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

June 19, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L091 - Wed 19 Jun 1996 / Mer 19 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

YOUTH SERVICES

ETOBICOKE AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

OSTEOPOROSIS

KENORA FIRE

TOURIST ESTABLISHMENT LICENCES

LABOUR PROTEST

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

NATIONAL UNITY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ONTARIO WORKS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WASTE DISPOSAL

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

PETITIONS

ADULT EDUCATION

RENT REGULATION

COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

TAX REDUCTION

COURTCLIFFE PARK

SKILLS TRAINING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NURSING STAFF

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

TRANSITION HOUSE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCES EN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES

CROWN FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES FONDATIONS DE LA COURONNE

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): In my riding there have been several tragedies in past years which resulted in the needless deaths of young Ontario students. These are devastating cases where children, either boarding or leaving a school bus, become the victims of careless drivers who ignore flashing school bus lights. This is not a new problem, nor is it unique to my riding. Every year, young people die because drivers do not take the flashing school bus light seriously enough.

Later today I will be introducing a private member's bill to address this problem. First, my bill will double the range of fines for drivers who are identified breaking the school bus law. Historically, the problem has been identifying drivers. Often there is time to ID a vehicle, a plate number, but not to see the driver. For the first time in the history of the province, my bill will target the owners of vehicles who break school bus laws. They will be subject to fines double the range of those for identified drivers. This would provide incentive to the vehicle owner to identify the actual driver of the car. This way, demerit points are assigned to the driver who is breaking the law.

I believe my bill can protect young people across the province by providing an effective deterrent to drivers who ignore existing school bus laws. It has the support of community safety groups, police, and a local school board in my riding, and I hope all members of this House will give their support to it.

YOUTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Recently I had the opportunity to attend an event called You(th) Need to Know, organized by St Christopher's House, a youth agency in the area that I represent, together with other agencies. We heard at that event from a number of young people who had written about their experiences over the last year or so following the beginning of the Mike Harris government.

I want to just read into the record part of the comments of one young person, Claudia Calderon, age 18, who wrote as follows:

"This generation is the seeds.

"The children are the seeds that flourish into the youth that are affected by society in the future. During the past five months or so that the newly elected Progressive Conservative Party got elected and announced the `Common Sense Revolution' of Ontario, the key target of those cuts have been youth. Others affected include immigrants, single mothers and their children, and the unemployed.

"These cuts affect my friends, family and myself in countless forms. Through education cuts, my school will have less money to buy new facilities and equipment for students which would help to provide an effective environment to learn in....

"My future is also at stake since tuition fees and the grade averages for acceptance to university are increasing so dramatically. This will make it harder for me to focus on my work, family and extracurricular activities....

"The poor and working class of this province must fight for a fair province for all of Ontario, especially since we as youth are being affected by this leadership when we didn't have a say in voting them to power."

This is very typical of the comments that these young people and many young people have, which is to say that what Mike Harris is doing is very clearly hurting young people.

ETOBICOKE AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I had the pleasure recently of attending an event to celebrate the Etobicoke Awards of Excellence, where a significant number of individuals and organizations in Etobicoke were recognized for their contribution to the community.

The businesses that were recognized include Ital Florist Ltd, Confectionately Yours, Delsan Environmental Group, Campbell's Soup Co, Canada Trust, the Rocket Fuel Coffee Shop, Versa Services, Lennox Industries, and Allied Signal Aerospace.

As well, the individuals who received awards were Irene Cameron, Anita Lal, Tom MacFarlane, Wilma Verch, Art Rutledge, Miriam Christie, Doreen Hachey, Arden Lambe, Tanya Monestier, Stephanie Stasyna, Constable Ernie Jost, who is an outstanding young constable with many awards, Stewart Davidson Sr, and the staff and students of Etienne Brûlé junior school.

As my colleagues on both side of this chamber can appreciate, the greatest assets of any community are not the bricks and mortar, but the people who give the community its heart and soul. The people who were individually recognized and those who make up the organizations which were acknowledged are people for whom I have great regard. They have made a significant contribution towards making the city of Etobicoke even a better place to live, and for that --

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

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): The Minister of Education, since taking office, has slashed funding to colleges and universities by $400 million, resulting in program closures, course cancellations, and faculty and staff layoffs. He has increased tuition by as much as 20% and kicked 17,000 students off social assistance, making our system much less accessible.

Now it appears that single and married parents are being informed by financial aid offices that their child care bursaries will not be renewed and that by 1997-98 all bursaries will be eliminated.

Most recently, I have been informed that this government is cancelling its 1-800 Ontario student assistance program information line and replacing it with a 1-900 line that charges students to access information on their OSAP applications. These are people who are seeking loans because they do not have enough money to pay the increased tuition for college and university, yet this government now wants them to use money they don't have simply to find out whether they will be able to borrow enough to attend classes.

Given the seriousness of this situation, I call upon the Minister of Education to assure students that new loan funding for child care will be in addition to OSAP's current maximum of $17,000, that they can access OSAP loans for child care in between semesters so they can find summer work, that the $6,000 loan forgiveness level will be guaranteed for the next four years, that income-contingent loan repayments will be implemented within the next 12 months and that the government's OSAP funding level will be adequate to handle all of these new responsibilities.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): June is Senior Citizens' Month in Ontario and my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party join in saluting all seniors across the province.

Many seniors make invaluable contributions to the wellbeing of this province by giving generously of their time as volunteer workers in their community. We are indeed very grateful for their help, given the deep cuts that many agencies have had to endure over the last year under the present government.

I must say that many are beginning to feel abandoned by this government. The seniors at the First Portuguese Community Centre are very distressed. They, along with all other seniors, are being targeted and sacrificed because they are now forced to pay a $2 prescription fee every single time they visit the pharmacist. For many seniors this can easily mean that five different prescriptions in one month can cost as much as $10. This might seem like a small amount of money to some, but this fee affects those earning less than $16,000 a year. For those earning $16,100 or more, a higher fee is charged.

This is but one example of how government cuts are affecting seniors and causing disruption and anxiety among our older population living on a rapidly diminishing fixed income.

Seniors deserve dignity and security and nothing less.

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very pleased to announce that yesterday Allelix Biopharmaceuticals Inc of Mississauga, Ontario, and Astra AB of Sweden reached a long-term agreement for the worldwide development and commercialization of PTH. This is Allelix's lead experimental product for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Approximately 1.4 million Canadians suffer from osteoporosis. It is a crippling disease that causes bones to become brittle and porous and to break very easily. Allelix's PTH is an important advance against osteoporosis as it potentially brings a person out of the dangerous and painful fracture zone.

Astra Canada, which is a subsidiary of Astra AB, is Canada's fastest-growing research-based pharmaceutical manufacturer. Employing approximately 700 people across Canada, Astra Canada is headquartered in my riding of Mississauga South.

Allelix is a Canadian biotechnology company that uses advanced research to discover and develop innovative pharmaceutical products. The company employs over 150 Canadians and also has an office in Mississauga.

This agreement, which is one of the largest ever made in the Canadian biotechnological industry, is exactly the kind of investment that Canada needs in order to compete in the global market. I would like to congratulate both Astra Canada and Allelix for their major contribution to Ontario's economy and for the tremendous accomplishment of developing a treatment for all Canadians who suffer from osteoporosis.

KENORA FIRE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On Friday, June 7, the town of Kenora and area residents woke up to what was called one of the worst fires in the history of the communities.

At approximately 5 am the call went out to the fire department of Kenora. Keewatin and Jaffray-Melick volunteer firefighters were called in minutes after the first truck arrived at the scene when those directing the effort realized the fire was too much for one department to handle. Forty dedicated professional and volunteer firefighters responded to what was a blazing inferno. Three neighbouring structures in Kenora were completely destroyed by the fire, which caused millions of dollars of damage to a number of local businesses.

It was because of the quick response of the three fire teams that the fire was not allowed to spread to the residential areas to its south or to the fuel storage tanks to the north.

I cannot say enough about those firefighters we have throughout northwestern Ontario who serve in our communities, at times risking their own lives to ensure our safety. Be it the full-time firefighters or the volunteer firefighters in communities throughout our region, I wish to recognize their efforts.

May I close in having the House join me in congratulating not only those who controlled the Kenora blaze, but those who are a part of our fire team throughout Ontario.

TOURIST ESTABLISHMENT LICENCES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In northwestern Ontario tourism is a huge business. People come from European countries, from Japan and the United States and from elsewhere in Canada to enjoy the natural environment, the wilderness and the wildlife. So if you're a tourist operator, it is especially important that you have a tourism establishment licence, one that you can show to your guests and one which lends legitimacy to your business.

That used to be the case; with this government that is no longer the case. Tourist establishment after tourist establishment has sent in its money for its tourism licence for 1996, but has not received a licence. Instead, they get letters like this from the new government:

"According to our records you have not obtained your...tourist establishment licence. Your notification for renewal was mailed to you....

"We strongly encourage you to maintain a current licence for several reasons. First, under the Tourism Act, it is an offence" if you don't have one. "Second, there are a number of privileges which accompany the tourist establishment licence.... Should your licence lapse" you will lose a number of privileges.

Imagine when tourist operators all across northwestern Ontario have paid for their tourism licence, have not received their tourism licence and yet this government sends them these kinds of letters, threatening letters; imagine when they do not have the tourism licence to put up on their business and tourists ask if they are a registered tourism business.

Shame on this government.

LABOUR PROTEST

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to comment on labour's day of protest occurring in Peterborough on June 24.

This is not a day of protest; this is a labour disruption.

There is no doubt that people have the right to demonstrate and protest, but not at the expense of others.

OFL leader Gord Wilson made a statement to the local media saying, "We will shut down the city." His statement is intimidation, it is harassment and it is unacceptable to most of the taxpayers in Peterborough.

As employers are shut down, the only people who lose are the local workers who are forced to forgo a day's pay. It is estimated that the day of protest will cost the city of Peterborough $100,000. Imagine what $100,000 could do to assist the poor and the most vulnerable of that city.

Labour believes these rallies will help the underprivileged. They will not. They are wrong. The people of Peterborough want to work. When the buses carry the union bosses into Peterborough to intimidate our community, I hope they don't forget to bring a cheque for $100,000 made payable to the people of Peterborough.

If we believe in democracy -- and we do -- I can assure you they will not shut down the city of Peterborough.

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House, I have today laid upon the table the 1994-95 annual report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario and the 1995-96 annual report of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We know that when children go to school hungry, they cannot concentrate; when they cannot concentrate, they cannot learn; and when they cannot learn, they cannot cope with the challenges of life ahead of them.

This morning, at a meeting of more than 200 CEOs of Ontario-based food and food distribution companies, it was my pleasure to announce the formation of a partnership between our government, the Canadian Living Foundation and the Grocery Industry Foundation Together in the area of child nutrition.

In our government's first budget, we announced our intention to establish a partnership with the Canadian Living Foundation to set up and expand local nutrition programs and to provide up to $5 million this year in startup funding. The Grocery Industry Foundation Together, known as GIFT, has now joined this partnership and will contribute the retail equivalent of $3 million over three years in the form of food and food distribution costs to nutrition programs in Ontario.

These funds will be used to provide seed money to support Ontario-based nutrition programs; to establish an Ontario-wide community partners program to work with school boards, corporations, parents' groups, health departments, service clubs and community-based organizations to initiate local partnerships to establish child nutrition programs; to prepare an information kit on how to set up and sustain nutrition programs in Ontario; and to establish a 1-800 number to respond to community inquiries over the next year.

This program will be in place in time for the school year in September. We will ensure that all members of the Legislature have information as it becomes available in order that they have an opportunity to take a leadership role in encouraging local businesses, volunteers, parents and community-based organizations within their own constituencies to play a role in this initiative.

Members of the House may recall that in November 1991 I introduced a private member's resolution calling for the government to act as a coordinating body in creating school nutrition programs. In a non-partisan way, we have 130 ambassadors of this program across the province.

Thanks in large part to Julia Munro, my parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York, I believe the spirit of that resolution has now become a reality. Over the past year, she has held consultations with many organizations and individuals across the province on ways to make it easier for communities to establish nutrition programs.

The common message she heard was that school-aged children need to have easier, greater and less bureaucratic access to proper nutrition programs. This partnership allows the government to expand and build upon, rather than compete with, the efforts of the volunteer and private sectors.

I've often said that Ontarians working together can do much more than government can do alone. By working with the volunteer and corporate sectors, the government will ensure that the largest possible share of available funding goes directly to meeting children's needs. I encourage all members of this House to take

part in this worthwhile initiative.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I wish to update the House on the forest fire situation in northern Ontario. As members know, towards the end of last week a serious situation developed across the north. Right now, there are more than 200 fires burning in the province, covering an area of about 230,000 hectares; 61 of these fires are considered problem fires.

I have the highest praise for the aggressive work being done by MNR fire crews, the first nations fire crews, crews from the forest industry and out-of-province professionals under extremely trying conditions. The morale in the lines is high.

This is a serious fire situation and we are using all our resources to control it. At present, my ministry has more than 1,400 firefighters employed in initial and sustained attack across the province. In the long tradition of mutual support of other jurisdictions, MNR regular and auxiliary crews have been joined by crews from the United States, British Columbia and Alberta. As well, we have more than 600 additional personnel from Ontario employed in a variety of supply and service functions in support of fire suppression efforts. We also have on loan two water bombers from Alberta and two from the Northwest Territories.

We are thankful for this input from other jurisdictions because right now fire activity is extreme in various parts of North America from Alaska to New Brunswick. Resources are stretched in terms of both teams and equipment.

It is normal practice to bring in outside crews when the province's fire situation becomes intense. Ontario, through the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre in Winnipeg, is part of an international group of provinces and states that shares resources through a mutual aid agreement. Ontario recently provided 10 crews to Quebec to assist in that province's firefighting efforts.

MNR is also utilizing people in Ontario who are trained and can assist in fighting these fires. We are setting up a training network for the west fire region to recertify firefighters with previous training and experience.

Due to the continuing hot weather conditions and an increase in human-caused fires, the situation remains serious. I am today expanding the restricted fire zone that is currently in effect. The zone will include Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, North Bay and all of Manitoulin Island. This expansion will come into effect at tonight. Included in this restricted fire zone is all of northwestern Ontario, and the parts of northeastern Ontario located north of the line running from the Quebec border at Mattawa and along Highway 17 and the French River.

Once again, I want to thank the firefighters and the communities for the way they have come together to fight this problem. I will keep members of this House informed of further developments on the fire situations as they occur.

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to especially congratulate the Grocery Industry Foundation for their acknowledgement of the significance of breakfast programs in schools. To the Premier I want to say that what I would like him to do is dust off his copy of a package that we submitted to him on February 2 where we outlined the kinds of minimal changes he needs to make to ensure that breakfast programs begin in places where they're truly needed.

While the cereal is very important for programs, what is very important is the fridge that you have to put the milk in for the cereal, and what's very critical to this is startup costs. The largest hurdle that schools face is the initial launching funds required to initiate programs. Unfortunately, the Premier is spending a lot of time on areas that are not really the crux of the matter where school programs are concerned.

We all know there is a need. We really need to keep him focused. I fear that our Premier is more like a bull in a china shop, and these kinds of announcements are more for publicity because they are not going to the heart of the issue, the real need to get breakfast programs started in Ontario.

I would submit that we did consult with the communities, we do have some answers, and I am asking that the Premier seriously consider those implementations.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I commend GIFT as well for their corporate responsibility, but Premier, when you were in opposition you said you could implement a breakfast program "tomorrow."

Well, it's been a long 24 hours -- roughly 377 days, and much has happened in those last long 24 hours: 14,000 child care subsidy spaces have been eliminated; junior kindergarten has been made a local option; reduction of funding to children's aid societies has taken place; a 21.6% reduction to welfare benefits; reductions in funding for children with disabilities; over 100 agencies have downsized or terminated special programs for children, with another 430 under review in 1996; food bank usage went up 54% in one year.

Mrs Ecker, in her statement during debate on the children's bill of rights, said, "This $5-million commitment is a modest investment." I couldn't agree with Mrs Ecker more. It's not only a modest investment, it's a minuscule investment in the needs of children.

This government should be committed to the development of the total child. If they were, they wouldn't be:

Cutting $800 million from the Ministry of Education and Training;

Killing early childhood programs which will cost not only children in social development, but in the long term will cost Ontario taxpayers as they pay for the mistakes of this present government;

Killing special education subsidies so that those vulnerable children and their families cannot be provided with the resources needed is a mistake;

You have no meaningful job strategy for parents so that children won't feel inferior to those around them in the playground because daddy doesn't have a job;

You have no long-term strategy to provide children with the availability for total growth: social, emotional, physical and mental.

This announcement, although commendable on the part of the industry, signals that this government's direction, at best, is piecemeal when it comes to children. Children are our future. We must develop them to their potential. Government dollars and long-term strategies are necessary. Children get hungry not only in the morning, but at noon and at dinnertime, and children crave more than food. This government must learn and listen to the people of Ontario.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to reply to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources. First, I would like to add to the minister's comments by congratulating and thanking the hardworking men and women of Ontario who are fighting these forest fires. They are dedicated, they are well-trained and they do a tremendous job. The seriousness of this situation, I believe, is expressed in the 230,000 hectares on fire, 61 fires; a serious problem.

I would say to the minister, after cutting 17 fire bases, after reducing the budget by $4 million, having a long-term plan to totally close all fire bases, to have the ministry not retraining and recertifying people for fire service not now but a month before -- I mean, we know when fire season happens. You're not prepared. You've bungled it. We are upset with this minister.

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to respond briefly to the Premier's statement. While we appreciate the involvement of the Grocery Industry Foundation Together, GIFT, and their contribution of $3 million to this program, I think it's important that we recognize the context in which this announcement is being made. This is the government that decreased the income of welfare-dependent families by 21.6%. What is the reason kids are hungry? Why are more kids hungry now than when this government came to power?

The reason is because of the cuts that have been made to assistance that kids are dependent upon. The reason is that we have seen significant downsizing and increases in unemployment. The reason is that we've seen in the corporate sector similar downsizing and unemployment. People cannot afford to provide the daily needs of their kids, and that's why kids are going to school hungry. We recognize the fact that a child who goes to school hungry cannot concentrate, does not do well, does not learn, and that hurts that child and society generally.

This government has eliminated day care spaces. This government has made junior kindergarten optional; 26 boards in the province have cancelled junior kindergarten. This is a government that is cutting back on children, that is hurting children, and it's a government now that comes forward with a breakfast program that is supposed to make things right. A breakfast program will help some children, but what about the kids who will not be reached? What about the kids who not only need breakfast assistance but whose families need jobs in order to provide them with the everyday needs that every child has a right to in our society?

This government will not get away with saying, "We have turned our backs on children, and yes, when there are some that are hungry, we'll give them some breakfast, hopefully to assuage the anger that those children and their families feel about what's happening to them in this province."

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to say to him that by the time this fire season ends in this province he will be in the same embarrassing position that his colleague the Minister of Transportation was in after the terrible winter that we had. In that case, the minister was trying to cut $6 million from road maintenance, and I'll bet you he ended up spending two or three times more, given the winter we had. You will end up doing the same thing after the fire season in this province.

What's the reality? In your effort to try to cut $4 million from the fire budget, you've laid off 20 crews, almost 60 people, who used to fight fires in the province of Ontario. You've closed 17 of the 19 fire bases in the province, 11 of them in northern Ontario, and the two that you kept open were in the riding of the finance minister and your own. I bet you those people now are not fighting fires in Haliburton; they're up fighting fires in northwestern and northeastern Ontario. Those bases should have been kept open, and you know it.

The situation also is that you are now bringing in people from other provinces to help fight fires, which is a tradition in this province. At the same time, you have not recalled over 60 people in Ontario. Those 60 seasonal MNR staff are sitting at home right now without work because you laid them off because you were trying to save $4 million. Shame on you for importing other people into this province to fight fires when we have people here who could be doing that job on behalf of the people of Ontario.

The closure of the bases is ridiculous. We had the case raised in Gogama by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt, who showed that those people were in the bush for over 24 hours without food and without radio contact because they couldn't raise the station in Timmins. They're in there fighting a fire without any backup, no one knows where they are, not fed, no one has an idea of what's going on. I'll bet you that's exactly the same thing that's happening right now with the 200 fires that are being fought right across this province.

Maybe the minister should tell us how much timber is being lost, how many people are not going to work this summer because the timber we're trying to protect has been burned by these fires.

We have the highest praise for the people who work in firefighting in Ontario too. Maybe you should rehire them and let them do the job they're supposed to be doing.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): What we heard today from the Minister of Natural Resources is nothing more than hogwash. The fact of the matter is this government played Russian roulette with Ontario's forests and Ontario's natural resources, and now as they burn down you're caught. The fact of the matter is close to a year's supply of timber is burning down right now. That's going to cost thousands of jobs. The fact of the matter is tourist resorts are having to close. The fact of the matter is all kinds of communities are on evacuation watch. All this happened so you could give a tax cut to your wealthy friends.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Solicitor General today. I'd like to go back to the Elgin-Middlesex alleged young offender incident that happened on March 1.

In the life of a government, an accusation that 40 young people, shackled and being led off a bus, are allegedly beaten upon their arrival at another institution, is a very serious matter. It's an important and serious matter for a government to handle once such an unfortunate incident happens.

We know this happened on March 1. We know that on March 4 your deputy and the deputy of the Ministry of Community and Social Services were informed of this incident. Repeatedly, you have told us that while many of the people in your ministry, all the senior managers, knew of this incident, for three months you were kept in the dark.

Minister, I want to ask you: Once you were finally informed, and you say this wasn't until about June 4 or 5, a good three months afterwards, what instructions did you give your senior managers from then on, on how to handle this incident?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to go back. It seems to be the official opposition's tack with respect to this issue, and I'm quoting the member, just asking this question, with respect to the allegations surrounding the treatment of young offenders as they arrived at Elgin-Middlesex and the questions of the maltreatment: He says, "We know that it happened." I want to emphasize that on this side we very much believe in the presumption of innocence, that these are indeed allegations and we believe in due process.

With respect to tabling receipt of the child advocate's report, we responded very quickly in terms of bringing in the police and certainly asking ministry personnel to give us an update on what happened in terms of the communications process. Those were essentially the activities in terms of how we responded initially.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, it's obvious you didn't take charge of this case once you were finally informed three months later. Even at that late date, you still were not taking charge because in fact, from the series of questions I and others have asked in this House in the subsequent weeks, you keep standing up and sort of shrugging and saying, "Gee, I'm very unhappy with the performance of my officials."

I understand your colleague the Attorney General knew also back in early March, and in fact that the assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Sue Herbert, who happens to be Judy Finlay's boss, called the AG's office to inform him of this incident. This is how serious this incident was in the government and I would imagine all senior officials in government would have been informed, except for you, I guess.

I'd like to know what happened to you. You were the bulldog here. You were the tough guy who was chomping at the bit for the last 10 years to take control of corrections and the police. I'm sure when you took control you said, "Hey, I'm the boss here and I want to run this department like no other person has ever done it." What happened to you when you got over there? Either your orders were countermanded by your officials or you've got a ministry out of control. How can you stand in your place and say you are the top cop and the chief jailer? Are you really in control over there, Minister?

Hon Mr Runciman: Again, I find it rather ironic that this particular member is continuing to raise this. He simply should revisit his own experiences in the ministry of corrections and certainly some of the problems he encountered with respect to the system itself. I think to try and paint this in some other manner defies the facts.

The reality is that this was responded to in a positive sense in terms of how the young offenders were dealt with in terms of the child advocate expressing her concerns related to their arrival at Elgin-Middlesex. She was encouraged to pursue those concerns to see if there was any substance to the concerns, and she did that. She completed her investigation and gave the results of her investigation to the acting deputy at the time during a strike situation.

She has said time and time again that she is very pleased with the support and the response of the ministry during that interim period. During her investigation she received every possible support from the ministry officials, and she has no criticism with respect to how the ministry responded during that interim period. It's difficult for me to understand what the opposition thinks we're hiding here.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, from your refusing to answer these questions it's obvious you didn't give any orders, that basically you just washed your hands of this whole incident and sort of hoped your staff would take care of it. You have allowed all the evidence involved in this to be unprotected. All the senior staff involved -- your personal staff, senior staff of the ministry, senior managers of the ministry -- continue to have access to that evidence and continue to talk among themselves about the case. Because of your failure to properly handle the situation, you yourself have put yourself under suspicion.

You're the top cop. How can the OPP start to investigate their boss? I think you have two choices. You have an alternative before you: Either you step aside now so this investigation can be cleanly done, or you've got to call in the RCMP, with coresponsibility with the OPP, so that you yourself can be investigated with all the senior officials in that ministry. Minister, will you do the right thing and either step aside or call in the RCMP so we can have a full, independent investigation of your ministry?

Hon Mr Runciman: I feel strongly we've handled this in a most responsible way.

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

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I too have a question for the Solicitor General and minister of corrections. Over the past number of years, it has been the shame of previous governments and legislatures in this province and across much of the rest of this country to find out what happened to young people in the custodial care of provincial government agencies. We are all, I think, shocked now to look back at the boys of St Vincent, the girls at Grandview, the victims at St John's at Alfred. It is a shocking indictment of what was allowed to happen by previous governments and previous legislatures as recently as the 1970s and 1980s.

With that as a backdrop, I come now to the minister, whom I've known for a long time, with whom I've served for 15 years in this Legislature. I've been listening carefully to the questions of my colleagues and the members of the New Democratic Party, and I've been particularly struck by what I'm being asked to believe by the Solicitor General, so let me just ask this question.

There was a serious incident allegedly involving the physical abuse of young people in a provincial facility in Ontario on or about March 1 of this year. Four days later, two senior government officials, the acting Deputy Minister of Correctional Services and the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services, are told about serious allegations involving or suggesting the alleged physical abuse of young people, 40 in number.

My question is, are you really asking me to believe that you, as the responsible minister, heard nothing between March 4 and June 5, notwithstanding the fact that two of the most senior bureaucrats in your government were informed of these allegations on March 4?

Hon Mr Runciman: That's correct.

Mr Conway: I then have to, as an honourable member in this parliamentary place, accept what the minister is telling me, but unlike some members here, I too have been a minister. One thing that most impressed me about the mechanisms that were in place when I was in office was how instant was the capacity across the Ontario government to report significant incidents.

There is absolutely no doubt about, on the basis of my experience in government, what would have been the reaction once senior officials, most especially the senior official at the department of social services -- I want to digress for a moment and tell the House that the Child and Family Services Act imposes a positive duty on any service provider or caregiver, the duty being that if you know or suspect that any young person in your care has been abused or has been threatened with abuse, you have a responsibility to report that immediately to the authorities.

I just can't believe that the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services, who administers the Child and Family Services Act, who would know that and would have heard these serious allegations about the abuse of young people in the custodial care of the government of Ontario, in the era after Grandview and after St Vincent, would not immediately have called the Premier's office and the minister's office to report these allegations.

Are you still telling me that you and your political staff heard nothing from those senior government officials for three months and that the mother of one of these alleged victims had repeatedly pleaded with your offices in Toronto and North Bay to investigate, that none of that had gotten through either?

Hon Mr Runciman: The reflections are upon the member's own experiences in government. To be fair, he has to put this in context as well. I'm not making apologies for the breakdown in the communications protocol, but there was a strike situation. This was a very unusual circumstance, the first ever experienced by an Ontario government. This was also done in the aftermath of a riot by young offenders at Bluewater, causing an estimated $250,000 in damages. Because of the strike situation, because of the riot, a number of these young offenders had to be put into an adult institution. There was just no option at that point in time.

Looking at all that and putting it in the appropriate context, I hope the member can appreciate that it's not really comparable to his past experiences in government, going back a number of years, or mine. In terms of an objective, third-party, independent observer with respect to the ministry's response, I would suggest that he talk to the child advocate, as she has indicated from the outset that the opposition parties, for reasons best known to them, do not want to reflect on that, do not want to engage in a conversation or do not want to quote the child advocate's comments on the conduct of ministry officials during that period of time.

She indicated she had concerns. There had been a police investigation. We can't lose contact or lose sight of the fact that the OPP had been involved. The advocate is quite prepared to talk to you about that as well. She discussed her concerns with the OPP; she discussed them with senior officials in government, the acting deputy and the deputy at Comsoc, and she was encouraged to pursue her concerns. At no point did she feel, along that process, that it was necessary for her to call in the police at that point in time.

She concluded her investigation, turned over her findings to the deputy, who had returned from a leave of absence due to illness, and immediately the police were called in. From that perspective, I think the ministry has acted appropriately throughout this process.

Mr Conway: I repeat, let's none of us lose sight of these very serious allegations: 40 young people in the custodial care of the Ontario government are allegedly abused by their caretakers, by their service providers, call them what you will. I say very seriously to all members, recall the shame, the rage and the tears about St Vincent's and St Joseph's and St John's and Grandview. But that was on somebody else's watch.

We have before us today serious allegations and a stunning ministerial explanation of your ignorance about what was going on for days and weeks and months. I just can't believe that the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services would know of these allegations on March 4 and no responsible minister would hear about that in the days after St Vincent until June 5.

The only way I can believe that, Minister, is that you have a rogue department out of your control and you're out of their loop. That is the only credible explanation I have for your story and that's not good enough in our system, where you and your colleagues on the treasury bench are responsible and accountable for the actions most especially of those in the care of young people in provincial institutions.

Are you telling us that at corrections you have a rogue department out of your control and that you are manifestly out of the loop of their ongoing decision-making, some of which may now involve the obstruction of justice?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated my unhappiness with respect to how certain people within the system have responded and I've broadened the internal investigation to take a look at some of those concerns.

In terms of the issue of treatment of young offenders, I'm not going to rely on the opinion of any member across the floor. I will rely on the opinion of the individual who's appointed to monitor child welfare in the system, and that's the child advocate. She has indicated very clearly time and time again, if anyone is prepared to listen, that she had no concerns with respect to the treatment of young offenders during that interim period.

Certainly there are serious allegations surrounding their treatment upon arrival at an adult institution. There is now a police investigation looking into that situation, and I'll await the results of that investigation.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the same minister about events that occurred after you knew; if we're to accept that you only knew on June 5, after you knew.

I've raised in this House on numerous occasions the issue of managers who may be the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation into alleged beatings of young offenders in the care of your ministry at Elgin-Middlesex who were in that facility for many hours on the weekend of June 8. There have been allegations that shredding took place on that same weekend.

You admitted that those managers were gathering information and may have been photocopying information that you had requested, but you admitted yesterday that you were unaware that the managers were going into the institution on the weekend until after we mentioned the event here in the House.

You have also told us that the London police were called in on May 31 -- three months later, as my colleague pointed out, but still called in. You may recall that on June 10, the day the London police actually began that investigation, I asked you about the existence of medical records which might be pertinent evidence necessary to substantiate allegations of abuse.

Today it has come to our attention that confidential medical records of young offenders at EMDC were photocopied by the very managers under concern who work at EMDC, on Friday, June 7, two days after you admit that you knew. These managers, who may be the subject of a criminal investigation, were in a position to interfere with those records, and those records are necessary to the investigation.

Minister, can you explain to us why, after you knew about this situation, a manager or managers would be duplicating confidential medical records of young offenders during an ongoing police investigation? Can you assure us that the confidentiality provisions of the Young Offenders Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act, laws that we all have to refer to, were followed and were not violated?

Hon Mr Runciman: We can have an allegation a day or two or three or four. In terms of the broader context, I've indicated on a number of occasions now that I have asked, through the deputy with respect to the internal investigation, that they look at the activities, the responses of managerial staff following receipt of the child advocate's report. That will encompass all of the activities surrounding allegations brought forward last week, brought forward today and perhaps brought forward every day from now to who knows when.

Mrs Boyd: It's quite evident that this minister knows nothing except what's brought up in this House. It's becoming more and more clear that he has absolutely no idea what's going on and cannot guarantee us that in fact the laws of this country and this province are being followed by the people in his ministry.

Minister, it has also been brought to our attention that on June 8 the staff at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre were asked to fax confidential health care information on young offenders at EMDC to the Bluewater centre. Were you aware that this request was made by staff of your ministry after you knew about the allegations of this case, and considering all the allegations of wrongdoing and shredding of documents at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and at Bluewater Youth Centre, wouldn't you agree that this would be at the very least inappropriate and at the very worst interfering with the continuity of possible evidence in a very serious criminal case?

Hon Mr Runciman: My earlier response stands.

Mrs Boyd: You're quite wrong, Minister. In fact, none of your responses have been satisfactory to anyone. It is my understanding that when the OPP arrived at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre on June 10, I understand you said this to the press yesterday, that you'd asked them to secure the records of young offenders that might be evidence, that in fact records were not located in the filing cabinet in the health care unit where they would normally be stored.

It is very important for us to recognize that when the OPP finally, after more than three months, went to secure evidence, the files they expected to find were not where they are normally kept. Minister, are you aware that these records were removed from where they would normally be stored, and how can you assure this House and the public that evidence has not been tampered with and that there has not been an obstruction of justice in this case?

Hon Mr Runciman: The head of the internal investigation, Inspector Christopherson, is looking at all of these concerns and it will all be determined in the finalization of his investigation, which hopefully will be at the end of this month.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Premier. As the Premier knows, his colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made a speech on June 14 on Canadian unity as part of the government's preparation for the upcoming first ministers' conference in Ottawa. The minister stated that, "Our government believes that we must once and for all bring clarity and precision to intergovernmental relations." This was subsequent of course to the Premier's own statement in New York in answer to questions, where he stated, "There is zilch, absolutely zero, chance of Quebec separating from Canada."

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in her remarks stated, "The existence of a strong separatist sentiment in Quebec -- I don't need to remind anyone here that Quebeckers recently voted by the narrowest of margins to stay in Canada," and subsequently in answer to questions she said that intergovernmental affairs in Canada have "never been so fragile." She went on to say it would be "foolish to say otherwise." This is an example, it seems to us, of two ministers, the Premier, the head of the government, and the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs, having basic disagreement, making contradictory remarks about the state of Canada and Quebec and Ontario's role within Canada.

My question is simply this, to the Premier: Will he give clarity to the situation? Who speaks for Ontario with regard to these important matters? What is the Premier and the government's position vis-à-vis the role of Quebec and the unity of Canada?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I thought the minister's speech and ensuing comments were very appropriate, 100% with my line of thinking. It is fragile. The unity of Canada is fragile. I think we're all aware of that and concerned about this, that it is a serious matter, that it affects us, that it affects our image abroad, it affects interest rates, it affects the stability of the country, and that there is a substantial separatist sentiment within the province of Quebec for separation. There is also a sentiment in Quebec for reconfederation as well.

So we share those views and those concerns. It's why I actually appointed a very senior member of our cabinet to be intergovernmental affairs, to have two people working on the file instead of one. It's why we've spent a considerable amount of time on the file in meeting with the Prime Minister, with the Premier of Quebec, with others in Quebec who are there.

If you're asking me to rationalize that with my statement in New York that in my opinion at the end of the day will I and the other premiers and 30 million Canadians be successful in keeping the country together, I believe we will. So does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. So two different questions got two different answers which were all on the same wavelength. We're going to work hard. We appreciate the significance of the challenge ahead of us, and at the end of the day I'm 100% confident we're going to be successful.

Mr Wildman: All of us share the Premier's hope and desire that we be successful in ensuring the unity of our country. Having said that, however, I think it's a little facile for the Premier to be able to simply say that he was just talking about the end of the day and not take into account the effects of comments that he makes and that other leaders in this country make within Quebec as well as within our trading partners and in other parts of Canada.

The Premier's comments have been reported widely in the province of Quebec, much to the consternation of many federalists in that province. Can the Premier respond to his colleague's remark? Her explanation was that the Premier is "the kind of person who would just speak out openly and passionately from the heart." Surely, all of us may be passionate about this country, Mr Premier, but all of us also must recognize that we must weigh our statements very carefully before making them in terms of the effects that they may have within Quebec and across Canada on the very important debate about national unity, particularly as we just head into the first ministers' conference.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that I appreciate the member's personal commitment to this file and to this issue and concern for the country and his party's, and acknowledge that his party in opposition and in government has shared, I believe, that passion that I have for this country and that his leaders, both as Premier and in roles of opposition, have spoken out very passionately here in Ontario, across Canada and in the province of Quebec. Let me assure the member that I intend to do the very same.

We have a very thoughtful plan in place over what role Ontario should play in keeping this country together: getting our own economic affairs in order, assisting the federal government to do the same, work with other governments on those issues that are top of the mind to Canadians in Quebec and outside, of jobs, the economy, deficit, in those areas; as well, looking at reconfederating the country along the lines that many of us have been talking about -- Quebec for 25 years; Quebec might say we're johnny-come-latelys -- to looking at some of the devolution of powers to the provincial governments where we believe government closer to the people can be more efficient and more effective.

My own view on this is that we can be successful by taking small steps, by achieving successes, by demonstrating to all Canadians, particularly to Quebeckers, that we can actually agree among ourselves to reconfederate this country along the lines similar to what many in Quebec have been asking for, both federalists and nationalists alike, to meet the aspirations of Quebec.

I tell you this: At the end of the day in many areas I think Mr Bouchard is going to find out, coming to the first ministers' conference -- he tells me he is also going to come to Jasper to the premiers' conference; he's interested in Team Canada trade missions -- when he gets to know the other provinces and the other premiers that in many ways other premiers go just as far, and maybe even will pass him, in some of the areas of responsibility they are seeking for provincial jurisdiction.

I believe very confidently as well that the aspirations of Quebeckers will be able to be seen within the type of changes I think we could make.

Mr Wildman: In attempting to bring some clarity to the provincial government's position going into the first ministers' conference, I'd like to remind the Premier of comments he made in Hansard in May 1994, in the debate in this House about calling for the federal government to treat Ontario fairly with regard to transfer payments. The then leader of the third party said, "The government of Ontario is reduced to whining and squabbling with other levels of government," when he was referring to the position of the then government that Ontario should be treated fairly.

I'd like to keep that in mind when we look at the statement made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on June 14 at the Park Plaza. The minister said in her speech that while Ontario has always supported the equalization program, as we all do, "what Ontario cannot support is the continued discrimination against our province in other program areas, the continued expectation that Ontarians should contribute a disproportionate share to programs that were intended to be equally beneficial to all Canadians."

That statement by your Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is exactly the same position that was taken by our leader when he was Premier of this province with regard to equal treatment on federal-provincial programs and cost-sharing programs. Why was it whining when our government took that position and now it's the position of your government, apparently?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say that there were a couple of occasions when, you will recall, I stood up in the Legislature and went and shook your Premier's hand. We stood up on trade sanctions against Quebec, where it was very unfair. I spoke out in support that we were entitled to our fair share of dollars for training and settlement costs for new immigrants coming into this country, that we were not getting our fair share back, that a new immigrant to Ontario was as entirely deserving of services as a new immigrant to Quebec or Atlantic Canada. I supported that. I encouraged you in that. I said, "Good for you." We are saying that now on training programs and unemployment.

However, when it came to the type of whining and finger-pointing and bellyaching that you did at everything the federal government did, then we took exception. That's not cooperative federalism. We support the federal government balancing its books, getting its affairs in order. We even support them reducing the transfers to the provinces, provided it's done fairly. When you were fair, we supported you and we said that. When you were just silly, nitpicking and bellyaching, we pointed that out too.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the minister of justice. When precisely did you learn about the allegations at the Elgin-Middlesex correctional centre and by what means did you learn of those allegations?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I heard of those allegations in this place.

Mr Conway: Now the story widens. Notwithstanding the fact that on March 4 the deputy minister of social services and the acting deputy minister of correctional services are made aware of serious allegations about the alleged abuse of young people in the care of the Ontario government at the Elgin-Middlesex centre, we're asked to believe that neither of those senior government officials, who know about the requirements of the Child and Family Services Act, contacted any of the responsible ministers, including the minister of justice -- incredible, absolutely incredible.

My supplementary question to the minister of justice is this: Given that over three months elapsed between March 4 and early June, when the Solicitor General tells us he initiated some ministerial action in this respect, given the fact that a number of people who are clearly going to be the subject of the investigation had all kinds of time and opportunity to tamper with evidence, to cover their tracks, do you as the justice minister have any concern about the potential conflict of interest in which many in the department of correctional services now find themselves?

Do you contemplate any action as the chief law officer for Ontario, given the gravity of these allegations, to address that serious potential conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Harnick: It's important for the member to understand and know that the Ministry of the Attorney General is not an investigatory body of criminal issues. That's quite clear. The Ministry of the Attorney General is a prosecutorial body; we're not a criminal investigatory body.

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

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Let's just go through what we've got here. First of all, there's the riot at Bluewater on February 29 --

Hon Mr Harnick: To whom are you asking the question?

Mrs Boyd: Oh, to the Solicitor General, of course.

First we have the riot at Bluewater. Then we have the alleged beating of young offenders by managers at EMDC on the evening of February 29 or the day of March 1. Then we have the alleged allegations of shredding of documents at EMDC long after you knew this had occurred. Then we have the superintendent's remarks, supposedly, around the shredding, which allegedly led to his dismissal as the superintendent and his reassignment into another part of the ministry.

Then we hear that the report of the child advocate was too sensitive to release to the public because it might influence possible witnesses or might interfere with the police investigation. Now we have today's allegations around the duplication of medical records and the faxing of medical records which are confidential from one institution to another in the midst of these very serious investigations.

And you ask us, Minister, to believe there's no coverup?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I've indicated on a number of occasions that I share the concerns with respect to some of the issues the member for London Centre has raised, related to the activities of managers and management personnel following receipt of the child advocate's report. I've indicated in an unequivocal way that I want to see this followed through. We've broadened the investigation: We've brought in an official from the Ministry of the Attorney General, a senior counsel, to assist in the investigation, to ensure that everything possible is looked at and reviewed in terms of the activities of managers.

I'm not sure I can expand upon that any further. I think we're acting in a most appropriate and responsible way.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, the issue here is that you are relying on the very people who kept this matter from you -- if we are to believe you -- to deal with it. We learned today that it was your assistant deputy minister for correctional services, third in command in your ministry after you and the deputy, who gave the child advocate report, the confidential child advocate report that couldn't be released, to George Simpson, the superintendent at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, who in turn gave it to his staff, at the very institution where these allegations occurred, to read.

This is the same report you keep refusing to release. You know and you have said in this place that releasing it might jeopardize the ongoing police investigation if details were known to potential witnesses or to those under investigation. The managers and Mr Simpson himself may be the subject of ongoing investigations and it is alleged that your most senior official in the corrections side of your ministry has made this confidential report available to them.

We know the child advocate didn't give them this report. That's very clear. She has said so directly, and I share your confidence in her ability to tell us the truth. I ask you very directly, is your assistant deputy minister of correctional services responsible for allowing the superintendent and the managers at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre to read the child advocate's report on the allegations that have been made against them?

Hon Mr Runciman: The key component of the question and the suggestion the member was making was that with respect to investigation of these allegations, I'm relying on personnel within the ministry who may indeed be part and parcel of the investigation. That is not the case.

There is an internal investigative unit, as I've indicated in the House on a number of occasions, headed by Inspector Christopherson -- I'm not sure if the member wants to question the inspector's credentials or credibility or objectivity in approaching this -- who is being assisted by a very capable team of investigators and also assisted by senior counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General. Again, all these questions and concerns will be addressed by very competent, well-trained, objective investigators.

ONTARIO WORKS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I stand in this House today as a member proud to represent the riding of Halton North and to express our region's anticipation at being included in the government's first phase of workfare.

When we took office, there were three times as many people on welfare as 10 years before, and many more second- and third-generation welfare families. The people of Ontario told us it was time to break the cycle of dependency and to provide temporary emergency help when you need it, not to create a way of life. As promised, we are introducing a mandatory work-for-welfare program that requires all able-bodied welfare recipients to work or train for a job in exchange for benefits.

The opposition claims the new Ontario Works program is similar to the failed Jobs Ontario program. Minister, can you explain the differences between the employment supports that you announced this week and Jobs Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, our government cancelled the Jobs Ontario program because it did not produce results. That's not my opinion or the government's opinion; that was the opinion of the Provincial Auditor, who found it to be a very poorly run program.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): A boondoggle.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: My colleague just mentioned it was a boondoggle, and that's probably an appropriate comment.

I think it's clear the old system was not helping people break the cycle of dependency, and that's where the difference is between our program and the Jobs Ontario program. The NDP Jobs Ontario program subsidized companies and businesses to hire people on welfare, and the incentive was free money. This particular type of program had been tried in other jurisdictions. I might point to the experience in Quebec, for example -- I think it was called the Paillé program -- wherein when the subsidy ran out, so did the jobs.

In fact, the other experience in that particular program was that at the end of it a number of the companies who had participated in the program indicated that even though they kept on the people, they would have hired them anyway, but they thanked the government very much for the subsidy.

The real difference here is that the agencies that are now going to be in charge of getting people back into employment will have that degree of accountability, that element of results orientation we're looking for, that this fee for performance will only pay these agencies once they're in a job. That's a better way for this government to go, as it has the accountability; it's accountable to the taxpayers as well, along with the recipients. The recipients expect, when they go through a program, that at the end of it they're going to have a job. The old system was very costly, and it had the result that you'd go through the program and at the end you'd have a better-trained unemployed person.

That in effect is the difference, and we certainly are looking for a made-in-Ontario solution for this province.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you for clarifying the differences for us. I'd also like to ask the minister how these job agencies are going to place welfare recipients into jobs.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to answer the question from the member for Halton, but I might add as well that it was certainly refreshing and good to see that the citizens and the council in Halton supported the workfare program and wanted to be part of the first phase.

Once again, if I could reiterate the fact that the real difference with this program is that the agencies will be paid once somebody is into a paid job. Part of this will be that there will be a $200 retainer fee paid at the intake part of this program, and this of course is refundable, so if the agency does not place somebody into a job, that $200 gets repaid back to the province.

There will be two other levels as well as the program progresses. After three months and after six months there will be further payments. In terms of the payments, once again it's results-oriented, so if we don't have results, the agencies do not get paid.

Clearly this type of program has worked before in other jurisdictions. I might point as well to the experience in Alberta. Certainly in Alberta, in similar types of employment programs, they've had a success rate of between 75% and 80%.

Clearly I think this will be a system and a program that will attain results for the people of Ontario.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Before I get into the question, let me preface my remarks by paying tribute to the extraordinary job being done in northwestern Ontario by all those who are battling the fires that are raging across the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I didn't hear the question properly. Would you repeat it?

Mr Gravelle: I certainly want to pay tribute to the extraordinary job being done in northwestern Ontario by all those who are battling the fires that are raging across the region. This is an emergency situation and I recognize that everything possible should be done to win this battle.

However, I am concerned with the fact that you have called in firefighters in large numbers from out of the province -- from BC, Alberta, Minnesota and Wisconsin -- when there is no question that qualified and experienced firefighters from within the region and across the province are being told there is no work for them. We know you laid off 60 firefighters, 20 three-man crews, earlier this year, yet your officials, as well as you personally, have publicly stated that all available trained personnel in the province were working and that is why fire crews from across the US had to be called in.

Certainly I have constituents who have gone into the fire centre, trained, experienced workers who have gone in and were told there was no work available because they had made cuts. Because MNR had made cuts, there were no more jobs available.

My first question to the minister is this: Why have you and your officials consistently made the claim that all available trained personnel were working, those who were there, when you know that is not the case?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from my colleague. As I mentioned before, I think everyone agrees that firefighting is an extremely arduous and risky business and can be dangerous at times. The number one concern is safety to the crews and public safety. Therefore we ensure that all crews, before they become involved in the firefighting program, are properly trained.

As far as the international agreements, this is a traditional agreement that we've had with the United States and with other provinces. When they have a particularly severe situation, we send our crews over to their jurisdiction, and when we have an emergency, they will send crews and equipment to our jurisdiction.

As far as the training is concerned, we'll be offering updating and training courses for people in the next few weeks because, as you know, the first round are only allowed to stay in the working conditions for so many days and then we have to have a turnover. If he wants to get me the names of those people who are properly qualified who worked before, we'll take those.

Mr Gravelle: We understand how that compact works, and certainly it's only when all people have been called in and that is not the case, and we do have the names. They've gone into the fire centre consistently.

In 1995-96, we had one of the worst fire seasons in memory. Over 200,000 hectares burned. This year, we already have over 230,000 hectares burning. Yet, Minister, you decided to downsize your operation this year. You downsized, closing 17 of 45 fire bases, laying off 60 firefighters, cutting the budget by $5 million. This is some voice for the north.

Now, today in your statement, you talk about recertifying firefighters with previous training now that the fires are raging. The barn door is closed or closing. There is an emergency. I think, quite frankly, it's shameful you would only now recognize that this work can be done by residents of this province, residents who really are qualified to do it right now.

Will you guarantee that if anyone with appropriate certification walks into the fire centre today, or a CEC office, they will be hired? These people are out there and they've been banging on the doors. Will you also take action to see that we are prepared next year and in the years to come with enough certified Ontario residents, who can certainly use the jobs, to fight the fires so we do not have to call in thousands of out-of-province residents to do the work next year?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As every member of this House knows, we're in a serious situation in northwestern Ontario. If they want to try to play politics just to say that somehow these fires were caused because of this, it's absolute nonsense. The reductions he talks about and the bases the third party refers to were 17. There are 28 bases still in effect in Ontario. There are mobile attack units. There are nine bases that are in gravel pits close to the fires.

Our firefighters are doing an admirable job. We have first nation firefighters who are working hard day and night, and we have companies that are working day and night. The northwest, where 181 of those fires are located, had three crew reductions on their total force from last year. We were prepared. The operation is working well. The results speak for themselves.

We've had an unusually dry spring, with the humidity factor, and we've had a lot of lightning strikes, and that's what's caused the fire. We're getting in place, if this continues for a long period of time, by offering retraining for people who have had the experience before in Ontario. But we are part of international agreements for emergencies such as this so that we will have the resources there to meet the emergency when it's required.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. Every day for the last two weeks we've been hearing more and more disturbing information about what went on at Elgin-Middlesex. The real issue here is accountability: Who is accountable for what happens to young people who are in the charge of your ministry, who is responsible when there are allegations of wrongdoing within that ministry, and how is that handled?

First of all, you tell us you didn't find out for three months, during which senior members of management within your ministry could have done anything to try to cover up what, if anything, did happen on the night of February 29 or the morning of March 1.

Everything I've talked about generally here has been since you found out, your responsibility since you found out: your responsibility first to ensure those young people were in places of safety, your responsibility to secure records and to make sure possible evidence wasn't tampered with, your responsibility to make sure those in the chain of command were not those who were under any cloud by the investigations that were going on. You have done none of those things.

Minister, how are we going to have any faith in the results of investigations when they come in, given the long, sad litany of events that have happened? There have been so many allegations of tampering with evidence, at least tampering with the continuity of that evidence, so many allegations that this evidence could have been changed, that stories could have been concocted because people were given information they ought not to have been given which you claim the public cannot have because it might prejudice the investigations.

Minister, when these investigation reports finally come in, what do you plan to do with them and how do you plan to rebuild the public confidence in the corrections system?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I've indicated that we'll take whatever action is appropriate and necessary, but I want to put on the record with respect to this interim period which members of the opposition want to talk about and point out again that there was an OPP investigation as well, and the advocate has indicated to me, and publicly as well, that she raised her concerns with respect to the treatment of young offenders on their arrival at Elgin-Middlesex with the OPP.

So to suggest that there was no effort made in terms of her concerns, she certainly raised them with the OPP officers and then she raised them with the officials within both my ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. She was encouraged to pursue those. The police had already been part of that process. To suggest that something inappropriate was done in that interim period is totally inaccurate.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, the child advocate has certainly said that the policy unit on young offenders within your ministry was of great assistance to her in trying to protect those young people. That is true.

You're quite right to say the OPP were investigating, and we know that the OPP are responsible to you. You are the Solicitor General as well as the minister of corrections, and that is why there is so much concern about what went on here. This has been going on for a long time. Evidence was not secured until June 10. There are allegations about tampering with that evidence over the weekend before, after it was mentioned in this House, after you knew about it.

I know what you're trying to do, Minister. You're telling us that these reports are going to come in at the end of the month, and we all know what happens at the end of the month. This place isn't here any more and you can't be questioned any more. You expect that everything can be swept under the carpet, as it has been many, many times in that ministry. All we're trying to do is to say to you is, you are accountable; it's your responsibility. These things have come out in a public forum, the way they didn't with Grandview, the way they didn't with St Joseph's and St John's.

We are looking to you to show us how you are going to be sure that next year, years from now, we are not going to have the same kind of situation that we have had in the past in this province where young people were mistreated while they were in the care of the government, in the care of the correctional system.

Minister, what are you going to do to reassure the public? Will you at the very least agree that these investigative reports -- all these reports -- will be tabled and will be available for scrutiny? Will you at least guarantee us that?

Hon Mr Runciman: I don't see where the opposition can perceive that I have any vested interest in not pursuing this matter very vigorously. I certainly don't want, and I'm sure no member of this government wants, to see a repeat of what occurred in terms of the communication breakdown, the concerns surrounding the responses of management following the receipt of the child advocate's report. We intend to pursue this vigorously and we'll certainly make all of our activities as much as possible public knowledge.

In terms of the receipt of police reports and internal investigations, unless there are some questions surrounding privacy and any other of those kinds of questions which may arise, I'll be quite prepared to make them public, but I want to qualify that in terms of the privacy act and all of those other concerns that we have to address as members of government.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I understand that the federal government has banned the export of PCB waste in favour of Canadian disposal options which may be more expensive. The safe disposal of PCBs has been, and continues to be, an important issue for the people of Ontario, including the good people of Scarborough Centre. Can the minister tell the House what the Ontario government's position is on the export of PCBs?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm pleased to answer the question from my colleague. The responsibility for the transportation of hazardous waste such as PCB is a federal matter because it involves international movement.

In November the US EPA allowed the movement of PCBs to the United States for disposal. However, shortly after that the federal government instituted a ban to prevent it. This is a difficulty for us here in Ontario. We have about 116,000 tonnes of PCBs that need to be disposed of safely. They're at about 1,700 registered sites and the generator of that waste is responsible for making sure that material is safely disposed of. Generally, right now our options are either shipping that waste to Alberta to be disposed of there or landfilling it in Quebec.

Recently I had the opportunity to tour a site where we are experimenting with a new closed-loop system here in Ontario that may have tremendous possibilities for us with regard to disposing of this. The difficulty for us is that all options should be available for disposing of this. We believe it is far better to have this material dealt with in an environmentally sound manner and an economically responsible manner than it is to be sitting awaiting some sort of disposal.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I rose in the House to make some comments that do not appear in Hansard for some reason. I would just give you a little bit of background and ask you to investigate.

We heard the heart-wrenching story yesterday of the Minister of Health where he said, "The honourable member knows full well that I spend all of my time -- I don't have a family; I don't have time to see anyone else...." He spends all his time talking to doctors. We indicated that our caucus was prepared to chip in and buy the minister a puppy to perhaps relieve some of the pain. I indicated that publicly yesterday and it does not appear in Hansard. I wonder if you might find out the reasons for that, because we were attempting in opposition to be helpful to the minister.

The Speaker: We have two deferred votes agreed to. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1508 to 1513.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 46,

An Act to amend or revoke various statutes administered by or affecting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and to enact other statutes administered by the Ministry / Projet de loi 46, Loi modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois appliquées par le ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ou qui touchent ce ministère, et visant à édicter d'autres lois appliquées par le ministère.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Will the members take their seats, please. We are dealing with second reading of Bill 46 standing in the name of Mr Villeneuve. Those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Harnick, Charles

Ross, Lillian

Barrett, Toby

Harris, Michael D.

Runciman, Bob

Bassett, Isabel

Hodgson, Chris

Sampson, Rob

Beaubien, Marcel

Hudak, Tim

Saunderson, William

Brown, Jim

Jackson, Cameron

Shea, Derwyn

Carr, Gary

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Bert

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, David

Smith, Bruce

Clement, Tony

Kells, Morley

Spina, Joseph

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Sterling, Norman W.

DeFaria, Carl

Leach, Al

Stewart, R. Gary

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Ecker, Janet

Marland, Margaret

Tsubouchi, David H.

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Turnbull, David

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Villeneuve, Noble

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Witmer, Elizabeth

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

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

Bartolucci, Rick

Cooke, David S.

Martel, Shelley

Bisson, Gilles

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Curling, Alvin

Miclash, Frank

Bradley, James J.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Morin, Gilles E.

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Phillips, Gerry

Caplan, Elinor

Hoy, Pat

Pouliot, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ramsay, David

Cleary, John C.

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 33.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed. So ordered.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The official opposition wanted that bill to go to committee of the whole in order to present a couple of amendments. Is there consent to go to committee of the whole on that?

The Speaker: I ask the House if there's consent for it to go to committee of the whole? Agreed.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 36,

An Act to amend certain acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant certaines lois appliquées par le ministère des Richesses naturelles.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The next item of business is second reading of Bill 36, standing in the name of Mr Hodgson. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1517 to 1522.

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

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Hardeman, Ernie

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Barrett, Toby

Harnick, Charles

Ross, Lillian

Bassett, Isabel

Harris, Michael D.

Runciman, Bob

Beaubien, Marcel

Hodgson, Chris

Sampson, Rob

Boushy, Dave

Hudak, Tim

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Jackson, Cameron

Sheehan, Frank

Carr, Gary

Johns, Helen

Skarica, Toni

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Bert

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, David

Spina, Joseph

Clement, Tony

Kells, Morley

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Leach, Al

Tascona, Joseph N.

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Ecker, Janet

Marland, Margaret

Turnbull, David

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Villeneuve, Noble

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Wilson, Jim

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Witmer, Elizabeth

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Young, Terence H.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Cooke, David S.

Martel, Shelley

Bisson, Gilles

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Curling, Alvin

Miclash, Frank

Bradley, James J.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Morin, Gilles E.

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Phillips, Gerry

Caplan, Elinor

Hoy, Pat

Pouliot, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ramsay, David

Cleary, John C.

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 33.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjections: No, committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that the debate was deemed to have been concluded and the request for the recorded vote deemed to have been made on Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Education Act, and that the vote will follow immediately.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have agreement on that? Agreed.

Call in the members. Same vote?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): No.

The Speaker: I hear a no. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1527 to 1532.

The Speaker: We're dealing with Bill 34, third reading, standing in the name of Mr Snobelen. Those in favour will rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Harnick, Charles

Ross, Lillian

Barrett, Toby

Harris, Michael D.

Runciman, Bob

Bassett, Isabel

Hodgson, Chris

Sampson, Rob

Beaubien, Marcel

Hudak, Tim

Saunderson, William

Boushy, Dave

Jackson, Cameron

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Carr, Gary

Johnson, Bert

Skarica, Toni

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, David

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Kells, Morley

Spina, Joseph

Clement, Tony

Klees, Frank

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

Leach, Al

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Leadston, Gary L.

Stockwell, Chris

Doyle, Ed

Marland, Margaret

Tascona, Joseph N.

Ecker, Janet

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tsubouchi, David H.

Elliott, Brenda

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Fisher, Barbara

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Fox, Gary

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Wilson, Jim

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Wood, Bob

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Young, Terence H.

Hardeman, Ernie

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

The Speaker: All those opposed will rise one at a time until their name is called.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Cooke, David S.

Martin, Tony

Bisson, Gilles

Crozier, Bruce

Miclash, Frank

Boyd, Marion

Curling, Alvin

Morin, Gilles E.

Bradley, James J.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Pouliot, Gilles

Caplan, Elinor

Hoy, Pat

Pupatello, Sandra

Christopherson, David

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Cleary, John C.

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Colle, Mike

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Conway, Sean G.

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 68; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

PETITIONS

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Education Act of Ontario and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee equal access to secondary school education for all students regardless of age; and

"Whereas Bill 34 clearly discriminates against students over the age of 20; and

"Whereas factors in Metropolitan Toronto such as years of major economic dislocation, escalating social problems and consistently high levels of immigration have created a tremendous need and demand for quality effective adult education programs; and

"Whereas public adult education programs in Metro Toronto are a proven success, with 83% of students moving directly into employment or further education after completing short-term programs of five months to one year; and

"Whereas Bill 34 clearly threatens these programs;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 34, the Education Amendment Act, because it discriminates against adult students on the basis of age."

I put my signature to this. There are many people in my constituency who have also done so.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a number of petitions with signatures of over 2,000 to 3,000 individuals from around the city of Toronto addressed to Premier Mike Harris and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Al Leach, and the members of the provincial Legislature and it reads as follows:

"Whereas to abolish rent controls in favour of a market system would be disastrous for tenants and give further power and allow unnecessary profits for landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support universal and mandatory rent controls which reflect a fair balance between the ability of tenants to pay and the necessity and cost of supplying well-maintained and secure housing."

I sign that petition with pleasure.

COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition signée par une centaine de travailleurs de la construction en Ontario et à Prescott et Russell.

«Attendu que le taux de sans-emploi au sein de l'industrie de la construction est très élevé dans toute la vallée de l'Outaouais, notamment dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton où, selon l'IBEW, Local 586, 43 % des travailleurs syndiqués de différents métiers reliés à la construction sont au chômage ;

«Attendu que plusieurs emplois sur les chantiers de construction de l'Ontario sont comblés par des travailleurs du Québec ;

«Attendu que les travailleurs et les entrepreneurs en construction de l'Ontario font face à de nombreuses règles lorsqu'ils veulent travailler au Québec ou encore obtenir des contrats au Québec ;

«Attendu que les négociations entre l'Ontario et le Québec au cours des 20 dernières année afin d'abolir les barrières interprovinciales n'ont pas permis d'établir une parité au sein des deux provinces ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Que le projet de

loi sur la main-d'oeuvre de la construction du Québec déposé à l'Assemblée législative le 4 juin 1996 par le député de Prescott et Russell, Jean-Marc Lalonde, qui contribuera à créer de l'emploi et à protéger l'industrie de la construction en Ontario soit adopté par l'Assemblée.»

Je signe cette pétition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have here a petition that was forwarded to me from the Roman Catholic diocese of London, the first signatory being Bishop Sherlock. It is 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."

I am proud to add my signature to this petition.

COURTCLIFFE PARK

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a petition; it's actually the second one. It reads as follows, in part:

"We, the residents of Courtcliffe Park in the town of Flamborough, demand a public inquiry into the financial management of Courtcliffe Park by the provincial court-appointed receiver Deloitte and Touche from May 1992 to November 1995, in particular the collection of property taxes from the residents of Courtcliffe Park that were not paid to the town of Flamborough, which has led to the possible eviction of more than 200 residents."

This is the second petition, one with 200 signatures which was filed last week.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm happy to support the petition going forward with hundreds of names on it from my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas chronic underfunding of skill training has resulted in program cuts at St Clair College;

"Whereas apprentices and non-regulated trades of CNC machinists, draftspersons, industrial pipefitters, industrial machine control and electricians may be in jeopardy of losing their training;

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has stated that teachers and classes will not be cancelled under restructuring;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the apprentices and concerned individuals, request that the Premier and the Minister of Labour (

a) restore funding to the non-regulated trades, (

b) guarantee that no apprentice will lose their apprenticeship and (

c) guarantee continuity of skill training for the province of Ontario."

I'm happy to add my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive petitions from workers concerned about this government's continuing attack on workplace health and safety. These petitions come from the Service Employees International Union Local 532 in my home town of Hamilton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

As I support this petition, I affix my signature also.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition from the staff on 5A of the Fell building, the neurosurgery nurses, Western Division, the Toronto Hospital, and the petition says:

"Whereas the mission statement of the Toronto Hospital says `The Toronto Hospital will provide exemplary patient care and foster excellence in health care delivery, research and teaching';

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the removal of registered nurses from the hospital wards and replacing them with registered practical nurses and unregulated health workers."

This is signed by the registered nurses who are members of the neurosurgery team at the Western Division of the Toronto Hospital. I submit this to the Legislature and I share their concerns.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that's signed by 27 constituents in the riding of Sudbury East. It 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 has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see a prediction of only 253,000 jobs created over the next three years and an unemployment rate of 8.6% in two years, which is the same as it is today; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to create significant jobs in this province; 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."

I have affixed my signature to the petition and I agree entirely with my constituents.

TRANSITION HOUSE

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

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000 they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals;

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of the troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; and

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and a regimented environment at Transition House have combined with the counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services have a definite impact on statistics of children and youth in crisis; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and placed the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham and in Kent."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I bring to this assembly a petition of hundreds of names, literally, to add to the hundreds of names already presented on this issue from the United Steelworkers of America in Sault Ste Marie, Local 2251. It goes like this:

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, from United Steelworkers 2251, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, from Local 2251, United Steelworkers, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I sign my name to this petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows, regarding Bill 31,

an act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers, a bill which has not yet been proclaimed:

"Whereas the Ontario Legislature is currently debating Bill 31,

An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes; and

"Whereas

section 4 of this legislation sets up the college's governing council in a manner designed to prevent ordinary teachers from forming a majority; and

"Whereas

section 12 gives the Minister of Education draconian powers to override the will of the elected governing council; and

"Whereas sections 33 and 34 give college investigators the right to enter teachers' workplaces and homes, by force if necessary, to search for `something relevant' to charges against teachers; and

"Whereas

section 28 gives the college's discipline committee power to revoke teacher certification and assess fines of up to $5,000 plus legal costs; and

"Whereas under

section 52 a teacher unjustly accused of professional incompetence would have no right to undertake legal action against the college even if it was shown to have neglected or defaulted in the performance of its duties; and

"Whereas

section 53 makes Ontario teachers retroactively responsible for all expenses incurred in establishing the college since April 1, 1994, plus interest; and

"Whereas this bill contains many other provisions too numerous to mention which are an insult to the professionalism of the Ontario teacher, who will be forced without consent to pay for the College of Teachers;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 31 and to undertake a sincere process of consultation with Ontario teachers prior to reintroduction of another such bill."

I affix my name to this petition as I'm in agreement with its contents.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Guise Street Housing Co-op in my riding of Hamilton Centre, which is located at 2 Guise Street. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend, and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

As I support this petition, I affix my signature also.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Martin from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 13th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Does the member wish to make a statement?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): No, I don't wish to make a speech of any sort.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Barrett from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with amendment:

Bill Pr61,

An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This bill attempts to correct a long-standing problem in Ontario of identifying the drivers of vehicles that endanger children boarding or leaving school buses. The bill imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus with its lights flashing.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCES EN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES

Mr Hodgson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 52,

An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries / Projet de loi 52, Loi visant à promouvoir la mise en valeur des ressources, la conservation ainsi que la protection de l'environnement en simplifiant les processus de réglementation et en renforçant les mesures de conformité dans l'industrie pétrolière et l'industrie des agrégats.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): It's my privilege to rise today to introduce Bill 52 for second reading. When passed, Bill 52, the Aggregate and Petroleum Resources Statute Law Amendment Act, will amend four existing statutes, the Aggregate Resources Act, the Petroleum Resources Act, the Mining Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act.

These amendments will restructure the aggregate, petroleum and salt-solution mining and brine programs of the Ministry of Natural Resources to make industry more accountable for meeting provincial environmental standards. In addition, these amendments will result in permanent savings of $3.5 million annually for the taxpayers of Ontario.

As members are aware, our government has pledged to change the way government works by providing better services at a price the taxpayers can afford. We're determined to stimulate economic growth and job creation by eliminating red tape and by removing barriers to business sector investment.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has been actively supporting the government's ongoing efforts to achieve these commitments. We have been working with the Red Tape Review Commission to remove bureaucratic inefficiencies from our regulations and practices that have an impact on economic growth.

Through the revised acts resulting from today's bill, we will be implementing our non-renewable resources business plan to change the way we regulate the aggregate, petroleum and brine industries in Ontario. We will shift more responsibility for direct program delivery to the industry, making it more accountable for meeting provincial environmental standards. The Ministry of Natural Resources will then be able to concentrate on our core business of policy development, the setting and enforcement of standards, and approvals of permits and licences.

This new approach to the way we do business will remove the complex, detailed legislation and regulations that currently administer the aggregate, petroleum and brine industries. It will put into place new, streamlined legislation and regulations, backed by detailed technical standards that are understandable and enforceable.

These standards will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders and will be adopted by regulation. They will be tailored to the industries and the people working directly in the field, who will be accountable for compliance. As well, the standards will be more adaptable to the changing improvements in technology.

The changes proposed in this bill will in no way lessen the environmental safety programs present in the current legislation, nor will they open the door for industry to do what it wants. Indeed, with the new, clearly defined, detailed and enforceable technical standards, these industries will be better able to understand and accept their responsibilities, making them more accountable for their actions.

Compliance with new standards will be less complicated than is currently the case. The ministry will be responsible for auditing operations for compliance with legislation and standards, and for enforcement in the event of non-compliance.

The revised acts will provide stronger enforcement tools, including increased fines, longer licence suspensions and a longer time period to initiate prosecutions. Companies, agencies and individuals will be fully liable for their actions.

I would now like to outline the specific changes for each of the affected industries.

The aggregate industry is one of the most important industries in Ontario. It provides an indispensable commodity that is the foundation for a $30-billion construction industry. The aggregate industry employs some 7,000 people directly and some 34,000 people indirectly in services such as transportation and equipment.

By cutting the red tape that currently regulates the aggregate industry in Ontario, we'll be creating a business climate that will stimulate investment and create jobs. We'll be working with the industry and the key stakeholders to develop new technical standards governing the industry's activities, maintaining Ontario's international leadership role in aggregate resources management.

With these new standards, we'll be developing a compliance partnership with the industry. Operators will be responsible for day-to-day site inspections and for monitoring to ensure there is compliance with the legislation, regulations and standards. Full, detailed compliance reports will be submitted annually to the ministry, and operators will be held legally accountable for the accuracy of these reports. To ensure that the reports are properly submitted, ministry inspectors will conduct random audits.

We will also be making changes in the collection of fees and security deposits required from aggregate operators. Under the current legislation, the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for the collection and disbursement of moneys collected from these operators. We are essentially acting as bankers for the industry. The existing system is inefficient, ineffective and difficult to understand.

Under the amendments to the existing legislation, we'll be setting up a trust fund administered by a private corporation similar to the one set up under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The Minister of Natural Resources will appoint trustees who will be responsible for collecting and disbursing annual licence and wayside fees; administering the abandoned pits and quarries rehabilitation fund; administering a new pooled trust for the rehabilitation of lands where operators have had their licences revoked or have gone bankrupt; and funding research into aggregate resources management, including rehabilitation research.

The Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario has agreed to take on the responsibility for the administration and delivery of the rehabilitation programs stemming from the abandoned pits and quarries rehabilitation fund.

I'd now like to turn to the changes we will be making to the regulation of the petroleum and brine industries. These are four industries dealing with hydrocarbon and brine products: the crude oil and natural gas exploration and production industry; the natural gas storage industry; the brine or salt-solution mining industry; and the hydrocarbon storage industry.

Although not nearly as large as the industry in Alberta, Ontario's oil and gas production still employs 1,100 workers directly and another 3,500 indirectly. The salt-solution mining industry employs 1,200 directly and, along with the natural gas storage industry and hydrocarbon storage industry, provides for value added jobs for more than 30,000 people.

Similar to the changes proposed for the aggregate industry, legislation governing the petroleum and brine industries will be streamlined and simplified. As well, operational standards will be developed with the industry and other key stakeholders to provide detailed technical guidelines. These will be similar to the current CSA standard for the storage of hydrocarbon in underground foundations.

To guarantee that operations comply with Ontario's environmental and safety regulations, the Ministry of Natural Resources will continue to do field site inspections. In addition, private inspectors, certified by the ministry, will also perform field site examinations.

Inspectors will have strengthened powers, including the authority to order the plugging of a well. This enhanced enforcement will be complemented by increased fines reaching a maximum of $500,000, up from the current $10,000. As well, any profits accrued as a result of the violations will be added to the fines. To ensure that all operators comply with the regulations, we will also extend the time period for initiating prosecution.

A new licensing system will replace the current well permit system, which only addresses the drilling portion of operations. Under the provisions in this bill, a new life-cycle well licence will be established. It will require adherence to the operational standards for the life of a well, from the initial drilling to the final plugging and abandonment.

This new licence will cover all activities, including drilling, production, maintenance and changes in the status or purpose of the well. It will eliminate the need for annual production and rig licences and special brine well permits currently required under the Mining Act.

As a result of the restructuring of the Ministry of Natural Resources resulting from the implementation of the non-renewable resources business plan, it will no longer be providing technical and research services to the petroleum industry, as these services do not fall under our core business.

Provisions in this bill will also set up a new trust account funded by the industry to operate the core and chip library currently run by the ministry. In addition, this trust account will finance research and information services for the industry and academic institutions.

Amendments to the current statutes contained in the Aggregate and Petroleum Resources Statute Law