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

December 13, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L039a - Wed 13 Dec 1995 / Mer 13 Déc 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE

ELSIE KNOTT

HIGHWAY 403

MATHESON AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

SPECIAL CARE NURSERY

HARRY P. CAVERS

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

THECLA JORDAN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGAL AID

SALE OF LAND

LEGAL AID

SALE OF LAND

LEGAL AID

SALE OF LAND

VISITORS

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

MEMBER FOR OTTAWA EAST

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

EDUCATION REFORM

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

CONSULTATION WITH FIRE DEPARTMENTS

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

WASTE TRANSFER APPLICATION

SNOW REMOVAL

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

HIGHWAY 17

CHILD CARE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

TAX REDUCTION

CHILD CARE

TAX REDUCTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

CLOSURE OF ONTARIO WELCOME HOUSE

CHILD CARE

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

COMMENTS OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

BETHLEHEM PLACE

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES CHEMINS DE FER D'INTÉRÊT LOCAL

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS EXIGÉS DES PERSONNES MORALES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Yesterday I introduced to this House a private member's bill entitled the Automobile Insurance Act, 1995. This bill seeks to provide more equitable treatment by insurers of certain applicants for automobile insurance. This bill stipulates that if for any reason it appears that an applicant for insurance may only obtain it through the Facility Association, established under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the applicant may ask the Ontario Insurance Commission to review the matter.

As it stands today, an experienced driver who fails to show proof of insurance for 12 out of the previous 24 months can be hit with an astronomical rate increase. This means that if someone has left the country for 12 months, has decided not to drive for a year, or simply can't afford insurance premiums, they will be lumped into the Facility Association, and in real terms insurance rates can double and in some instances can triple, making auto insurance financially inaccessible for a lot of people who can least afford it.

This bill sets out to identify unfairness within the Facility Association process and in turn rectify the problem with a formalized legislative amendment. Hopefully, this bill will be of assistance to the numerous people I have spoken with and the countless others who have been affected by this inequity.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I rise to make a statement on behalf of the member for Nickel Belt and his constituents in the small community of Gogama.

The people of Gogama are worried about the future of their community. Rumours are circulating that the Ministry of Natural Resources is considering closing or severely reducing the Gogama area MNR office.

People in the community are so concerned that more than a hundred, a substantial number in a community of just 300 families, have taken the time to write to the minister to make sure he understands how important the Gogama area office is to the community.

The local MNR office employs 31 permanent and 25 seasonal people, which represents approximately 35% of the total employment within a 75-kilometre radius of Gogama. Closing this office would take almost 1.5 million payroll dollars out of the local economy.

The Gogama area office looks after the natural resources in an area of 7,200 square kilometres; the next-closest office, in Timmins, is an hour and a half away. The local economy is almost exclusively dependent on forestry and tourism. If you take away the people who are on the ground, the people who know the area's resources best, the people who can work with the forest companies and the tourist operators, you are threatening the long-term sustainability of Gogama's economy.

I am conveying these letters to the minister today, and I ask him to respond to the people of Gogama and assure them that their office will not be closed or reduced.

ELSIE KNOTT

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise to pay tribute to a very special person in my riding who recently passed away. Elsie Knott, of the Curve Lake First Nations reserve, Canada's first elected female aboriginal chief, was laid to rest on December 6, 1995, at the age of 73.

Elsie was described as a community leader, a friend and a mother when more than 200 people packed the Curve Lake Community Church to say goodbye, the very same church which Elsie was instrumental in building.

She was the founding member of the Union of Ontario Indians, and was first elected as Curve Lake's chief in 1953 and served through to 1960, and again from 1970 to 1976.

Elsie lived every day for her family and her community. She organized everything from boy scouts and girl guides to baseball tournaments and church services for seniors. She was a Sunday school teacher and later became church superintendent, all functions that have united and strengthened the entire community. She owned and operated the Tee Pee Trading Post and, until a year ago, was Curve Lake's postmistress.

Elsie will be missed by the entire Canadian native community, but more importantly, she will be missed by her family and friends in her local community, a community which has truly benefitted from her hard work and love of life.

Today, I am honoured to pay tribute to Elsie Knott of Curve Lake, a truly remarkable individual.

HIGHWAY 403

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise on behalf of a number of parents and students of Ancaster high school, in the town of Ancaster in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, in regard to the completion of Highway 403 from Ancaster to Brantford.

The funding and the commitment had been given by the previous government for this highway and work had commenced on it; bridges and overpasses had been built. It is essential to the economic development of the area between Ancaster and Brantford. It is also essential to the safety of students who currently travel Highway 2 every single day back and forth from school.

We have a very busy highway where buses literally have to stop three, four and five times on that stretch to let off students. There was a serious accident a couple of months ago. Luckily, the bus had only two students in it; they were sitting at the front when a truck rear-ended the bus. It could have been an absolute tragedy had there been more students on the bus on that particular day.

The students have organized a drive, and parents and residents of the area are concerned as a result of this government's delaying tactics on this highway. A project that was to be completed within two years, that had been announced by the previous government, has now been estimated to be at least five years away from completion.

On behalf of those residents, I urge the Minister of Transportation and this government to get on with it, live up to its commitment for the Highway 403 extension from Ancaster to Brantford and take into consideration the safety factors before it's too late and a tragedy occurs.

MATHESON AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today to raise the concerns of the people of Matheson. Matheson, as you may know, is the home of the Ag and Food office for the northeast region around the area of Matheson. Unfortunately, it is one of the offices that has been scheduled to close down its facilities.

I'm here to say that office serves many farms in the area of Matheson and the farmers in the area require that office to make sure they're able to do the work they need to do to make their farms prosperous. The agricultural industry is one of the key sectors of the Matheson area, and by closing down that office we might be putting in jeopardy the farming sector.

I want to say to the minister, because I've had this discussion with him already, that the people of Matheson want to be consulted on this proposed closure. I say directly to the minister that the people of Matheson are responsible individuals who are prepared to sit down with the minister and me to enter into discussions about how we can possibly avert the closing of that office.

I spoke as recently as last night with the minister, and I'm glad to say he's agreed to meet with me to discuss the co-location as one option for possibly not having to close it down -- no promises made, but at least he's willing to listen and discuss it -- or to take a look at a possible restructuring of the Ag and Food offices in the area so we make sure the farmers in the area will not go unheard and will not lose those services.

I say to the minister, help us help you keep your election commitment of not cutting the budget of services for the agricultural industry. I look forward to working with you on this project.

SPECIAL CARE NURSERY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to inform the House of a story of compassion, caring, dedication and skill that everyone in this great province can feel proud of as we enter the season of joy and giving. Let me say how proud I am to say that this story is one that comes out of Scarborough, whose residents and professionals are among the most caring in Ontario.

On November 26, nine-year-old Andrew Blaney discovered baby Anne, just two hours old, abandoned in a cardboard box and left in the freezing snow. Her body temperature had dropped so low that she was near death. Miraculously, however, baby Anne will be fine with the help of a great deal of skill and caring.

Baby Anne was brought to Scarborough General Hospital's special-care nursery area, which immediately took baby Anne in and nursed her back to life with a great deal of tender, loving care.

The special-care nursery area cares for about 10 infants, on average, with special needs, some from the time they are born until a couple of months of age. The nursery will soon celebrate 40 years of dedication to young infants in Scarborough. Had there been no special-care nursery in Scarborough, this child may have perished. As it was, baby Anne not only survived but flourished and I happy to report that a home and foster parent have been found for her just in time for Christmas.

I'd like to ask that every member of this Legislature join me in sending our sincere thanks and congratulations on a job very well done to Jane Kenny and Bev St Marten, the managers of nursing practice, and their 11 full-time staff and 10 part-time staff at Scarborough General Hospital's special-care nursery.

HARRY P. CAVERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Monday, December 11, the family, friends and colleagues of Harry P. Cavers paid tribute to him at his funeral service in St Catharines.

Harry was an individual who was known for his service and fairness throughout his lifetime as a judge, member of Parliament and private citizen.

When our country was at war and Harry was practising law in St Catharines, he enlisted in the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, returning to his practice at the conclusion of hostilities.

As a member of the firm of Cavers, Chown and Cairns, he was a highly regarded member of the legal profession. He continued to be held in high respect as a county court judge for 15 years and, subsequently, as a supernumerary judge until 1984.

Harry Cavers's desire to serve prompted him to seek public office in 1949 when he was elected as the member of Parliament for Lincoln, serving until 1957. His personal popularity and reputation were major factors in his election as the first Liberal in Lincoln in five decades.

Harry was a member of several organizations, including the Lincoln County Law Society, the Masonic Lodge, the Royal Canadian Legion and the St Catharines Kiwanis Club, of which he was a president and lifetime member.

I am honoured, on behalf of the people of St Catharines, to pay tribute to Harry P. Cavers in this assembly, and to extend to his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren the sympathy of all who knew him.

We will all remember Harry Cavers as a man of intelligence, moderation, dedication and compassion, and one who placed his community and his fellow citizens ahead of himself.

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I was visited in my office today by a couple of students from Humber College raising concerns on behalf of their fellow students. Chris Popp and Kim Showers, who are in the gallery here, both second-year students in the social work program at that college, are concerned about the impact rising tuition fees will have on them and their fellow students.

They speak, I know, on behalf of the students in my community at Sault College and Algoma University and those who will come, as they look at the tremendous debt they will incur simply to get an education in this province, due to the insensitive decisions being made by this government across the way as it raises the cost of everything in this province and makes nothing achievable for those who are not rich and well-off.

The other concern they raised that's even more disconcerting is the anxiety they feel as they look towards the future. They're in social work, and they were looking forward to jobs in the public sector where they could actually use the skills they've learned and help some people. But now they see those jobs disappearing, and they're concerned that there's nothing to take their place. They hear the government talking about 725,000 new jobs being created, but there's nothing out there to show where that's going to come from or whether those jobs are going to be part-time, minimum wage and no benefits.

They tell me that all the students they interact with have the same concerns. They want this government to take --

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

THECLA JORDAN

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On Monday, the citizens of Lanark-Renfrew lost a good friend and community worker.

Thecla Jordan, wife of Leo Jordan, deputy whip to the government, was born and raised in Smiths Falls, the third of four daughters born to Thomas and Annie Kelley.

Originally an elementary school teacher, Thecla worked at the Smiths Falls Public Library for many years.

For Thecla, family always came first and was her main focus. She had the privilege of seeing all her five children graduate from university and get married.

Thecla Jordan served her community, her church and, most importantly, her family with great energy and distinction.

Those closest to the family knew her best as Leo's right hand, his strength and greatest supporter. When he was hospitalized during the recent election, she was tireless in campaigning for him. The victory of election night was equally attributed to both Leo and Thecla.

The citizens of Lanark-Renfrew were used to seeing their MPP and his wife always together, an unbeatable team.

We are all saddened by the loss of this wonderful human being. I extend to Leo and their children and grandchildren our deepest sympathy at this difficult time. Her spirit will live forever through her five children and nine grandchildren, who were her greatest joy.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Mr Speaker, if you would permit, I would simply like to say on behalf of our party, and I'm sure members of the Liberal Party would like to say as well, that our hearts go out to Leo on this occasion. We were all deeply saddened to hear the news of Thecla's passing on Monday. I'm sure the House would want all of us to be included in the very fitting, eloquent words of the member for York Mills, who just spoke, if we could just add our very deep feelings. I know we'll all be taking time to pay tribute in our own way, but I'm sure we'd want on this occasion to join in sending our very best to Leo Jordan.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to extend similar sympathy to Leo and to the family. This is always a difficult time. Public life is difficult for all of us, and people who have a supportive spouse and family are very much favoured.

I remember hearing of Leo's personal health problems, and I know his family and his wife were very supportive of him at that time and that meant so very much to him.

When we are in this assembly and consumed very much in the events of the day and the happenings of the assembly, we often place those foremost in our minds. When someone loses someone very close, as Leo has, I think it makes all of us pause to determine what is most important in our lives. I'm sure to Leo and the family and to all of us who are friends of Leo and the family, the events of this week were very much more important, although much sadder, than the events that take place in this House and in the surrounding area in terms of politics. It is something that transcends politics, and our sympathy and best wishes go to Leo and the family.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I thank all honourable members for their kind words. I, on behalf of all members of this House, send our sympathy to Leo and his family.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGAL AID

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm pleased to tell members of the House today that the government has accepted the Law Society of Upper Canada's proposals to downsize the Ontario legal aid plan to bring it within budget.

My ministry has received Mr Stanley Beck's review of the financial and policy implications of the law society's cost-cutting proposals to the Ontario legal aid plan. Mr Beck, who is in the members' gallery today, is a former dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School and former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission who was asked by the government to study the delivery of legal aid this past September.

Mr Beck concluded that the measures to be implemented by the law society, subject to careful monitoring procedures, would enable the legal aid plan to operate within its previously agreed-to budget. This means that the law society will now be in a position to pay outstanding legal aid accounts to service providers within the time frames originally agreed to by the law society and the previous government in a memorandum of understanding.

The law society is now taking the steps required to bring the legal aid plan within its means. These reforms represent a significant fiscal and administrative restructuring of the delivery of legal aid in Ontario. The measures are designed to bring the plan's expenditures within the funding agreement reached between the law society and the previous government and guaranteed by this government.

The law society's downsizing plan, including those changes approved in August and October, contains among other measures the following: criminal and family law service will be reduced by setting priorities; there will be a $25 application fee for clients; the fees paid to lawyers will be reduced by an average of 22%, for a total reduction of $75 million over the life of the funding agreement; the number of certificates issued will be reduced by approximately one third, from 155,000 in 1995-96 to an annual maximum of 100,000; an independent monitor will be appointed by the ministry to track the cost control program, ensuring a much greater degree of accountability to the taxpayers of Ontario.

The law society has agreed to make further reductions should the monitor indicate overspending of the plan.

The law society estimates, as well as Mr Beck, who concurs, that these measures will reduce the cost of legal aid by over $275 million in the next three years. Had the government not taken steps to ensure that the legal aid plan operated within budget, the plan would have been facing arrears in the amount of $275 million by 1998-99. This would be unacceptable to the taxpayers of Ontario, who fund legal aid.

Taxpayers will now have a legal aid plan that is on target to meet its budget and that will have proper monthly monitoring procedures.

The days of the province issuing a blank cheque for legal aid are over. These measures should end the uncertainty facing legal aid clients and service providers and bring some stability back to the system.

Officials of the Ministry of the Attorney General will be meeting with the law society to discuss the implementation of these measures.

Finally, I wish to again thank Mr Stanley Beck for his professional assistance throughout this matter.

SALE OF LAND

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We have promised to sell marketable provincial assets such as surplus real estate holdings and use the proceeds for deficit reduction. This government has pledged to eliminate the deficit because in recent years it has accumulated at a rate in excess of $1 million an hour every year and has added an enormous debt that is being passed on to future generations to bear.

The province has several large-scale land assemblies serving no immediate or longer-term purpose to the government. These can be sold to contribute to deficit reduction. In addition, this will permit the properties to be beneficially developed under the guidance of the appropriate municipalities.

In preparation for this action, I am announcing, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that the housing priority policy will be cancelled. It is this government's view that this policy is needlessly restrictive and largely excluded the most successful and efficient developers of housing, the private sector. The policy has resulted in a prime government resource, its real estate, being underutilized and the taxpayer not achieving full benefit.

This government is getting out of the business of land banking and land development. This will free up provincial properties such as Cornell in east Markham. Through a request for proposals, the province is pursuing the immediate marketing of this land, which we believe will lead to timely development under the guidance of the town of Markham in accordance with the process set out by the town.

This could involve the sale of the entire land holding, a phased sale, or a partnership between the province and the private sector. We're prepared to entertain a variety of submissions in order to secure the best business deal for the people of Ontario.

Development of the Seaton land, northeast of Pickering, will move forward with the preparation of a secondary plan. The province can potentially realize greater revenue if Seaton is sold with a secondary plan in place.

In the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve, provincially owned agricultural land rented to farmers and other residents will be sold by first offering these tenants the opportunity to buy.

The disposal of surplus government land will be done in phases, taking local market conditions into consideration. Municipalities will have more say in deciding what kind of development makes sense in their communities, and the private sector will be able to do what it does best: develop the land and create job opportunities.

The province is getting out of the businesses that are best done by municipalities and the private sector, while keeping our promise to sell surplus government assets to help pay down the deficit.

LEGAL AID

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm responding to the statement by the Attorney General on legal aid. I want to start by saying that his statement today says nothing about the Victims' Bill of Rights; in fact, it doesn't mention victims of crime at all.

I would point out to him that victims of crime are victimized twice, when the perpetrators of those crimes are not brought to trial speedily and --

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We're going to debate that this afternoon, I think, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: The Attorney General points out that we are debating that today and that's why I'm mentioning this. He has sat on the sidelines for months while the state of the legal aid system has been brought to the brink of collapse.

We know that there have been judges in Sault Ste Marie who halted the trial of four men charged with cocaine trafficking until the Attorney General would provide assurances that their legal aid bills would be paid. Another judge took the extraordinary step of ordering the Attorney General to appear in court and state whether his ministry would pay the legal aid bill of the lawyer involved in a murder trial. We know as well that a judge in Ottawa actually ruled that criminal charges against an armed robbery suspect would be stayed until the Attorney General guaranteed that legal aid fees would be paid.

I say to him, this afternoon we're discussing the Victims' Bill of Rights, and to stand in the House today with this legal aid announcement victimizes those victims twice, because, sir, you are issuing fewer legal aid certificates and you are saying to those people who need access to legal aid service that they will receive no justice.

Willowdale Community Legal Services is one of the most significant and important community services that was established in Oriole riding. I know how important that is to the people of our community, and I would say to him that legal aid should not be underestimated as a service in this province. It provides access to justice. It also makes sure that those people who have perpetrated crimes are brought to trial in a timely way.

I ask the Attorney General if he will today table the report of Stanley Beck so that we can all have a review of that, and I see him nodding his head --

Hon Mr Harnick: It's being released, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: -- and I thank him very much for that assurance. I will expect to see it promptly.

I would also suggest that things have gotten so bad that the law society was prepared to take the government to court if funding assurances had not been received. Today, sir, is a Band-Aid. Today does not solve the long-term problems of legal aid. It does not assure access to the justice system. It also does not assure victims of those crimes that the perpetrators of those crimes will not be let off because of the Askov decision, which requires justice in a timely way, and it does not assure victims of crime that they have any rights in this province to see that justice is done.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to respond to the Management Board minister, first by saying that if there's something that is very dear to the hearts of Scarborough, it is the Rouge park and members of all parties have fought for years and years to make certain that park be preserved. One of the first acts that we see of the new government is to sell off the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve. I would just say to the members that the flags are going up, that the warning signs are going up, that the Rouge community, and I'm very supportive of the Rouge community, will begin to see what this government's all about.

Secondly, I appreciate the minister saying that it is their intention to sell off the surplus lands. I would just say that you are unravelling finally a decision made by Premier Harris and the Minister of Finance many years ago, and Premier Davis, to buy these lands, to bank these lands. I gather that he's now had a change of mind and wants to now get rid of them.

It's probably an interesting business decision because certainly you are going to put them on the market probably at the lowest point the market for land has been at in years and years, but so be it. But it's not unlike the decision that you made to buy Suncor when you were in government. You bought high and the next governments had to sell low. So I appreciate the decision you're making.

I would just say this, that the Rouge community is now beginning to see the threat and this is the first step. Secondly, I guess the Premier has had a change of heart. At one time, he liked to buy the land and now he likes to sell the land.

LEGAL AID

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm responding to the statement by the Attorney General today concerning the legal aid plan. I'm sure that all citizens in Ontario are pleased to see the end of the controversy that has led to uncertainty around the status of the legal aid plan and certainly around the fate of access to justice through the legal aid plan.

I think it is important for us all to recognize that what the minister has announced today certainly indicates substantial change from the kind of legal aid service that Ontarians have enjoyed in the past and that this has been done largely to keep costs under control that had escalated by close to 50% over the last five to six years.

It is an extremely delicate issue to try and control costs and still maintain access to legal services. The work of the ministry, Professor Beck and the law society to try and accomplish a compromise that will do that has been a very, very hard task indeed and one which only narrowly passed the law society over the last few months.

It is going to be important for the Attorney General to be aware that there are many lawyers practising in the province and many advocacy groups in the province who have great apprehension about the effect of this plan on access to legal services. In addition to the close monitoring of the fiscal issues around legal aid, which I really congratulate the minister on achieving because that needed to be done -- it's a manual system that's operated. It hasn't been in control and it is very necessary to have fiscal monitoring.

I hope the minister will also be monitoring issues around access to justice, issues around the court process, issues around the fairness of those court processes, the concerns of judges and lawyers around access to justice as time goes on and that, as we look at that, we can see whether there really is an erosion of access in this province and that we will all work together to achieve a change in that if that should eventuate.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Here we go again. This afternoon, the Chair of Management Board has given us a clear indication of where this government is going, another sign of what their plan is, however simple and shallow it be. If it's public, if it has some common interest, if it somehow is communally going to be helpful to people, particularly those who are most at risk in this province, sell it, give it away, give it to your friends and colleagues. Give it to the private sector, let them deal with it. Let them build the housing. Let them reap the rewards and let whatever comes of that trickle down to the rest of us.

In July, you took money out of the pockets of the poor. Two weeks ago today, you took away valuable services that everybody in this province depends on, particularly the poor and the middle class. In the new year, you'll be laying off thousands of workers who deliver programs. All of those decisions have had both direct and indirect consequences; just as today, no mention of them, no rolling that out, no talk of them, no figures.

Now, today, you're selling the land we all own collectively, right out from under our feet, without a second thought or a note about the consequence to people or communities. You've also cancelled the housing priority policy. You know the private sector has no interest in low-cost housing; they never have. There's no money in it. They won't do it; they won't build the housing that's needed out there for people who in this very difficult winter that we're facing are going to be cold and unhoused.

In all of this you've thrown the rights and the birthrights of all of us out the window, all the very valuable initiatives built up over the years that contribute to the quality of life, in fact contribute to the economy of this province in so many significant ways, all the things that we depend on for our day-to-day living. It's now on the auction block; it's now out there for the private sector to come in and take it over: "Just come and get it. Take it. No problem." No consequential information there, nothing, no care.

You've pulled the rug out on the poor, you've pulled the rug out on the middle class and today you pulled the rug out on all those people out there who are dependent on public housing, on this government to make sure that they have a roof over their head so that they can be guaranteed some of the basics of life -- food and clothing and shelter and the ability to access land that doesn't belong to somebody else for all those things that we use that land for. It's a disgrace.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Yusuf Shah, consul-general of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Please join me in welcoming our guest.

I'd like to inform the members we also have another special guest in the Speaker's gallery today: Mr Clem Campbell, MLA for the electoral district of Bundaberg in Queensland, Australia. Please join me in welcoming our other guest.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a response from the honourable Gregory Evans, Integrity Commissioner, to the request by the member for Riverdale on whether the member for London North had contravened the Members' Integrity Act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

MEMBER FOR OTTAWA EAST

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is also my pleasure today to inform the House of the 11th anniversary of distinguished service in this House of the member for Ottawa East, Ben Grandmaître. As a minister and as a member, 11 years.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, will you please explain why your bully-bill legislation, this Bill 26, contains provisions to make municipal councillors personally financially liable if their decisions don't fit with your takeover directions? Why do you feel that municipal councillors should be sued for representing their ratepayers?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): First of all, let's talk about the bill a little bit and why we wanted to get there. I can tell you, I have no intention of debating this bill clause by clause during question period. The bill has had second reading; it's going to committee. It will have clause-by-clause debate and we'll do it at that point in time.

Let's talk about why we're here. Let's talk about why we have to have this bill. Let's talk about the mess that we're into and why we need to help the municipalities to get us out of it. But I don't intend to debate clause by clause.

Mrs McLeod: It seems that members of the Tory caucus have been sharing a communications consultant, and it's a lucky thing that we are going to get this bill into clause-by-clause debate. But the minister is nevertheless responsible for explaining, not only to us but to the public, exactly what the provisions are of this legislation, whether he wants to debate it or not.

Minister, I want you to talk about the fact that Bill 26 clearly allows you to impose punitive and bullying controls on municipal councillors if they disagree with your restructuring plans. I direct your attention to subsection 25.2(13), which clearly makes councillors personally financially liable if they act in opposition to one of your forced amalgamations. It is as clear as it can be in this legislation. "Members who vote in favour of the act which contravenes the regulation are personally liable for the amount of the adverse financial effect...."

I ask how you can talk about increasing municipal flexibility when you bring forward measures that allow you to take total control of municipal decisions and threaten municipal councillors with personal bankruptcy if they dare to stand in your way.

Hon Mr Leach: As I said before, I have no intention of debating this bill clause by clause; I'm not going to do it. Do you want to talk about the bill? Do you want to talk about why we're here? Do you want to talk about the mess we're in? We'll do that. Let's debate that. Let's debate why we got here in the first place.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I could ask my supplementary before the minister has a chance to read the briefing note which was appropriately sent in to him at this rather critical moment in time. Yesterday this minister was surprisingly willing to try and answer questions. Yesterday he said that the provisions in Bill 26 were designed to give municipalities the reforms they have been demanding for many years.

Minister, I doubt if you can name one municipal councillor who actually asked you to hold him or her responsible and financially liable and to be sued for opposing an annexation or an amalgamation that is directed by you out of your ivory tower at Queen's Park. How is this anything more than an attempt to bully and coerce local municipal councils, through personal financial intimidation, to make them do what you want? How is this anything else than a blatant attempt to stifle any local community opposition to your decisions?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm just going to repeat it again: What it's designed to do is to ensure that a municipality that becomes part of a restructuring doesn't waste or squander the resources of the municipality. They would have to be responsible for that. I think that's a reasonable thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mrs McLeod: I think this minister is a walking advertisement for why we had to fight to make sure that this legislation did not become law next week.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday, when you were prepared to answer questions, you said that you would resign if anyone could prove that your bully bill, Bill 26, allows municipalities to levy income taxes or gasoline taxes or retail sales taxes, so today I want to bring you that proof.

I have in my hand a book called The Constitutional Law of Canada. I think any lawyer would tell you that this text is the definitive work on constitutional law in Canada. In a

section called "The Meaning of Direct Taxation" it states very clearly what a direct tax is: "A tax on net income is direct. Indeed, an income tax is the most typical form of direct taxation." Having been provided with the proof, will you now do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I had a meeting this morning with four lawyers on taxation, and I should average the four answers, but I can tell you that this legislation allows fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. It does not apply to sales tax, gas tax, income tax -- none of those taxes. It just does not apply. The legal branch in the ministry is very clear and very straightforward when it says it doesn't apply. You're wrong. I don't know where you're getting the advice, but it's wrong.

Mrs McLeod: Cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Health and now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, have proven themselves very adept at getting ministry legal advice that backs up the bad legislation they are presenting.

Minister, it appears that you're not prepared to accept what most lawyers would consider to be the definitive legal source in Canada as proof that your legislation will indeed at least allow municipalities to raise these kinds of taxes, so I will offer the minister proof from another text. Some of us might think it is a little less definitive, but given the minister's orientation, I'm sure he will accept this as the final word. It happens to be a document called Deficits and Taxes. It is a document that was published by the Progressive Conservative caucus at Queen's Park in the summer of 1992.

I assume that you will accept this as the definitive, final word, since you reject the constitutional law of Canada. This text defines direct tax as follows:

"A tax that is paid directly by the person or firm on which it is levied and which, generally speaking, is hard to shift to another person. Examples include personal and corporate income tax, capital gains tax, property tax and the retail sales tax."

Minister, in the face of this proof, will you do the honourable thing and resign, as you said you would?

Hon Mr Leach: I wish the honourable member across would read the entire bill. It says this legislation allows fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. That's what it says. Read it. It does not say, and it does not apply to, sales tax, gas tax, property tax or any of them. You are wrong.

Mrs McLeod: There are two things that have become abundantly clear over the course of the last two days. The first is that you are indeed wrong. On this particular issue the law is clear; your law, your proposed law, is clear. It allows for direct taxes. We do not need to talk about your intent or any clarification through future regulations. Your proposed law is clear; it is bad legislation and it will allow municipalities to levy head taxes and even go so far as to allow them to levy municipal taxes.

The second thing that has become abundantly clear is that you are a senior minister who is completely unfamiliar with a massive piece of legislation which will have wide-ranging effects on every city and town in this province, on every citizen. You have senior responsibilities for this legislation and you don't even appear to have read it or to understand it or even have the slightest grip of what its impact will be.

I will give you another opportunity, Minister: Do you have the guts to do the honourable thing and acknowledge that you are wrong, that this is bad legislation, withdraw it and offer your resignation to the Premier?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm going to repeat it one more time: Read the legislation. You are wrong. I'd ask you to resign if you were wrong, but you're on your way out anyway. This legislation is very, very specific. It speaks. The legislation allows fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. Read it.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'm sure we could all spend a great deal of time comparing legal opinions, but I'd like to ask the minister if he would have a look at another

section of the act, which we didn't have a chance to look at yesterday, the

section which permits the municipality to impose licences. In fact, it broadens the licensing power of the municipality.

On page 151 it says:

"

(2) Without limiting...the power to license...and govern a business...includes,

"(

f) the power to impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence, including conditions,

"(

i) requiring the payment of licence fees, which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred by the licence or for the purpose of raising revenue."

In other words, a municipality can require that businesses hold licences with the municipality and it can then charge a tax on those businesses, which tax may take an additional form.

I wonder if the minister would not at least be prepared to admit in the House that the wording of that

section clearly points to a broader power on the part of the municipality to levy a tax on business which could include business income.

Hon Mr Leach: What this

section does, and again I shouldn't debate this because I'm not going to do it, but what it does --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Leach: -- legislation that's existing. It puts a limit on the licence fees that can be charged for certain businesses in a municipality. For example, for a bakery licence you can charge $1. That doesn't cover the cost of postage. This gives the municipalities the opportunity to license businesses and recover their costs.

Mr Rae: I'm sure we can debate legal opinions, but an opinion that has been reviewed that I obtained this morning from Professor Vern Krishna, who's the author of The Fundamentals of Canadian Income Tax and professor at the University of Ottawa law school, says as follows:

"In our view, the language of the bill may well be sufficiently specific and broadly drafted as to permit a municipality or local board to impose a fee or charge in the nature of an income tax or at very least to impose a fee or charge which varies depending upon a person's income."

Given those opinions, and opinions which I suspect will grow as more and more people have a chance to look at this bill, would the minister not at least admit that the wording of the act is sufficiently broad in its reference to direct taxes imposed by the municipality that if it is the intention of the government not to allow such attacks and if it is the intention of the government not to permit such attacks, which is what I understand the minister had to say yesterday in the scrum and the Premier had to say in a scrum this morning, I wonder why the minister wouldn't indicate today in the House that he is prepared to amend this legislation so that if there is any ambiguity or any misunderstanding, or any such possibility, he's prepared to change the law to make sure it doesn't do that.

Hon Mr Leach: I think that's why bills go to committee and I think that's why bills get clause-by-clause hearing. You take it to committee, you take it clause by clause so that you can look at that. You don't do it during question period.

By the way, this legislation was drafted by our lawyers. Our lawyers say that income tax is not an issue. It can't apply to this.

Mr Rae: Again, let's look at the wording of where we're at. The Constitution Act says that the province has the power to levy direct taxes for the purpose of provincial revenue. It uses that phrase. The phrase that's used here is a direct parallel to that phrase that's contained in the Constitution Act. It says here, "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue."

If a municipality decided that it needed to raise additional revenue, let's just say to build subway lines, and it wasn't able to generate those funds from a provincial government because it refused to generate them, is the minister saying that it is not within the power of the municipality under this law to use its taxing power to generate the revenues, say, from the sale of gasoline at the pump within a municipality, in order to generate revenues for the subway? Are you saying that's not going to be possible and you're prepared to directly stop them from doing that?

Hon Mr Leach: The legislation, and again I guess it applies to both parties because they obviously didn't read the first sections, very clearly states that fees and charges can be applied to a service provided or done on behalf of a municipality. It does not apply to the circumstance the member indicated.

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

Mr Rae: Well, no, it does. A subway is a service that's organized by a municipality and it's a service that is not being funded properly by the provincial government because of decisions that a provincial government has made, and a municipality under these powers might quite rightly say, "If we're going to build these subways, we're going to need to find a way to generate the revenues to do so, and therefore we're going to impose a tax within the municipality." What better way to impose a tax than for the municipality to tax gasoline or tax other forms of transportation or tax sales in some other form? Are you saying that it's your intention to stop them from doing that?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, because the act doesn't allow it. The act doesn't allow that kind of charge. Read it. It doesn't allow sales taxes, gas taxes or any of that type of tax, just by definition. I think you better go back to your lawyers and get them to look it over again. It's very clear to us.

Mr Rae: All I can say is, let's just say you're wrong and your lawyers aren't right, somebody else's lawyers are right, and the Attorney General in this instance is wrong, though I know he's been right in every other instance. Let's just say in this instance his advice is wrong. What I'm asking the minister today is to say: "We will not permit a municipality to raise those revenues. We will not permit a sales tax. We will not permit an income tax. We will not permit a gasoline tax. We will not permit a direct tax."

If you're not interested in permitting a direct tax, a poll tax or a head tax, why not say so and take the words "a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue" out of the bill? It's not very difficult. Why not just do that?

Hon Mr Leach: That's precisely why the legislation was worded in this manner, to give municipalities the wherewithal to search for new sources of revenue. The manner in which the member opposite wants to do it is why we have

an act now that's 900 pages thick. Let's give them the wherewithal to do the job. This legislation says: "Be imaginative. Search for new ways of revenues." This allows them to do it.

Mr Rae: Let me try again. I've read it several times, and I'm now putting it to you, Minister: Is it your intention, yes or no, to allow municipalities to raise new taxes in the form of direct taxes for the purposes of raising revenue? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Leach: This legislation allows for fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. That's exactly what it says. That's all they can charge for. That's why I keep suggesting that you read the bill. All of the issues that you're describing are not allowed under this legislation.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing as well. It's kind of curious that you'd be talking about municipalities wasting and squandering their resources when you've been talking in this House about giving them more autonomy.

My question deals more with the question of the powers that you give yourself in this act, Minister. I wonder if you could explain to the House what powers you've given yourself, by way of regulations, to deal with those municipalities that are either voluntarily or involuntarily restructured. Could you explain to the House what those powers are?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What we're doing is giving the municipalities the power to restructure. What we first want the municipalities to do is work together. If we find several municipalities want to restructure and one is having some problems with that, on the request of a municipality we would appoint a commission to assist them in that restructuring. The powers that I have are limited.

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, the powers that you have are limited? That just leads me right into my supplementary. I wonder if you could turn to pages 136 and 137,

section 25.3, which deals with the commission that you could establish under the regulation. Let me just read this to you, sir.

Under subsection (7), and I'll make it as plain and simple as possible, it says: "The minister...may make regulations...that a municipality in a locality for which a commission has been established...shall obtain the approval of a person or body specified in the regulation" -- and that's where you come in -- "before exercising any of its powers under any act." Not this act but any act that a municipality operates under.

Why would you give a person that you appoint as a commissioner power to do in effect whatever a municipality can do, and why would the municipality have to get the consent of that person or commission before they can do anything whatsoever? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Leach: The power that would be given to a commission, if a commission had to be appointed, if the municipalities couldn't work the restructuring out themselves -- and I'm sure many will, if not most -- is the same type of power that applies to the OMB at the present time. As a matter of fact, there wouldn't be any reason why the commission couldn't be appointed members of the OMB.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): To the Minister of Natural Resources: We have learned, Minister, that through the secret negotiations with the largest forest companies to give them control over all the crown forest management units, this will be the largest-ever giveaway of control over Ontario's crown forests in the history of the province; 2,337,000 hectares in the northwest. Why are you conducting these negotiations behind closed doors? Why haven't you made a public statement in the Legislature about these negotiations happening?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for the question. As he is well aware, we in the government are trying to reduce our costs. Every program that we deliver is being examined to see if we can deliver it better, more effectively and more efficiently at reduced prices.

I'm not aware of any formal negotiation process. There was a provision under the bill that the former government passed. I believe he's aware of it; it's called Bill 171, about sustainable forest licences. That's an ongoing routine procedure. I meet quite frequently with representatives of the forestry industry from individual companies. If there's going to be a change in the relationship in the forest industry with regard to crown land, we'll certainly make an announcement in the House at the appropriate time if that should occur, but I'm not aware of any ongoing negotiations at this time.

Mr Len Wood: I understand, Minister, that in the northwest near Sault Ste Marie you're negotiating with Provincial Paper, Yaeger, E.B. Eddy in the northeast near Red Lake, you're at Dryden and Fort Frances and you're negotiating with two large pulp and paper companies, Avenor and Stone Consolidated.

What the people of this province have been questioning is, why are you not consulting? When negotiations are taking place secretly behind closed doors, why are you not consulting with the independent organizations like the small loggers, small forest companies, the tourist associations, community forest products, first nations and environmental organizations? They should be advised and be able to take

part in or at least observe the negotiations that are going on; there should not be secret negotiations being conducted behind closed doors which we have been told are happening.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the member, a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, knows, this is an ongoing process that started back in 1980 with forest management agreements. Under Bill 171 they're called sustainable forest licences, and he's referring to the transfer of forest management areas towards SFLs. That's a routine process under Bill 171 and that law applies to that process. That's quite legal.

There are provisions in that act that are being followed right now as we speak and that'll go on. It went on before my time and it'll go on into the future.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, constituents in my riding of Durham East have generally expressed to me their support for the elimination of the fifth year of high school and meaningful reform of the Ontario secondary school system. However, parents of those students entering grade 9 next year and in 1997 are concerned about the problems that will be faced when two graduating classes attempt to enter university in the year 2001.

What steps will the minister be taking to ensure that sufficient space and access to university education are available to these students?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Durham East for the excellent question. I know this is a subject that's on the minds of a lot of people across the province of Ontario and I'm sure the constituents in Durham East share those concerns.

As a matter of fact, both before I announced the restructuring of our secondary school system in Ontario a few weeks ago, before that announcement and immediately afterwards, I have talked to a variety of students who are in grades 7 and 8 and a variety of parents of students in grades 7 and 8 who are very concerned about the so-called double cohort of students who will be arriving in colleges and universities when we revise the secondary school program.

Part of the reason we announced the change to secondary school education a few weeks ago was to give these parents and students plenty of notice of our intention of changing the structure so that they could take some actions to mitigate the problems of a double cohort.

As the member may know, currently students can complete, under the current rules, their studies in high school under four years, and I'm sure many of those in grade 8 now will be encouraged to do so.

We are examining the option of full disclosure of marks for every course taken by high school students to help encourage them to move through the system as rapidly as is possible.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Wrap up your answer.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, Mr Speaker. I'd also like to say that we have the colleges and universities on our advisory board who are helping us with this change in secondary school requirements, and I'm sure that they're aware of these problems.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the minister for a very thorough response to my question. Are there any historical precedents for the double cohort that we could learn from to address this problem in the future?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Surprisingly, there are a couple of examples of times when the university and college system in the province of Ontario has adopted a double cohort. For instance, after World War II the returning veterans from that war caused enrolment in universities to double and then double again. There was a similar significant increase in enrolment in universities in 1962 when the first of the baby-boomers hit the universities.

We have several examples of the universities of Ontario having a proven record of expanding their capacity to meet the needs of the young people of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On Monday you were asked very directly in the House, "Does this bill permit a head tax?" My colleague from Kingston and The Islands asked you that question. You were very clear. You said, "Yes, it does permit a head tax."

The leader of the third party, Mr Rae, the very next day asked you the same question, "Does this bill, Bill 26, permit a head tax?" And you said, "Well, yes, as I said yesterday, it does."

Can you confirm to the House today what you said on Monday and what you said on Tuesday, and that is that this bill, Bill 26, does permit municipalities to introduce a head tax?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I wish the member had read the balance of Hansard. I said, and I'll repeat it again today, if a municipality wanted to stretch the legislation out of shape and take a very irresponsible action, they could do that, but I can assure you that if any municipality did that, we have the wherewithal to make sure that it doesn't get implemented.

Mr Phillips: Does this make any sense to any of you? I interpret you said, "Yes, the bill does permit a head tax, but we certainly wouldn't want anybody to introduce a head tax but we're giving them permission to do it."

I just want to confirm. I think what you said, although it's very difficult I think for the public to get any understanding of what you think, but here's what I believe you just said, "Yes, the bill does unequivocally give municipalities the legal right to introduce a head tax."

Will you simply confirm that for the House today, rather than waffling all over the place? Clearly this bill gives the right for municipalities to introduce a head tax. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Leach: What this legislation does is give the municipalities the ability to go out and look for new sources of revenue. We worded the legislation very specifically so that we don't put handcuffs on the municipalities as they do now. Right now the municipality cannot do anything. It can't charge more than $1 for a bakery licence; it can't charge more than $20 for a restaurant licence; it can't do any of it.

We specifically broadened the bill to give them the opportunity to look at it. By broadening the bill, as I said, if they twisted it totally out of shape -- and I know that they won't -- they could theoretically have a head tax, but I know they won't.

CONSULTATION WITH FIRE DEPARTMENTS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. One of the many aspects of Bill 26, the omnibus bill, is proposed changes to the Fire Departments Act. In a video prepared for a firefighter conference in April 1995, just before the provincial election, Mike Harris, the Premier, had this to say about the Fire Departments Act: "We have serious concerns about some of the changes that are being contemplated with respect to the Fire Departments Act.

No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted, and we will insist that all changes be fully costed, both from the point of view of workers as well as management." The government also answered a questionnaire that was sent to all parties in the same way.

Mr Minister, the amendments in Bill 26 would require arbitrators to consider the employer's ability to pay, the possibility of reduced services and the economic environment when deciding on wages, a definite change to the Fire Departments Act. I understand you're meeting today with firefighters or have met today with firefighters, and it might be interesting to hear what you had to say, but my question is, would you explain whether you consulted prior to the introduction of this bill with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters or the fire chiefs before you introduced the omnibus bill?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to indicate that in six months in office, we've done significantly more consultation with the fire services than your government did in four and a half years in office. We've also made a clear commitment with respect to changes to the fire services act. As you know, the fire marshal conducted a review of fire services. That's gone out to all of the stakeholders. We're asking for responses by the end of this year.

We've made a commitment to have a standing committee of this Legislature, if we get the support of the two parties across the floor, to have the fire service recommendations reviewed by a committee of this Legislature, with the intent and the hope to have changes submitted in the form of legislation to the House in the fall of 1996.

In terms of changes, all I want to say is that this government came into office with a clear impression based on the statements made by the Treasurer of the former government of the kind of deficit we would be facing. We found out when we came into office that it was significantly higher than what your Treasurer was saying months before the election. We were faced with a financial crisis that you left on our doorstep.

Mrs Boyd: I'm delighted that the answer of the minister clearly corroborates what the professional firefighters have to say in their letter which they sent to the minister on December 6, in which he says: "There was absolutely no consultation with the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters. Indeed, our federation was never notified that the act was going to be altered as part of the government's recent economic statement."

The minister has made a claim that he has made a commitment to consult with firefighters in the province around the fire marshal's report. He indicates that he's going to go ahead with that kind of consultation. What he doesn't tell us is that it is ironic, says the president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, that the fire marshal, in his report, this report on which there's supposed to be so much consultation, advises that recommendation 14, items for consideration by arbitrators, not be instituted. Yet to date this is the very recommendation, the only recommendation, that the provincial government has chosen to implement.

So it's another example of how this government promised to consult before it got into office and simply railroads things through once it's in.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs Boyd: Can the Solicitor General explain why the government didn't consult with the stakeholders involved or the opposition when it clearly committed to doing so during the election, and where is the costing that it committed to do from the perspective of both the employer and the employee?

Hon Mr Runciman: We've talked in general terms with respect to the issue of interest arbitration, and certainly I'm very much aware of the concerns of both the policing community and the fire community with respect to interest arbitration. So there was no misunderstanding. I knew where the firefighters' association stood in respect to this issue --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): By mental telepathy. You never talked to them about it.

Hon Mr Runciman: We did discuss this issue in general terms. I'm aware of their concerns. I want to say that the changes that have been brought in with respect to this does not require an arbitrator to have a decision reflect A, B, C and D; he will only be required to consider certain issues.

Again, I want to say that our government was faced with very difficult financial circumstances. You don't want to hear this, but you ran up $10-billion deficits year over year over year. You don't want to hear that. You don't want to listen to that. You left us a financial mess. We have to deal with it, and we have to have the tools available to deal with it.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is directed to the Minister of Labour.

Interjection.

Mr Shea: It's a pretty heavy-duty one, member.

Minister, yesterday you made a statement in the House about the Provincial Auditor's report on the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Now, this report raises a number of serious concerns about the conduct of those at an agency, an agency reportedly out of control. You spoke about lavish meal claims, untendered contracts, inordinate amounts of severance agreements and leased vehicles and many other troubling irregularities. In light of the auditor's damning report, can you tell us what steps, if any, have been taken to address these concerns?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Since August 24 of this year, we have taken action to deal with the problems at the agency, and as you have indicated, the auditor has certainly demonstrated that there was good reason to disband the agency, as we did.

We have dismissed the assistant vice-chairs of both labour and management. We have dismissed the chief operating officer. There were severance agreements that had been initiated with the two vice-chairs, the assistants; those have been terminated. Also, the employment contract with the chief operating officer has been terminated.

We have also given instruction that the excess TV cable outlets that were not being used be disconnected. There were three reception areas. We have given instruction that there only be one area of reception. We have indicated there be no more expensive lunches and dinners. We have terminated the leases on the five cars which were never authorized.

The interim director, Mr Gladstone, is continuing to follow through to take the appropriate action because, as you know, this was employers' money, and it has been totally and unfortunately very mismanaged.

Mr Shea: In light of that response, the auditor's damning report of the shameful operation also suggested there were tendering problems and overspending that was something in the order of $4.1 million in surplus payment to organizations doing business with the agency. Minister, what, if anything, are you doing to ensure recovery of those funds?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, it certainly was an overspending that was very, very serious, and so what we have done is we have begun to identify the amount of money that was overbilled to the agency. As was indicated, it is in the millions of dollars. What we intend to do is we intend to use holdbacks as a lever to settle those outstanding amounts. We are quite optimistic that we can recover some of that money. We will be using every means possible in order that the employers can be assured that the money that can be recovered will be.

WASTE TRANSFER APPLICATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is to the Premier. For some time now, Metro Toronto has wanted to open a waste transfer station. In order to do that, they needed a certificate of approval from the Minister of Environment and Energy.

On October 25, the ministry rejected Metro's application for the certificate of approval. On November 7, your office contacted the approvals branch, and this sparked an internal memo, which reads in part:

"Urgent. Urgent.

"The Premier's office wants to know: What did Metro need to submit that they didn't submit? Had we given them any prior indications that their application might be turned down? What requirements would Metro now have to fulfil in order to get a certificate of approval?"

It turns out that the company which will haul the waste from the waste transfer station -- if it opens -- is Jarsno Equipment Inc. Jarsno would lose money if the waste transfer station didn't open and it would make money if it did open. Of greater interest here is that the president of Jarsno is Valerie Snobelen, the wife of the Minister of Education and Training.

Premier, do you believe that in all the circumstances, it was prudent for your office to get involved in this matter? Do you approve of the actions taken by your staff?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know anything about the application, but the minister may. I'll refer the question to her.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): It is not uncommon for a request to be made from one office to another, either the Premier's to mine or mine to other ministers' offices.

With regard to this particular circumstance, any application that comes before the Ministry of Environment and Energy with regard to a request for permission or a certificate of approval of operation is dealt with as any other matter would be dealt with, regardless of who's involved.

Mr McGuinty: I'm surprised to learn that the Premier is not prepared to assume responsibility for his own office. I want to focus a moment just on the appearances.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy receives about 8,000 applications each year for certificates of approval. For some reason, Premier, your office involved itself in this one. On the face of it, it was a purely routine application.

A closer examination reveals two facts: A company stands to gain if a certificate is issued, and that company has as its president Valerie Snobelen, who's married to a senior cabinet minister in your cabinet. Finally, the records show that before you involved yourself in this matter, the Ministry of Environment had rejected the application. After your involvement, the application was granted.

Mr Speaker, through you, through the minister and back to the Premier: Premier, don't you agree that given these facts, they at a minimum give rise to an appearance of impropriety and that because of this, your office should never have gotten involved in this matter?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Again, with regard to any request for information, whether it comes from the Premier's office or any other minister's office, they are dealt with in the same way. I'm not aware of this particular circumstance. I can request that information and will certainly share that information with the member. Every application is dealt with in the same way they all are dealt with; there are very prescribed rules and this one will be no exception to that.

SNOW REMOVAL

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I listened to CBC Radio this morning, and I want to share with you some comments I heard.

Some municipalities might have to raise their municipal taxes to cope with the snow removal budget, winter maintenance. Let me give you a couple of examples. Owen Sound right now is $200,000 over budget and winter is just beginning. Orillia last year at this time had spent $38,000; this year they've spent $150,000. Let's get things straight. You're about to cut their maintenance program by up to 50%, and your Premier and this government have said they are opposed to municipalities raising taxes. What gives here?

Under Bill 26, and it's not that far-fetched, will the government compel the municipalities to have a user fee, that if there's a snowfall you will have a snow tax? Come to your senses, Minister. It will snow for as long as the sun shines and the river flows. Will you not come to your senses and give people the same money that we gave them when we were the government and that the Liberals did too?

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

Mr Pouliot: This is force majeure. They need the public dollars for that essential service, to save lives, to keep people going from their home to hospitals, from their home to their work. Will you make a commitment? You have that power, Minister. It's up to you. Yes or no, will you do that?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I apologize to the House. I didn't quite understand all the questions Mr Pouliot asked. If he would actually clarify the question for me, I would appreciate it. I didn't quite understand what you are asking this minister.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Maybe to clarify and to be a little bit more specific, I have a supplementary for the same minister.

I have a letter here from Antoinette Blunt, executive director of the Victorian Order of Nurses, Algoma branch. The letter is dated December 11, and it says:

"VON nurses in the Algoma branch have been unable to visit over 100 patients in their homes over the past three days due to the weather and the fact that many of the roads have not been properly cleared of the snow....

"Many VON patients [are] diabetics who need insulin and terminally ill patients who may be on pain pumps....

"People such as those in the cases noted above cannot be left stranded in their homes because care providers cannot reach them due to the fact that roads are not properly cleared of snow. I urge you to request that the city of Sault Ste Marie and the province of Ontario rethink the cutbacks to snow removal in northern Ontario. This issue must be dealt with now."

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mr Martin: The VON operates on both municipal and provincial roads. This situation has happened before your municipal road budget cuts of almost 50% kick in. Mr Minister, will you rescind your decision?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to inform the honourable member that, number one, there were no reductions to municipalities this year.

But I would like to address the problem he seems to be encountering. We've had a tremendous amount of snowfall, and as a matter of fact I really believe that the Ministry of Transportation deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the jobs that actually were done.

I would like to add that we have been saying all along that this government is prepared to make sure that the standards of winter maintenance are not lowered in any way. If it's going to snow, I can assure the honourable member and all Ontarians that we will remove the snow.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, as you know, in our recent economic statement of last month, the government made junior kindergarten a local option for school boards. I have met with both students and teachers and our school board in Brantford and they still have some questions with respect to our position on JK. I ask if you could clarify our position with respect to junior kindergarten, in particular the changes we made and the effect they have on the basic per-pupil grant for those in JK.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Brantford for the question because it gives me another chance to elaborate on our program of junior kindergarten across the province.

As the member knows, we have been listening to and consulting parents and students and boards of education across the province, including the Brant County Board of Education, and the member has represented their views to me over the past few months.

Simply put, we are keeping our commitments in the area of junior kindergarten. We promised the people of Ontario that we would review junior kindergarten, do a complete program review, and that while we did that review we'd make it a local option for boards. We are doing that.

We are also funding junior kindergarten. Now, there was some misinformation about our intention to fund junior kindergarten. Some of the questions here in this chamber a few months ago would indicate that we are abandoning junior kindergarten. In fact, we're going to make it a true local option. We are going to apply the same basic per-pupil grant to junior kindergarten as all the other programs for all the other children in the school. That is making it a true local option.

Mr Ron Johnson: I want to thank the minister for his answer. It's certainly encouraging to see that our commitment in terms of the per-pupil grant is still intact.

I think we need to be very, very clear about this. The financial constraints that were foisted upon local school boards as a result of the New Democrats imposing mandatory JK have directly hindered the ability of school boards, including the Brant County Board of Education, to provide high-quality education for the people in my community, and I think it's refreshing for our school board in Brant county to know it now has the local option with respect to junior kindergarten.

Given the change in the funding formula, what alternative programs is your ministry encouraging for those boards who still wish to offer junior kindergarten?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I appreciate the member's comments. Certainly this government is very concerned with offering the boards help and assistance, listening to their needs, working on options that are applicable from different boards in different parts of this province.

In terms of the alternatives available on junior kindergarten, I believe a variety of boards are exploring a variety of different methods of offering junior kindergarten, including some boards that offer alternative full-day junior kindergarten because that meets the needs of the parents in their community best.

We look forward to consulting with the boards, with the directors of education and with parents and students across the province to create a better program of education for the young people in Ontario.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question follows up on the question from the members for Lake Nipigon and Sault Ste Marie, and it's to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, on November 22, the Solicitor General in this House said he would sit down with you to discuss the extreme and dangerous road conditions of Highway 17, particularly between Kenora and Vermilion Bay. I would like to know today how those discussions have developed and what you can tell us about the improvement of those conditions of Highway 17 between Vermilion Bay and Kenora.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to share with the honourable member that the Solicitor General and I certainly did discuss that, and there is conversation going with the OPP officers as well as MTO officials in regard to Highway 17. I have not quite made it up there, but I am going to drive Highway 17 for myself.

One thing I want to say to the honourable member is that we have been in government for approximately six months. His government knew back then when they were in power that Highway 17 was a problem. I'm going to say this to you, that we are going to take a look at exactly what can be done. Highway 17, I'm told, has certain areas that could be looked at for redesigning. I want to say to the member that we will take a look at how we can prioritize and improve Highway 17.

Mr Miclash: Minister, let me tell you that we are not looking for a four-lane highway across northwestern Ontario. All I'm discussing with you are two proposals, two phases that have already been put on your desk, phase 1 and phase 2, to redevelop the highway between Vermilion Bay and Kenora. All it needs is your go-ahead.

This arrived on my desk the other day: "I drove the Ontario death strip and survived: Vermilion Bay-Kenora."

I want you to tell me that you have in mind the best interests of the OPP serving that stretch of the highway and those residents who have to drive that stretch of the highway every day. I want you to commit to phase 1 and phase 2 of the redevelopment of that highway here today.

Hon Mr Palladini: I understand that you care about Highway 17. I want you to know that we care as well. We care for the safety of all Ontarians who are going to use that highway.

Like I said, we have been in government for six months. Between the Liberal and the NDP governments, they have put us into a $100-billion debt. We must prioritize, and we will get to Highway 17.

CHILD CARE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you would be aware that the federal government today made a major announcement on a national child care program which offers moneys to the provincial government to expand affordable, quality child care. Can the minister confirm that Ontario's position is that they will not participate in that program? Is that the position you've already taken?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Absolutely not. All along, we have been corresponding with Mr Axworthy, and the last point of contact we had -- our officials have been meeting as well, but the difficulty right now in dealing with Mr Axworthy is trying to determine exactly what he means. It's quite similar to the way we normally deal with Liberals around here. At least with the third party, we know where you guys stand. With Mr Axworthy, I don't know where he is from day to day.

I have some support from the third party here. They're all going like this.

In any event, we are prepared to discuss the issue with Mr Axworthy. In fact, we are in the process of doing that right now.

Mr Cooke: If he wants to talk about members of the Legislature who waffle and can't seem to answer a question, he might want to talk to the member who's just a couple of seats down from him, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I'd like to ask for a more definitive answer from the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is it the minister's position, the government's position, that you support an expansion of quality, regulated child care in this province and that it is your intention to work towards an agreement with the federal government that will involve provincial dollars and federal dollars to join in on the national child care program?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As the honourable member is quite aware, we are undergoing a review of the child care area. Once again, I'll mention my parliamentary assistant, Janet Ecker, who's actually chairing this review.

In terms of the actual question and some of the national views that people may have, the honourable member will be quite interested to know that at the interprovincial ministers' meeting for community and social services there still hasn't been a consensus in this area from that group itself. What we are trying to do right now is meet with Mr Axworthy and discuss what's best for Ontario, in the light of our review of child care. Quite frankly, we are trying to provide better choice for parents and we want to level the playing field. We're clear about that.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, I rise today regarding your pending Mining Act reforms proposed under your now infamous Bill 26. You may know about the well-publicized mining rogue who continues to thumb his nose at the US Environmental Protection Agency from his new home in Singapore. His name is Robert Friedland.

Mr Friedland, in a recent Globe and Mail article, was described as a former co-chair of Galactic Resources, which has since cost the taxpayers of Colorado approximately $150 million in cleanup costs because his company walked away from an environmental disaster. It has come to my attention that Mr Friedland now has a controlling interest in an approximately 55,000-acre claim now being worked in northern Ontario.

What assurances can you give the taxpayers of this province that they will not be stuck with a huge multimillion-dollar cleanup cost associated with an unscrupulous investor who cannot be trusted to regulate himself as your proposed reforms state?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to assure the House and all the people of Ontario that the assurances will be better as a result of these amendments to the act than they were before. I can't comment on the specific individual case, but I can assure the House, and the member in particular, that the environmental standards are retained with the amendments to the act.

What we're doing is we're going to enforce the standards with an audit of the ones we think pose a substantial risk. For the rest, they will be self-assured with the pollute-or-pay principle. But the standards, let me reassure the House, are intact and this government is committed to the environmental integrity of our environment.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"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 the northern region of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I've affixed my name to this petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition in support of family resource programs.

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas. We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the targets of cuts. Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

There are hundreds and hundreds of people from the town of Hearst who have signed this petition, and I affix my name to the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

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

"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."

CHILD CARE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition from the Orleans Cooperative Nursery School.

"Whereas all of society has a responsibility for the wellbeing of all children;

"Whereas high-quality child care should be accessible and affordable to all children of Ontario when the family needs it or chooses to use it;

"Whereas a comprehensive child care system is a key component of the province's social and economic development;

"Whereas deep cuts to social programs will have a severe impact on all Ontarians, particularly women, children and poor families;

"Therefore, I join the people of Ontario in petitioning the provincial government. I am opposed to the following reductions as they would have a serious and unfavourable impact on the quality and availability of the care and education of the young children of Ontario:

"Any intention to reduce the direct operating and wage enhancement grants.

"Past and further reduction and elimination of provincial funding for subsidized child care spaces in the province.

"The cancellation of the conversion program assisting for-profit centres to become non-profit centres.

"Any further review of legislation for child care with the intent of reducing standards and quality care.

"Continued reduction in funding to those organizations such as child integration services, child care information services, resource centres that provide support."

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition signed by members of the Bathurst United Church, which 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 affix my signature to that.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further petitions?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here concerning some of the cuts to education.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin: I wish to express my complete disapproval --

The Speaker: Order. It's not allowed in the House. Further petitions?

Interjections.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I know that the members are very interested in these petitions and I would think that we could have some order here to listen to them.

"Whereas the government is going to open a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations and hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are existing facilities right now that could be expanded to access and treat the criminally insane; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not education providers, not child care providers, not even the local member of provincial Parliament;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the PC government of Ontario and the Minister of Health" -- who's sitting right over there -- "to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded hospital until a public consultation process is completed."

I've signed my name to this document.

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to express, on behalf of about 1,000 people from the York University community, complete disapproval with the government's planned funding cuts to higher education.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Thanks for the banner.

Mr Martin: Yes, and the banner from students who are concerned about their increase in tuition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition here for the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue the funding for junior kindergarten programs for all school boards. We sincerely believe that these programs are essential to the positive development of children and cannot condone the elimination of them should funding be denied."

I have here the signatures from many people within my riding, Holland Landing and many other communities as well.

CLOSURE OF ONTARIO WELCOME HOUSE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): This is to the Legislature and particularly the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

"We, the undersigned, protest the closure of Ontario Welcome House. The loss of these vital services will make it extremely difficult for us, new Canadians in Hamilton-Wentworth and southwestern region, to participate fully in this community and reduce our chance of getting decent jobs. We're particularly concerned that these cuts to the services come at a time when other community services are also being cut."

It is with pleasure that I add my signature to the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On behalf of these residents:

"We are requesting that the Harris government not proceed with the proposed cuts to child care system. These cuts will hurt children, parents, child care staff and local communities. Without standards, children will get lower quality care. Without provincial funding for child care, regulated, non-profit child care services will collapse. Parents who want regulated care won't be able to access it. Parents on social assistance will be forced to enrol in workfare/learnfare programs or lose all their benefits. They will be left with no alternatives but to place their children in unsafe care. Communities also lose when jobs are lost, and community investment disappears."

There are some thousands of signatures affixed, and I add mine.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): In addition to the 2,000 signatures I've already presented, I have another 200 to add from the Hamilton and Niagara community.

"Whereas the funding for social services in the centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara has been cut by 100%; and

"Whereas the French Language Services Act ensures the deliver of French-language social and health services to francophones in designated cities such as Hamilton, Welland and Port Colborne; and

"Whereas the needs and feasibility studies carried out after the implementation of the French Language Services Act recommended the establishment of community health centres in the regions of Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara to ensure delivery of French-language services; and

"Whereas the health centres are the only organizations ensuring the delivery of social services in French, since there are no designated bilingual positions in the other organizations of these designated cities;

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

"We demand that the Legislative Assembly immediately stop its attack on French-language services in Ontario. The centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara are the only agencies offering French-language social services because there are no bilingual designated positions in the other agencies in our communities;

"We expect the Legislative Assembly to demonstrate clearly that Franco-Ontarians are an integral part of the province of Ontario, to immediately review the cuts which have affected those health centres and to re-establish the funding of social services and ensure the future of social services and health services in French in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara community centres."

I affix my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition carrying a large number of names from the communities of Dubreuilville and Wawa. It says:

"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 to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I've affixed my signature to this, and for the information of the assembly, I also have letters from the municipality, the ambulance service and the medical centre that support this petition.

COMMENTS OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

I sign my name to this petition.

BETHLEHEM PLACE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas Bethlehem Place in St Catharines has provided a vital and useful service to the people of the Niagara region; and

"Whereas Bethlehem Place has provided second-stage housing counselling services in an effective and efficient manner and turned around the lives of many who have been dependent on social service payments; and

"Whereas Bethlehem Place, which was established with widespread community and church support, enjoys continued support from the people of St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario reinstate the funding for counselling services at Bethlehem Place in St Catharines."

I affix my signature to this petition as I agree with its contents.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

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

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion or 18% in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225 million in cuts from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

That is signed by over 40 members in my riding and I have affixed my signature to it. I agree with the petitioners.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition from the Amalgamated Transit Union in Thunder Bay, the men and women who drive our public transit.

"We, the undersigned from Local 1374, Amalgamated Transit Union, are gravely concerned that the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services and feel that such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

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

I sign my name.

CHILD CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is apparently intent on replacing child care subsidies with a voucher system; and

"Whereas the voucher system will discriminate against families presently utilizing subsidies in child care centres across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these cuts to this critical economic investment in our communities across the province and to guarantee the current child care subsidy system remains funded and supported."

This is signed by hundreds of individuals, and I affix my signature to it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Martin from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's third report.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 15, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): As previously agreed to last night, this will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1527 to 1532.

The Speaker: Would the members take their seats, please.

All those in favour of this motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Harnick, Charles

Ross, Lillian

Baird, John R.

Harris, Michael D.

Runciman, Bob

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Sampson, Rob

Bassett, Isabel

Hodgson, Chris

Saunderson, William

Beaubien, Marcel

Jackson, Cameron

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Carr, Gary

Johnson, David

Skarica, Toni

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Kells, Morley

Snobelen, John

Clement, Tony

Klees, Frank

Spina, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Leach, Al

Sterling, Norman W.

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Stewart, R. Gary

Ecker, Janet

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tsubouchi, David H.

Elliott, Brenda

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Fisher, Barbara

Murdoch, Bill

Vankoughnet, Bill

Flaherty, Jim

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Fox, Gary

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Wilson, Jim

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Gilchrist, Steve

Palladini, Al

Wood, Bob

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Young, Terence H.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Boyd, Marion

Gravelle, Michael

Patten, Richard

Bradley, James J.

Hampton, Howard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Hoy, Pat

Pouliot, Gilles

Caplan, Elinor

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Christopherson, David

Kwinter, Monte

Rae, Bob

Cleary, John C.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ruprecht, Tony

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Sergio, Mario

Cooke, David S.

Marchese, Rosario

Silipo, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Martel, Shelley

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 8,

An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario / Projet de loi 8, Loi abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi et rétablissant en Ontario les pratiques d'emploi fondées sur le mérite.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): There'll be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would members agree to the same vote on this particular bill?

The Speaker: It's agreed? Same vote.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, in the absence of the House leader, before I call the first order, and I beg your indulgence, I would indicate to the House the business for the rest of today as we intend to call it:

Second reading of Bill 5, the Shortline Railways Act; then second reading Bill 6, the Corporations Information Amendment Act; then second reading of Bill 23, the Victims' Bill of Rights. Then we would go into committee of the whole on those respective bills in that order, and then we would call those bills for third reading in that order. If there's any time left today, we would then call second reading of the planning act, Bill 20.

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES CHEMINS DE FER D'INTÉRÊT LOCAL

Mr Palladini moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act respecting Shortline Railways / Projet de loi 5, Loi concernant les chemins de fer d'intérêt local.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The goal of this bill is to increase investment by making it easier to create shortline railways in Ontario.

Shortline rail delivers what the private sector needs. It provides quality transportation service, it brings prosperity, and it leads to the creation of jobs. The Harris government is committed to promoting investment and returning Ontario to its former position as a place of growth and opportunity.

For too long, Ontario government policies have prevented the creation of new short lines. In today's competitive climate, that simply doesn't make sense. Our government has shown that it's serious about making Ontario a great place to invest once again, and Bill 5 is one of the ways we will do it.

I want to give you some of the background that will explain the need for this bill. First of all, Ontario has not updated its rail laws since 1950. Of course, much has changed since then. Today, large rail companies are abandoning lines or sections of lines that they can no longer run at a profit, and the federal government is rewriting the rules that major rail companies have to follow if they want to abandon any part of their current service.

Recently I made a presentation to the federal standing committee on transport, which is looking into these changes and I told them that the Harris government wants to make sure that Ontario still has the level of rail service it needs.

One reason that Ottawa is reviewing rail policy is because the national rail network in Canada is too large for its current workload. This is especially true in eastern Canada. In this part of the country, with about 40% of major companies, the network handles about 90% of the traffic.

This reality has led to the creation of several short lines in Canada over the past five years, but the shift to short lines has also meant changes at the community level. A community or a rail user facing the possibility of abandonment has two choices: accept the bad news as inevitable or see it as a challenge. I am happy to report that our legislation will allow more of them to choose the second option. That's because a short line offers many things that larger services do not: flexibility, lower operating costs and service that's better tailored to the needs of small users.

They are important for many other reasons. For example, shortline operators will often buy the products and services they need close to home, creating an extra boost for the local economy.

Let me give you an example. In 1992, the Goderich-Exeter railway in southwestern Ontario began operating with eight employees. Today it has 12. The company has supported and continues to support the economy of Goderich by opening up protected markets for a wide range of local products.

The president of Railtex, which owns the Goderich-Exeter line, has written me a letter. The letter says his company is prepared to expand its investment in Ontario. He's looked at the changes we want to make and he likes what he sees.

What he sees is an environment that encourages investment, improves efficiency and reduces red tape. The goal is lower costs. That will show potential shortline investors like Railtex why they do well in Ontario. It also invites local investors to consider looking at short lines. Companies like Railtex told us that Bill 40 was a major hurdle in the creation of short lines. So was the red tape and bureaucracy they faced in setting up these new businesses. That's why we have taken steps to reduce the barriers to business and economic growth.

We know that shortline rail service means jobs. In Canada and the United States, short lines have created or preserved thousands of jobs in the past decade. We also know that Ontario has the potential for as many as 10 of these lines. That is a significant number. Every time an operation starts, every time a job is protected, that adds to our province's bottom line.

The opposition will say there are no guarantees that short lines will lead to job creation. To them I say, the only guarantee we have is that without this legislation the services and the jobs that go with them will almost certainly disappear.

This bill gives us tools to forge agreements with the federal government so that Ottawa's rules and regulations on rail safety can also apply in Ontario. This does several things: It ensures that Ontario conforms to national rail safety standards -- our province in fact is leading the movement towards national harmonization of railway safety regulations -- it cuts down on costly duplication of expertise at the provincial level, and best of all, the cost associated with rail safety will be carried by the railways, not Ontario taxpayers.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In speaking to the shortline railway bill, I'd like to mention that our party certainly agrees that anything we can do that encourages the private industry to involve itself in shortline railway is applauded. Specific to the bill as it's outlined, we do have a couple of concerns. I'd like to identify those.

In the railways act as it's written, clause 5(2)(a), the requirements for companies entering into the industry, it's quoted as requiring "adequate liability insurance." What the act doesn't specify is what that definition is of adequate liability insurance. We should be getting some kind of notation of that. As you may know, in the railway industry there are few insurance companies who are available to offer insurance to these companies. Depending on what that definition of "adequate" is going to be, what likely will happen is that these private firms will have their insurance rates go through the roof and ultimately could not afford the insurance that would be offered.

Understanding too that the Ontario government is currently in negotiation with the federal government regarding regulations as they would apply to shortline railway -- and we understand that those are in draft form now -- the Ontario provincial government is apparently agreeing to adopt them, whatever that form may eventually be. We should know now then that there are some elements in that federal draft regulation that include information that's quoted as "type and volume of traffic carrying dangerous commodities," and that may be one of the

definitions that would require adequate liability insurance.

Again, we need further clarification and definition of what would constitute a dangerous commodity. That kind of small statement that's in the act, again, is going to cause probably undue hardship on smaller firms which would have to acquire whatever that adequate level of insurance is. That indeed is the concern out there in the industry.

Additional concerns that we should raise -- and I think the government members too would want to acknowledge that we do want to level the playing field for the transportation industry, one of those being railway. What we've missed are some important points that would allow far more equity in the transportation industry. If we had to compare, for example, shortline railway versus the trucking industry, what the public may not know is that shortline railroads pay municipal taxes, property taxes, along all of the railway property. Trucking firms, for example, don't pay additional taxes to be on the road. All of Ontario taxpayers pay for that.

As another comparison, shortline railway firms pay for the railway upkeep; in fact, they are charged with the duty of paying for the rail, paying for the upkeep of it, as opposed to trucking firms, which of course don't pay property tax on roads.

Certainly we are looking at those kinds of equities that perhaps the minister could in the future address that would make it even more fair for shortline railway to enter into a level playing field in the transportation industry.

We should note that all along, up until recently, with the introduction of toll roads, for example, every new addition of a highway always was a further impediment to the shortline railway industry. In fact, the discussions that are going on now in the trucking industry that may eventually allow for double-barrelled trucks, longer loads, in Ontario, too causes more competition for the railway, causes additional fraction on the roads. You'll see the barrelling or bowling on highways because the trucks are much heavier than they ever were.

What that does is put additional moneys from Ontario taxpayers, much of which of course is paid by shortline railway too, and of course we're not allowing for any further kinds of concessions for the railway industry.

Overall we're in support of the motion. I think that in keeping with more of the dogma of government we want to encourage fair competition in the transportation industry. The minister would be wise to continue to look at making the transportation industry more equitable, even for the shortline railway.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I listened carefully to the words preceding second reading of Bill 5,

An Act respecting Shortline Railways. I couldn't help but remind myself of what used to be the national dream, what was an instrument to not only unite the country if you go back some years; in fact, if you go back to the very first days of Confederation, ones Pierre Berton has written so much about, and so rightly so. Over the years I too have watched with some chagrin the national dream becoming a national nightmare.

This edition talks about a new way to run a railway. It's available at the library, and you will find it, Mr Speaker, to the right. You will find the Reader's Digest to the right of the shelf. It hasn't fallen off the shelf, but it's very much to the right of the shelf: page 37, November 1995. I know what's in it. It talks about rail tax. It talks about a big, bold move to the right. I recognize the Reader's Digest when I go to this very bill. Let me share the compendium with you, and then we can blend the intent and the spirit. Simply put, we know what's being done here, and I quote:

"The purpose of the bill is to provide for the regulation and licensing of shortline railways. The minister may appoint a registrar to issue licences for shortline railways.

"The minister may enter into agreements with the federal government to provide for the regulation and inspection of shortline railways by the federal government in the same manner as it regulates railways under federal jurisdiction."

You have to search pretty deep. You have to be familiar with the jargon, with the language that is spoken around here, because if you were to go across the street and talk to a passenger, someone who's about to board a CN or CP, they'd say: "What the heck," if I may be so bold, Mr Speaker, "are you talking about? What's the real story of this bill?" Let's go back together; we'll do it together.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you very much have at heart the welfare of the consumer, the protection of jobs for those women and for those men who have worked for the railways, who in essence have built the country. You are an educated man and I've been watching you very closely, Mr Speaker, and I know that you too, when you listen to the Minister of Transportation get up and expedite a garage sale, including the garage -- why not?

The minister is salivating. He can't wait for CN and CP to end up in the hands of the "free enterprisers," come hell or high water. If some workers who are making a fair living providing that essential service are out of a job, so be it. If their successor rights have ceased to exist by way of the devious Bill 7, which removes their opportunity to keep working and to pay taxes and to be like the others, well, be it again. The government of the day, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, with its 82 members, couldn't care less.

People are anxious out there. People have told our caucus, the