrote us a letter yesterday afternoon suggesting that there had to be a restoration of decorum in this place.

I cannot advocate to my caucus that we should follow your instructions in terms of trying to restore decorum in this place when you allowed the Solicitor General to get away with what he got away with today. It went one more round of questions; you said absolutely nothing to the Solicitor General; he responded, eventually, after there was clearly an embarrassing question going to be asked to the Attorney General.

I hesitate to say this, but your leadership in this place is unacceptable, and I am very upset with the way that you have ruled in this place today. You have not dealt an even hand in this place today, and it's absolutely --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Speaker, I just want to inform you that under standing order 34(

a) I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and I will file the appropriate form with the table.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 34, I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Transportation to my question on the Red Hill Expressway. I will ask for a late show on that as well.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to come back to the point that my leader raised simply because today at caucus I was advised by my House leader that there was some concern about decorum in the House. I've missed a couple of days in the last week and I gather that some people have been tossed out or threatened with expulsion because of their misconduct.

I've been thrown out of here for being a bad boy on occasion and I recognize the difficulty that any Speaker faces. We've all made mistakes and we expect vigorous and impartial adjudication from him.

Mr Speaker, I did hear the exchange this afternoon between the member for Brockville and the member for London Centre and I know that in the heat of battle we've all said things that on occasion we ought not to have said. I think the member for Leeds-Grenville has agreed, by virtue of his withdrawal, that he went too far today, and I must say he really went too far today.

But that aside, if you are inviting members, as you ought to, to behave themselves and if we don't behave ourselves, you're going to take action, you then are going to be, I think, very carefully watched as to how you rule in this place.

I must say, and I don't want to be provocative, that you are really going to have to give some thought to what it is you tolerate and what it is you won't tolerate.

If you are prepared to tolerate the kind of observation and the kind of accusation that the member for Leeds-Grenville made with respect to the former Attorney General, the member for London Centre, in relation to one of the most tragic and controversial of court cases the province and country have every known and say nothing about that, and then show me or the rest of us the door because we might have dressed improperly or brought a coffee to this chamber or used words that you found grammatically incorrect, then I think you or anyone in your position is going to have a very difficult time.

I simply say again that on this day at our caucus, my House leader, the member for St Catharines, conveyed to me and my colleagues your concern about decorum in this place. I understand that entirely, but what we saw here today with respect to what the member for Leeds-Grenville said and what you did not do give me pause, and I hope give you pause as well.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm looking at page 18, the matter that has been raised by a number of members with regard to the exchange here in the House. Rule 23, specifically the matter that my colleague the member for Fort William raised, is under subsection (

k) and it says, "Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder."

I think it is clear to everyone who saw and heard the exchange in this House that the Solicitor General did indeed use abusive and insulting language, and it certainly did create disorder.

But I would also suggest that there are other subsections of the rule that you should consider. The member, according to the rule, is out of order when he or she "makes allegations against another member"; "imputes false or unavowed motives to another member"; "introduces any matter in debate that in the opinion of the Speaker offends the practices and precedents of the House."

I would suggest that in his remarks, which he subsequently but not immediately withdrew, and not at the behest of yourself --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): At the urging of his caucus members.

Mr Wildman: -- but rather at the urgings, as my friend says, of his caucus mates --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): And he was going to be embarrassed by a question to the AG.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Talk about imputing motives. That is imputing motives right there.

Mr Wildman: I think they were good motives.

Mr Speaker, I say very clearly that it is inappropriate for you not to have called him to order, particularly when members of the opposition, including myself, requested him to withdraw and raised the matter with you and you did not respond. When I listened very carefully just now to the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition and our House leader, you did not make any response. What is the response? Did the member break these rules? If he did, then why was he not called to order and why was it at the behest of others that he withdrew the remarks?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I will review the Hansard and I will respond.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What happened here today is troublesome. I don't want to talk on the same point as my colleague. It's a slightly different point. All right?

I am willing to acknowledge that the rules that are set out on page 18 of the rule book are for rules of debate and that question period can be considered a somewhat different matter. But the rules for debate ought to at least provide guidance as to what is appropriate within the House.

I think, Speaker, you should review those rules and subrules set out on page 18: "Makes allegations against another member....Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member....Charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood....Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder....Speaks disrespectfully of Her Majesty....or the Governor General, or the Administrator of Canada, or the Lieutenant Governor, or the Administrator of the Province." I would say that somewhere in there the administration of justice, if not directly mentioned, is at least within the realm of what is being talked about.

Finally, "Introduces any matter in debate that in the opinion of the Speaker offends the practices and precedents of the House." Speaker, I would think that one of the precedents and practices of this House is not to cast utter disrespect on the administration of justice in this province.

When someone gets up, a minister of the crown, a minister specifically charged with part of the administration of justice -- in other words, the administration of the police -- and literally disavows a very important criminal law case, one which has been further adjudicated upon by a judge in the form of a judicial inquiry, when the Solicitor General gets up and makes those kinds of comments, it calls this whole place into disrepute.

You can't expect people out there anywhere in society to have any respect for the administration of justice if you allow that kind of conduct to go on here in this House. Speaker, you have thrown people out of this House --

The Speaker: Order. You've made your --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I indicated earlier I will be reviewing the remarks that have been made and I will be reporting back on what has been said.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's very difficult to sit in this place and hear the kind of lecture that we are hearing at this point in time. What I am wondering is, when the point of order was raised by the Liberal caucus -- and they referred to the discussion that they had in their caucus this morning about decorum in this place. I wonder if at all during their discussion they looked back on their own behaviour with the member for Scarborough North --

Mr Cooke: What is this, Mr Speaker?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This is not a point of order. This is ridiculous.

The Speaker: Order. You haven't got a point of order.

PETITIONS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995. We object to the bill because it terminates the partnership between the government and the physicians to manage health care on a joint basis and gives unilateral power to the Minister of Health to make cuts and dictate medical practice. This is not good medicine for our health care."

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here signed by some 100 citizens from the community of Timmins and South Porcupine. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition without attacking basic rights and dignities of hard-working people,

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I sign this petition.

MASSASAUGA PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to present to the Legislature this afternoon a petition supported with over 300 signatures asking that the government put a stop to the costly and unnecessary expansion of the Massasauga provincial park:

"Whereas we fully support the government's efforts to trim costs and balance our provincial budget; and

"Whereas we are concerned with the restrictions presently being implemented on the public access area of the Moon River basin; and

"Whereas there is no evidence of any past environmental damage that would justify the implementation of these restrictions; and

"Whereas the cost of implementing these restrictions will be passed on to the government and the taxpayers; and

"Whereas the implementation of the park's facilities and requirements in May 1996 will seriously reduce the local, privately operated tourism industry (marinas, summer resorts and fishing lodges),

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario and respectfully request that the development and planned expansion of the Massasauga provincial park be effectively stopped."

I affix my signature.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution states that a Conservative government will not cut health care; and

"Whereas during the 1995 election campaign the Conservatives clearly promised to defend the health care system but protect the ministry funding and stated in a campaign backgrounder, `There will be no cut to health care funding by the Harris government,' this being their first and most important commitment,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to reject all recommendations put forward by the Hamilton health task force to the closure of St Joseph's Hospital, and we recommend that no hospitals should close in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council:

"Whereas the Hamilton-Wentworth Health Action Task Force, as part of their report, has recommended the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton; and

"Whereas it is recognized the health care system should be made as efficient as possible; and

"Whereas the quality of health care in our community should not be sacrificed in the name of efficiency; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to protect the quality of health care in Ontario; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that maintaining the presence of St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton is a vital component of our health care system,

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council ensure the continuance of St Joseph's Hospital at its present site."

I add my signature to theirs.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Scarborough. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close inpatient paediatric beds, the special care nursery and the burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital resulting in significantly reduced access to paediatric, newborn, and burn care for a large geographic area of Scarborough; and

"Whereas the paediatric unit, special care nursery and burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital provide very cost-effective, quality care,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to (1) continue paediatric services, including inpatient paediatric beds; (2) continue special care nursery services; (3) continue and combine Metropolitan Toronto's burn care at Scarborough General Hospital."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have another petition here, this time again from people of Timmins, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their rights to access pension security, a right that other workers in Ontario have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the coming months could be forced into poverty;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

It's signed some 100 citizens in the city of Timmins, and I sign the petition.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health will begin to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filed on June 1, 1996; and

"Whereas Ontario's psychiatric populace rely heavily on prescription drugs to remain stable, and mental health care providers and in fact the general public are scared of the outcome of these patients who can't afford to buy the medication because of the $2 dispensing fee, when it is normal policy to only prescribe them a two- to three-day supply of medication to prevent potential misuse or overdosing; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee and will not even cover the cost of extra emergency services needed to people whose health has been jeopardized because they can no longer afford to pay for their medication;

"We, therefore, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge this government to repeal this user fee plan before it takes effect on June 1, 1996, because of the potential dramatic increase in emergency and police services and the suffering and misery of human lives, especially psychiatric outpatients and those who depend on medication for their daily survival."

I've affixed my signature to this document.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition from the United Food and Commercial Workers to the Parliament and the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Labour:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are opposed to your government's proposed changes to Ontario's workers' compensation system, including elimination of the bipartite board of directors; reduced temporary benefits; introduction of the three-day period from the time of injury with no pay; legislated limits on entitlement, thereby excluding repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims from eligibility for compensation; reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements; and

"Whereas workers' compensation is not a handout; it is an insurance plan for which premiums are paid; it is a legal obligation that employers have to employees who 80 years ago traded their right to sue employers in return for this insurance plan;

"Therefore, we demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent injuries, no reduction in current Workers' Compensation Board staff levels and that the bipartite board structure be left intact."

I affix my signature also.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I'll affix my signature to this.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a petition signed by over 2,100 individuals protesting the funding cuts to women's shelters, halfway houses, second-stage housing and family services. I present the petition and share the concerns that are being expressed.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition that has been signed by over 1,200 people across the province. It reads:

"Whereas pay equity has not yet been achieved in many Ontario workplaces;

"Whereas fair wages for women are an important part of women's equality that has not yet been achieved;

"Whereas legislation is only beneficial when it is effectively enforced;

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has decided to close the services of Pay Equity Advocacy and Legal Services (PEALS) as a so-called cost-saving measure;

"Whereas PEALS is the only community legal clinic that helps all Ontario women who do not belong to a union to benefit from the pay equity legislation;

"Whereas PEALS has helped thousands of employees to obtain their pay equity rights; and

"Whereas PEALS has educated and empowered thousands of women on their pay equity rights;

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

"Provide PEALS with permanent funding to meet the ongoing needs for effective legal representation and community outreach;

"Provide PEALS with permanent funding to expand its mandate to provide services in all employment-related areas of law affecting women."

I have signed my signature to this document.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their right to access pension security, a right that other workers in Ontario have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the coming months could be forced into poverty;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

I add my signature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise today to present a petition on behalf of local teachers and principals:

"We the undersigned want you to know that we, as the presidents of the teacher federations in your riding, are opposed to the College of Teachers which your government is intending to legislate. We feel that the creation of another level of bureaucracy is not needed. The Ontario Teachers' Federation has unanimously passed a motion in opposition to this college and has proposed a plan whereby OTF could very easily fulfil the powers and functions of such a college with considerably less expense."

TAX REDUCTION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very short petition but it's signed by over 400 residents of eastern Ontario. It simply reads:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

I have attached my signature to same as well.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

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

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition, without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I have signed my name to that as well.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by almost all the residents in Regency Towers, a senior citizens' residence in Thunder Bay, the tenants of which are very concerned about the government's intention to privatize public housing units. Mrs Lea Nuttall has sort of led the charge in my riding, and I'm pleased to read the petition:

"Whereas the Ministry of Housing has indicated an intent to privatize public housing units and intensify the housing crisis in Ontario; and

"Whereas all Ontarians have a basic right to fair and affordable shelter; and

"Whereas such privatization will cause financial hardship and insecurity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow the privatization of public housing units and to ensure that existing structures are adequately maintained."

I am proud to sign my signature to that.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Ottawa Centre has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education and Training concerning the poll commissioned by the minister. That will be debated today at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development and Mines concerning norOntair. This matter will be dealt with this evening at 6 pm.

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 Transportation concerning the Red Hill Creek Expressway funding. This matter will also be debated at 6 pm today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 19,

An Act to repeal the Advocacy Act, 1992, revise the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, amend the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and amend other Acts in respect of related matters / Projet de loi 19, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, révisant la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement, modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne des questions connexes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): All those in favour of third reading of Bill 19 will please say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; it's a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1517 to 1525.

The Speaker: All those in favour of third reading of Bill 19 will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Gerretsen, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Arnott, Ted

Gilchrist, Steve

Palladini, Al

Baird, John R.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Parker, John L.

Bartolucci, Rick

Gravelle, Michael

Patten, Richard

Bassett, Isabel

Grimmett, Bill

Phillips, Gerry

Beaubien, Marcel

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Boushy, Dave

Hardeman, Ernie

Ramsay, David

Bradley, James J.

Harnick, Charles

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Carroll, Jack

Hodgson, Chris

Runciman, Bob

Chudleigh, Ted

Jackson, Cameron

Ruprecht, Tony

Clement, Tony

Johnson, Bert

Sampson, Rob

Cordiano, Joseph

Kells, Morley

Sergio, Mario

Crozier, Bruce

Klees, Frank

Shea, Derwyn

Cunningham, Dianne

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Skarica, Toni

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Smith, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Marland, Margaret

Snobelen, John

Doyle, Ed

Martiniuk, Gerry

Spina, Joseph

Duncan, Dwight

Maves, Bart

Sterling, Norman W.

Ecker, Janet

McGuinty, Dalton

Tilson, David

Elliott, Brenda

Miclash, Frank

Tsubouchi, David H.

Fisher, Barbara

Morin, Gilles E.

Turnbull, David

Flaherty, Jim

Munro, Julia

Villeneuve, Noble

Ford, Douglas B.

Murdoch, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Witmer, Elizabeth

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Lankin, Frances

Pouliot, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Laughren, Floyd

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Marchese, Rosario

Wildman, Bud

Cooke, David S.

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 80; the nays 14.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

Mr Hardeman, on behalf of Mr Leach, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning, development, municipal and heritage matters / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à promouvoir la croissance économique et à protéger l'environnement en rationalisant le système d'aménagement et de mise en valeur du territoire au moyen de modifications touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement, la mise en valeur, les municipalités et le patrimoine.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to speak on Bill 20, the bill designed to help Ontario's economy by cutting red tape in the province's land use planning system. I'm speaking on behalf of Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr Leach is in the hospital and is unable to be here today.

This bill will rectify the problems of Bill 163, the planning act introduced by the previous government. Municipalities, developers, builders and planning professionals each voiced concern about that act. It was tied up in too much red tape and detail, the approval system took too long and it cost too much. It was supposed to allow municipalities to make decisions, but municipalities told us it didn't. They wanted changes.

Bill 20 will fix the problems with the planning system. The legislation addresses many concerns expressed by the government and voiced by municipalities, environmentalists and developers.

The bill focuses on three important issues. It creates a faster and more understandable system, a system guided by clear, concise policies dealing only with issues that really should be under the provincial jurisdiction. It provides municipalities with the flexibility to make local decisions, since they are the people who best understand local circumstances, and it protects the environment while clearing obstacles to growth.

As you know, the Land Use Planning and Protection Act, 1995, received first and second reading last fall and was referred to the standing committee on resources development for public hearings. I would point out the public hearings process accommodated everyone who wanted to put forward their views. Everyone who wanted to be heard had their say.

At this point, I'd like to commend the committee members for their work in carrying this bill at committee. We introduced some amendments to the bill in committee and we bring forward the amended bill to the House today for third reading. Some of the amendments reflect concerns that were raised during the public hearing process last month; others are technical clarifications.

I'd like to address the three significant changes made in the legislation: minor variances, public meetings on subdivisions and grandfathering of apartments in houses.

With respect to minor variances, the intention of the legislation was that council should have the final authority for minor variance decisions. This decision was made in accordance with the goals of Bill 20: to streamline the planning process and give municipalities more decision-making authority.

At the hearings we heard over and over again that everyone who wanted to appeal minor variance decisions should have the same right to be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board as those wanting to appeal other planning decisions. We listened. The planning system must balance the need for quick decisions with the need to be fair. Therefore, we are reinstating the OMB process for minor variance appeals.

The second significant change adopted by the standing committee deals with the authority to require public meetings on plans of subdivision and consent. The amendment restores provisions which allow the minister, by regulation, to require public meetings on plans of subdivision and consent. Again people told the standing committee they felt public input and consultation were important. They were concerned about those provisions being dropped, and again we listened and amended the legislation.

The third change deals with the apartments-in-houses provision of the Residents' Rights Act. Prior to last month's hearing, our position was that grandfathering would apply to second units that existed legally last November 16, the date the bill was introduced. We saw it applying where a building permit or change-of-use permit for the second unit had been issued on that date. This retroactive provision was developed to give back to municipalities, as quickly as possible, the authority over apartments in houses and to prevent a flood of last-minute applications.

During the hearings, however, several municipalities said this created an awkward legal position for them. Builders and home owners who had wanted to create second units but had not yet received building permits were caught by the November 16 deadline, so we have amended the legislation to make the grandfathering date for new units coincide with the date of the legislation's proclamation, following third reading and royal assent. This ensures that municipalities have time to inform their residents about the change.

Finally, as many members know, we are conducting a fundamental review of the Development Charges Act and intend to introduce a new act by the fall. Until then, Bill 20 provides for a transition period that extends existing development charges bylaws and grants increases only with the minister's approval. This means that until the review is complete, municipalities cannot bring in new charges or increase their existing charges.

Our critics have suggested this government is proposing a planning system that guts the environment. This is not the case. We are in favour of good planning, not slow planning or inefficient planning, and we are against any approval system that discourages development because it can't say yes or no in a reasonable length of time. We will continue to have tough environmental protection measures in the planning process.

There were several technical amendments made to the bill during the clause-by-clause analysis by the standing committee on resources development, but the major thrust of the legislation remains the same: Bill 20 restores a balance to the planning system in Ontario, allows for increased municipal autonomy and creates a streamlined system which makes provision for local solutions to local problems.

I should also like to mention that as part of the revisions to the Ontario planning system, the ministry's draft policy statement was issued in January. If the legislation is the process, the policy statement is the government's vision of what it wants to accomplish and the values it wants to apply to the process.

The policy statement was circulated to a range of ministry stakeholders including municipalities, planning officials, planning boards and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It was issued to the Urban Development Institute and the home builders' associations and it was given to other ministries for their own stakeholders. Consultation was extensive. Submissions were invited until March 4, and we have received more than 200. We are in the process of reviewing all submissions and will take all comments into account as we prepare the final policy statement, which will be brought out when Bill 20 is proclaimed.

Bill 20 will not only improve the planning system; it will help clear a path for economic development and it will contribute to a climate that will encourage investment in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments or questions?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): As the critic for municipal affairs for our party, I must say that the comments made by the parliamentary assistant show a lack of understanding for what you're really doing in regard to this bill, especially when it comes to what you're doing in regard to the Planning Act as it affects the environment.

You have done a number of moves within the Planning Act. Primarily you're saying that now you're only going to have to "have regard" for the provincial regulations rather than being "consistent with." We've gone through that debate at the committee. A lot of people came before the committee and presented and said what that will do is, in effect, ratchet down the standards that we presently have within the province of Ontario when it comes to protecting the environment and really pit one community up against the other.

There are a whole bunch of other examples about what you've done under Bill 20 that really mean to say that this province is going to take a severe step backwards when it comes to planning in the province of Ontario.

I think the parliamentary assistant recognizes that there was a very extensive consultation process undergone by Mr Sewell under our government, under the NDP government, that took about three and a half to four years. There was, I would say, a consensus built between both the environmental community and the development community about how you're able to balance off the interests of developers and those of the environment so that we can have sane and safe planning for the province of Ontario that responds to the needs of the economy but also responds to the needs of the environment.

For you to stand in this House today and say this government is not doing anything under Bill 20 that's contrary to the protection of the environment is not right. In fairness, you must recognize this bill is really all about giving the power directly to developers so that they can go ahead and do planning and not take into regard a whole bunch of issues that have to do with the protection of our environment. This is a major step backwards when it comes to protecting our environment in Ontario.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Oxford on a great speech.

I think what we heard during the committee hearings, and I sat on the committee for the full three weeks, was that people believed that the best place to make decisions is at the local municipality when it comes to these type of issues.

I think what this bill has done is it has sought a balance between the environment and the economy. My honourable colleague opposite talked about the Sewell commission, which was a rather lengthy process, and I think it would be fair to say that there wasn't a consensus built in. Obviously, this piece of legislation that has come before the House is evidence that the long and lengthy discussions held by the Sewell commission did not achieve a consensus anywhere in the province of Ontario and particularly with achieving that fundamental balance between the environment and the economy which we think is so important to long-term development of the province.

As we went from city to city in our public hearings, we heard from numerous presenters in all parts of the province who spoke in favour of the bill -- including my home community of Ottawa where our municipality spoke, represented by our regional chair, Peter Clark, and we also heard from the mayor of Ottawa -- and who believe this bill was worthy of support. We found support all over the province for this legislation.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I had the opportunity to sit in on a couple of the hearings with respect to Bill 20. I want to commend the new member for Oxford, who I thought, at least during the time I was in the committee, did an exemplary job in carrying an important and controversial piece of legislation through the process.

In the previous Parliament, the Rae government brought forward a major piece of planning legislation that was thought by many to have erred on the side of preservation. There's no question that the current government's Bill 20 has a very clear pro-development bias, which is what I think one would expect from a Conservative government. There are elements of this policy that I support. As a member from rural Ontario, there is no question that my constituents were very concerned with some of the directions of the Sewell commission, so to that extent, I want to say there are aspects of Bill 20 that I support and that would certainly be supported by a lot of my constituents in eastern Ontario.

On the other side, there are aspects of the bill that I think are negative, are worrisome, are dangerous. Perhaps my biggest concern remains that over the years, anyone who has been involved in local or certainly provincial politics -- I can only speak about my provincial involvement. I've seen the development industry transfer huge costs downstream to Her Majesty's provincial government.

When I think of what taxpayers provincially were expected to and have had to pay for, months, years, decades after the fact, I wonder what kind of discipline my friend the member for Oxford and his colleagues on the treasury bench are going to show when, in a world that is clearly more pro-development -- and should mistakes be made and significant costs be incurred, I fully expect that Her Majesty's Ontario subjects will be saved harmless from the kinds of multimillion-dollar bills they have been forced to pay in previous times under all previous administrations.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I will be speaking further to this bill later, but just for a moment here I want to say to the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, and the member for Nepean that I sat through most of those committee hearings, and when I hear from that side of the House that we now have a consensus and we didn't have one before -- that's been implied -- let me tell this House that there is no consensus whatsoever.

What I saw was a complete polarization. The people from the developer side and some municipalities in support came in loving this bill. When I asked them if they were consulted and whether they got what they wanted in the bill, they inevitably said yes and yes. When environmentalists and community groups came to speak to the committee, when I asked that question their answers were no and no.

When the parliamentary assistant read out here the three major amendments, none of them, not one, had to do with any of the amendments I put forward and which were put forward by some of the environmentalists who have a long, long history with the Planning Act, who spent four years of their lives involved throughout the Sewell process and beyond that -- not one amendment. They were not at any point whatsoever treated with any kind of respect for their expertise -- completely left out of the picture. So don't be surprised that people are very angry and are accusing you of only listening to one side in this issue.

Unfortunately, all the evidence points to the fact that you only listened to one side.

Regarding the draft policy statements, I was very interested to hear the parliamentary assistant rhyme off whom they had consulted with. I know they tried to consult with some environmentalists. However, it wasn't serious consultation; it was, "Let's get to know you a little bit," and then they were ignored.

Mr Hardeman: I'd like to thank the member for Nepean and the member for Renfrew North for their kind comments. I would also like to state to the member for Renfrew North that we do not believe the environmental policy statements have been weakened, that there's any greater risk after Bill 20 than with Bill 163 of having problems in Ontario that the province would become responsible for.

I also want to address the member for Cochrane South, who suggested that the change from "shall be consistent with" to "shall have regard to" completely guts the environmental aspect of Bill 20.

I'd point out that a great number of the deputants coming before our committee came forward with the recommendation that we go to "shall have regard to," and all suggested that they understood what that meant, that it meant they must adhere to that type of policy unless there was a specific reason they could not achieve that requirement; that the provincial policy statements in many areas overlap and in fact are contradictory as to which resource should be protected, and that there is a need for local autonomy to make those types of decisions and only going back to "shall have regard to" would make that possible.

We also have to remember that many cases have been before the Ontario Municipal Board, where the board too realized that "shall have regard to" meant they should adhere to those policy statements if that could be achieved.

I would also point out that there were very few comments to the actual Bill 20, as it relates to the environment, only to that change in the wording. The majority of environmental concerns expressed were based on the policy statements, which were being reviewed, as I mentioned in the statement, and the review was to be completed by March 4. We have received many comments from people concerned about the environment and we will be dealing with those as we deal with the policy statements.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Before continuing the debate on this, I would request that my time be split equally with the member for St Catharines. I'd request unanimous consent for that.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? It is agreed.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you. First of all, it was very interesting to listen to the comments made by the last three or four members. It's quite obvious that each of them seems to have a slightly different

interpretation of what happened at the various meetings we held around the province.

I also think it's very interesting for the government to talk about a sense of balance with respect to the planning legislation. That's certainly what we in this party believe should happen, that the planning legislation should not be totally dominated by either one sector or the other. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't do it. It certainly doesn't create the kind of balance that people are looking for in their planning legislation for the proper development of the province.

It's true that some people feel that Bill 163 went too far. With all respect to the former government, let's be fair and honest and say that Bill 163 wasn't around long enough for anyone to really monitor the effect that bill had on the development or non-development that took place in the province.

Bill 163 was around for only about six or seven months and it would have been too early to judge the results, although it's certainly true that within the development community and within the municipal community there was a sense that the requirements of 163 were going to be too onerous, that it was going to take too long to get proper development through, that it was in effect going to harm the development industry.

What's very interesting, and the parliamentary assistant made comment on it, is that really the whole planning process in Ontario is a two-stage process. On the one hand we deal with the Planning Act, which deals with process, and on the other hand it deals as much with the policy statements that the province and indeed the municipalities on an individual basis through their official plans put forward. It's the combination of those two factors, the policy and the process document, the procedural document, that in effect leads to the planning that takes place in our communities.

Unfortunately, this committee had absolutely no say over what's going to be in the policy statement. So we were dealing with only sort of half of the equation, and indeed we were dealing with the smaller half, the process side of things.

It's interesting to note in the parliamentary assistant's statement that he is very quick to point out that the policy statement has been circulated among the stakeholders, such as the development industry, the municipalities and the home builders. Well, I suggest to you that there's a whole other group of people out there who have just as much at stake there, and those people are not developers; they are not members of the development industry; they are not members of individual councils. No, they are the general public of the province of Ontario.

If there is one overriding criticism that can be made of this bill, it is that in the hopes of getting things on as quickly as possible, getting things moving, there can be no question about it that the ministry talked with the development industry and talked with the municipalities, but it never consulted with the general public. It is so evident in a number of different areas of this bill that the general public's attitude or involvement in the planning process really has been minimized.

First of all, when we look at the time reductions -- and I'll have much more to say about this later on -- the time reductions in the bill as it affects the general public basically go from 30 days that the general public has to respond on a particular official plan amendment or a zoning amendment to 20 days. The optics of the situation are that by cutting 10 days off, somehow development applications will be dealt with in a more speedy fashion, and obviously we can get things on a lot quicker and we can get things done at the local level a lot quicker than used to be the case.

As many delegations that came before the committee indicated, for a variety of reasons a 20-day appeal period simply isn't long enough for people who are serious about a particular development matter or who have some serious concerns about it to frame those concerns in an adequate and substantial way, to allow them to do that within that period of time.

The other thing that was very interesting, and another way in which the general public was sort of shut out of the whole debate, was the loss of appeals. I will grant you that the ministry has now decided that appeals to the OMB for minor variances will continue to be the case. That was as a result of almost unanimous, I would say, support from all the groups that came before the committee.

Mr Baird: Public consultation.

Mr Gerretsen: And he's right. It was as a result of public consultation that this particular change was made. But the significant

part is that they were forced into it, that there was no consultation or there was no consideration prior to that when the bill was first introduced to whether or not the public was going to lose anything by not allowing a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to minor variances. And we all know how important minor variances are in our own particular neighbourhoods. They are the situations in which people by and large can relate to the planning process. They are the types of situations that people will deal with or the results of which people will deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The other thing that was very interesting is that there was no public meeting required for the approval of subdivisions or for severances. Now a suggestion has been made that in effect that be done by way of regulation in certain appropriate circumstances and situations. Well, I would suggest to you that again, for most of the general public, it's only at the time when a subdivision in effect is being planned, when a drawing is presented showing the layout of the various streets, of the density allocations of the parkland, of all the other various amenity areas in a particular subdivision, that people really realize what is going to be built next to them.

To have an official plan designation or to have a global zoning of a piece of property next to a property that a person may be living in is one thing, but it's only when an actual subdivision plan is developed and people realize how their particular property, their home, their commercial-industrial property is going to relate to the newly proposed area -- it's only then that they realize that they really have an interest in it.

I can remember as a former municipal councillor many meetings dealing with official plans in general when, quite frankly, it was very difficult to get people out. I can tell you, in the community that I'm from, planning has always been something that people have taken a special interest in and certainly it's one of the reasons why a lot of people, including myself initially, got involved in local government because there is a tremendous interest in planning in an old community like the city of Kingston.

But I can tell you, until you actually put some meat and bones on a particular plan by way of a development plan or by way of a subdivision plan, until you actually show people what is going to be developed on a particular piece of property, the interest that people have in it or their ability to visualize the general zoning or an official plan designation is not there to the same extent and you just don't have the same kind of interest. So again, this is another area in which the general public basically was going to be excluded.

Now, let me just deal with the reasons why we are against the bill as presented to us for third reading by way of a number of amendments that we had proposed and that were rejected by the government for a variety of reasons. The first one deals with this whole notion of a one-window approach. The one-window approach is something that most of us will agree is the right and proper thing to do.

Rather than having seven or eight different ministries deal with the particular matter in their own way, to actually have it funnelled through one particular ministry is time-efficient, certainly from a file management viewpoint, the situation can be handled better etc, but it also has some very inherent difficulties with it.

One of the greatest difficulties that it has is that the legitimate concerns of some of the ministries may very well be finessed in a particular situation.

That's why we felt that in order for a one-window approach to properly work, you had to set out the rules and regulations, the protocol as it were, whereby the ministries were going to adhere to how they were going to deal with a particular application or a particular matter before them, so that not only internally the government would know how they were going to look at a particular application or the various ministries were going to look at an application, but so that the general public, the development industry and indeed municipalities would know the rules by which particular applications were going to be judged within particular government departments.

That's why we suggested that the government should develop clear, written, publicly available protocols on how the workings of a one-window approach would actually be put into place.

Currently, you could very well have a situation where the concerns of four or five ministries may be satisfied with a particular development. There could be one or two ministries that may have a definite concern about what's going on, and with just the numbers of ministri