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

June 17, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L089 - Mon 17 Jun 1996 / Lun 17 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ANNIVERSARY

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

DOUG KENNEDY

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

TOWN OF OPASATIKA

MICHAEL AMANN-EWASCHUK

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LANDFILL

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

LANDFILL

YOUNG OFFENDERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

OBSTETRICAL CARE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

TRANSITION HOUSE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RENT REGULATION

MANDATORY INQUESTS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1996

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

TORONTO ISLANDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAFETY AND CONSUMER STATUTES ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'APPLICATION DE CERTAINES LOIS TRAITANT DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE STABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA STABILITÉ DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION REPEAL ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 ABROGEANT LA

LOI SUR L'INSTITUT D'ÉTUDES PÉDAGOGIQUES DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ANNIVERSARY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): It is with great pleasure that I direct your attention to the gallery to present to the House two members of the Royal Canadian Legion from eastern Ontario: Mr Jim Wynn from L.T.H. Russell Branch 372, and Mr Brian Markwick from Chesterville Branch 434.

These two individuals are in Toronto today to take

part in the 36th Dominion Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion. Mr Wynn and Mr Markwick are also chairmen of the 50th anniversary celebration for their respective branches.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all members of the Russell and Chesterville branches for their involvement in their communities since 1946. Those two branches, like so many others across this province and this nation, have done so much over the past 50 years for the veterans, their families and their communities.

Mr Wynn and Mr Markwick, in the name of the people of Prescott and Russell and all Ontarians, it is with great respect that I congratulate you and all your members for 50 years of outstanding contribution to our communities.

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This Friday, June 21, will be the first celebration of the recently declared National Aboriginal Day. This day of celebration is for all Canadians, particularly young people, to learn more about the aboriginal cultural heritages of our nation.

June 21 was selected as the date of celebration because of its symbolic importance to many aboriginal groups as the summer solstice. The initiation of this special day is particularly appropriate, as it has come during the United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous People. It is a day for Canadians to get together to learn about each other, to take time to reflect on and appreciate the contribution of aboriginal people to our country and to our province. There will be celebrations across the country, many here in Ontario, from Windsor to Ottawa, to recognize this new day on Canada's calendar.

During these times, as aboriginal people struggle to achieve self-determination and self-governance, it is important that all of us work hard to maintain the lines of communication. Our outstanding issues can be resolved to the benefit of all of us if we continue to work as partners. The declaration of June 21 as the day to celebrate the contributions of aboriginal people of Canada is one way to maintain that communication.

This initiative was supported by my colleague federal NDP MP Nelson Riis from the riding of Kamloops through the introduction of a private member's bill. I am happy that we in Ontario will be celebrating, along with the rest of the country, this very special day.

WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to make mention of an important event that will be taking place on this day in 1997. Preparations are well under way for the 100th anniversary of the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario and Canada. This will be held in Hamilton, June 17 to 22, 1997.

Women's institutes link seven million members worldwide. Over 2,000 delegates from across Canada and around the world will be taking part. The theme for the convention is "Indebted to the Past, Committed to the Future."

During times when we are all looking for a community esprit de corps and to fan the flame of volunteerism, we need not look beyond the work done by women's institutes. My family has had a long association with the Marburg Women's Institute in my riding of Norfolk. To commemorate their 75th anniversary I conveyed our government's support last fall. The Marburg Women's Institute is just one of many in my riding and across Ontario.

Women's institutes are proud of the work they've done in the past 100 years to improve the lives of families, to manage homes in the best way possible and to provide leadership in their communities. If ever our society needed groups like the women's institutes and the junior women's institutes, it is now. I am confident that women's institutes will continue their efforts for another 100 years.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The forest fire season has arrived in Ontario with a vengeance. In northwestern Ontario alone, there are presently over 180 blazes being battled right now. This past weekend, our hardworking fire crews managed to extinguish 28 blazes, but weather forecasts of hot and dry conditions threaten many more outbreaks in the next few days.

I want to tip my hat to the extraordinary work being done by all those involved but at the same time draw the attention of the House to the fact that many of the fire crews have been brought in from Alberta and British Columbia, not to mention Minnesota and Wisconsin.

While we welcome whatever help is needed to fight these blazes, it is important to note that all the costs associated with these out-of-province crews -- salaries, benefits and transportation -- are paid for by Ontario taxpayers. Why is the Minister of Natural Resources not hiring more workers from northwestern Ontario, let alone from all across the province, who are qualified to do the job?

We know the minister reduced the fire protection budget from $35 million to $30 million this year. We know the minister eliminated 60 jobs earlier this year by cutting back on 20 three-person firefighting crews. We also know that the unemployment rate is over 10% in Thunder Bay, 12% in Geraldton-Longlac, and 15% in Atikokan. People are calling my office and the offices of my colleagues indicating their desire to work on these devastating fires.

Minister, I'm calling on you to continue to fight these fires in an aggressive manner, but to recognize that we have thousands of Ontario citizens who are ready, willing and able to be part of this huge job.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet again over the weekend I met many, many people in my constituency, as many other members of the assembly do when they go back to their ridings on the weekends, and the message is always the same. It astounds me: From community to community throughout the riding of Cochrane South, from coffee group to coffee group, community event to community event, to individual meetings with constituents, I'm getting more and more a large amount of concern from the constituents of Cochrane South as to what the Harris agenda means to them in the constituency of Cochrane South.

They worry; for example, the people I met in Iroquois Falls just recently who are not with day care at this point because the government cancelled a conversion program of the day care spots in the community of Iroquois Falls. I have in other communities such as Timmins situations where many people who are having to return to college this year don't have somewhere to bring their children because of the cancellation of much-needed day care spots within the city of Timmins.

They worry about what happened with the roads last winter in regard to the poor maintenance condition of our highways, with highways being shut down for days on end and the condition of those highways being dangerous to the point that we've never seen them before. They worry and they're concerned about what's happening with the repairs of our highways, where we should be seeing construction crews out on the highways across northern Ontario fixing up the frost heaves caused by the winter damage of the road from last year but they don't see that happening.

They worry about what's going to happen to our forests with the cancellation of fire crews and fire stations throughout northern Ontario, when the full effect of that comes to roost next spring where we're going to see an increased amount of fire damage within our forests.

So I say there's no common sense in this. This is about a government for big business.

DOUG KENNEDY

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Douglas Kennedy, who was born in Dixie on June 15, 1916, an area which I now represent known as Mississauga East.

Doug Kennedy was introduced to politics by his father, John Robert Kennedy, who was a councillor and clerk for the township of Toronto, and by his uncle, the Honourable Thomas Laird Kennedy, who was the Minister of Agriculture in this province for 34 years and served as interim Premier for nine months between 1948 and 1949.

Doug Kennedy was a school trustee from 1955 to 1963. He was Hydro commissioner from 1963 to 1967. When Peel was divided into two ridings in 1967, Doug Kennedy was elected as the provincial representative for Peel South, and was re-elected in 1971, 1975, 1977 and 1981. For 18 years he served in numerous ministries, including as parliamentary assistant to the then Minister of Education, the Honourable William Davis.

Doug Kennedy has dedicated more than half of his life to serving Ontario. Last Saturday I was privileged and honoured to participate in the celebration of his 80th birthday. Congratulations to Doug Kennedy.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): It is now one year into this government's mandate and this government's imprimatur is now more evident. The progeny of the Family Compact that sit smugly across the aisle, the revolutionary maniacs, sit there in the knowledge that they are leading in the current polls. But listen well, you Reformistas, because there is a price to be paid for everything, and in the end you will pay the price for overindulging in your zealotry.

What is clear is that many of our communities are doing with a lot less. The government's mantra of doing more for less is clearly bogus. What is true is that people are getting a whole lot less for less. Ontarians are not getting the same levels of service they used to.

As the Toronto Star pointed out in a weekend article, there are fewer police, fewer nurses, social workers, librarians, paramedics, transit drivers. And it is clear that crime is on the increase. It is a real problem in Metro Toronto and across this province.

York region's board of education, growing by 3,000 pupils a year, has slashed its per pupil spending from a high of $7,219 in 1993 to $6,993 this year, and they've cut junior kindergarten. As well, Peel region's police department has added one extra police officer in the past five years while its population has increased by 116,000 -- incredible.

This is not common sense. This is clearly a sign of a government that is downsizing in the stupidest of ways.

TOWN OF OPASATIKA

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today I would like to congratulate the town of Opasatika, Ontario, on its 20th anniversary as of April 1. As many of you are from communities considerably older and larger than Opasatika, this might not strike you as a momentous occasion, but it is.

This community of 388 in my riding of Cochrane North has survived a disaster, the closure by the Department of Defence of the Lowther air base in 1986, cutting the community's population in half. They were able to weather the storm and now they are prospering. Hyundai Canada established a cold-weather test facility there, the lumber company Excel has undergone an expansion, and this month they hope to start construction on a mushroom farm worth $1.3 million that will create 20 full-time jobs.

During the past two decades Opasatika has averaged nearly one large project per year and, unlike most of us, the municipality even has a reserve of $500,000. Would that the towns of Cochrane, Hearst and Kapuskasing, which recently lost a total of 42 jobs because of your government's cut to the Ministry of Natural Resources' budget, and other smaller communities suffering from your government's cutbacks do as well as Opasatika. They can't expect very much from this government.

I was pleased on Friday to attend a seniors' banquet in Opasatika, where the people are all smiles and know that they're going to prosper. There were people from all over the community. I was also in Mattice and Smooth Rock Falls for seniors' banquets. I want to congratulate all the seniors in this province during the month of June.

MICHAEL AMANN-EWASCHUK

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): "Would you know my name if I saw you in heaven?" Kids cried as this song was played at Michael's funeral. Michael Amann-Ewaschuk, 18 years of age, was being laid to rest last Wednesday. Michael was stabbed at the Main Street subway station, another result of youth violence. Michael's family is with us today in the gallery.

For the overflowing crowd at Michael's funeral it was their first taste of death. Kids the age of my daughter wept. Death had probably never touched their lives before. It was final. They knew it now.

There were pictures of a handsome young man in his prime, of Michael in his soap box racer, in a team baseball picture and at a lake fishing with young friends -- the things we've all done, family things snuffed out in seconds by such a senseless act.

Michael's family does not want his death to be in vain. They've established the Michael Amann-Ewaschuk Youth Crime Prevention Fund. I applaud the family.

I do not want to see again the sadness, the finality of life with so much promise, the end of dreams for family and friends, the agony of senselessness. I suggest that every member of any Parliament attend the funeral of a youth struck violently like Michael. Perhaps then we'll legislate away some of this awful youth violence. We have to change things. Too many of our kids are in heaven already.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation from Ethiopia. Please welcome these guests.

We also have Senator Terry Lister, with the Legislature of Bermuda. Welcome.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought the members should be aware that almost the entire York Mills PC executive is in the members' gallery today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LANDFILL

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Today I am tabling new landfill standards that will ensure the environment is protected and will make the approvals process less costly, less time-consuming and more predictable.

These standards are among the toughest in the world. They will help reduce the considerable stress on communities that are looking for landfill sites. We've heard from those who build and operate landfill sites and those affected by them. They have said, "Give us the standards and let us work it out." Now we're acting on that message while ensuring the environment is protected.

In the past, approvals for waste sites often took years, costing millions of dollars. In many cases, after considerable expense and time, proposed sites were rejected. The result was a no-win situation for everyone involved. Today, we are changing that. For the first time in Ontario's history we are introducing clear and comprehensive, state-of-the-art landfill standards.

We are inviting public comment on stringent landfill standards that are second to none in protecting the environment. These clearly defined standards, combined with the improvements we are making to the Environmental Assessment Act, will make the approvals process more certain, more flexible and less costly. They will also ensure that proponents don't waste unnecessary time trying to satisfy us.

I have just released landfill standards that set requirements for the following: siting considerations to protect environmentally sensitive areas; design specifications such as buffer zones, liners, leachate collection systems and covers; site operation, maintenance, security and environmental monitoring; standards to protect ground and surface waters and to control landfill gas; contingency planning, closure and post-closure care; financial assurance for private sector facilities.

We are releasing these standards for a 30-day comment period and inviting the public, especially interested groups and individuals who operate landfills or live near them, to make written submissions to my ministry's waste reduction branch by July 19. All comments will be considered by the ministry in finalizing these standards.

The standards I have just outlined, which are among the toughest in the world, will improve the landfill site approvals process by saving time and money while ensuring that the environment receives maximum protection.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I am pleased to respond on behalf of the official opposition to the Minister of Environment and Energy's statement. The minister's statement, from our perspective, is premised upon her assurances that the environment will be protected; to quote from the last sentence she read, "while ensuring that the environment receives maximum protection." I want to tell you why we have some grave reservations about the minister's intent with respect to ensuring that the environment is protected.

These assurances come from the minister who has told us acid rain is not a priority. These assurances come from the minister who tells us that she will not act to reduce smog. Furthermore, she did not act to assist the people of Toronto who want to put in place a bylaw which is going to restrict the length of time parked cars could idle. This from the minister who tells us as well that she is not fussy about riding public transit. This from the minister who's aware of only 79 former dump sites in Metro Toronto,

whereas an independent source who's had access to public records tells us that are 800 former dump sites.

I want to take advantage of the opportunity now to list some of the minister's accomplishments to date. If we put them all together, she gives a very good impression of merely presiding over the gradual dismantling of her ministry. The budget to her ministry has been reduced by over $200 million and she's going to lose 752 staff from now until 1997-98.

She has allowed for the effective elimination of protection for environmentally significant areas, such as wetlands, woodlots and ravines, and prime agricultural land. She has allowed for the weakening of controls on activities on public lands and public forests, which may affect the province's waterways. She's allowed for the elimination of $142.5 million in funding for municipal sewer and water services over the next two years. She's allowed major reductions to take place in provincial funding to our conservation authorities and the facilitation of the dissolution of authorities and the sale of their lands.

She's allowing for the elimination of programs related to energy efficiency, waste diversion, environmental science, research and education, community environmental action and sustainable forestry.

She's allowing for the weakening of mine closure and remediation provisions under the Mining Act. That came about through the now infamous Bill 26.

She's allowing for the virtual elimination of provincial oversight in the management of Ontario's public forests. She's allowing for the proposal of the closure, consolidation, co-location or partnering of 60 of Ontario's 251 provincial parks.

She's allowed for the implementation of major cuts to provincial support for public transit and the repeal of land use planning requirements intended to curb urban sprawl. We've all known for too long now of the downsides of urban sprawl not only in terms of their economic and social but their environmental cost.

She has permitted the Intervenor Funding Project Act to expire, exempting the Ministry of Finance and financial restructuring measures from the public notice requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights, and she's making it easier for provincial and municipal agencies to reject freedom of information requests.

She's allowing for the implementation of major cuts to the budgets of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Ontario Energy Board.

She's exempting banks from environmental liability under the Environmental Protection Act.

She's participated in the initiation, and we're all aware of this one, of a one-year review of all environmental regulations, with the intent of eliminating those which cannot be justified against criteria established by the Red Tape Review Commission.

I think it's perfectly clear that this minister has not assumed her own special responsibility, and that is to advance the cause of the environment at the cabinet table. It is apparent that nobody on that side of the House has assumed that responsibility, but there is only one person in particular who is charged with that responsibility, and that's the minister herself.

If the minister herself is not taking that on, then who is? Who speaks for the environment in this government? Who speaks for clean air? Who speaks for preservation of our natural wildlife? Who speaks for preservation of farm lands? Who's going to act against urban sprawl?

It's apparent that there's nobody over there taking any interest in preserving our natural environment, and we're going to pay for that for a long time to come.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I am going to speak directly to the regulations that have been introduced today. I'd like to start by saying that I'm sure the minister does not want to mislead the people of Ontario, so I want to correct something right away. These regulations are not the best regulations in the world, and they're by no means second to none. The United States is not the best jurisdiction to do comparisons, believe me. There are much stronger regulations in parts of Europe and in Japan.

It's interesting to note that under the introduction and purpose of the document put out today, the third paragraph talks about, "Although the Ministry of Environment and Energy continues to emphasize the three Rs..." Excuse me? This is after the government has cut funding through the blue box program, has brought back incineration, and is cutting about a third of your staff.

Then on page 3 under "Natural Heritage Features" it talks about how landfilling sites should be located in environmentally sensitive areas, and it goes to say, "The areas identified here are consistent with the recent provincial policy statement made under the Land Use Planning and Protection Act." I can tell you that this does not give me much confidence, because it's a big joke. This government has redrawn the map for defining significant wetlands. A lot of the areas originally under our government have been taken off that map, and it has been significantly reduced. So, believe me, that does not give us much comfort.

There's another thing I'd like to point out which I think is extremely important here, because if we will recall, there was a question to the Premier recently. The Premier was asked if landfills will be subject to a full environmental assessment. Remember that? And what did the Premier say? He said, yes, landfills will have to be subject to a full environmental assessment. Well, the minister said today, and I heard her myself, that in fact landfill will not necessarily be subject to a full environmental assessment. It depends on a lot of criteria.

What people have to do now is that a citizens' group and the municipality and the proponent, although who the citizens' group will be has not been defined, have to get together and agree upon the terms of reference, which means the minister hasn't even achieved her own purpose here in tightening the time frames, in speeding up the process.

It's incredibly naïve at best to think that you are going to get a bunch of citizens in a rural area, who do not want a landfill in their backyard, to sit down with the proponent, who stands to make millions of dollars, and agree upon terms of reference. The minister said that it cannot even come before her or the ministry until these terms of reference are agreed to. Give me a break. That's what's going to now hold up the process. So it's not going to make any difference. The process is going to be slowed down at the front end. That is when citizens are going to have their participation.

That's when they're going to have their participation -- down the road. Once, if ever, they do reach an agreement on the terms of reference, their participation is finished. The government then takes over.

They will get no intervenor funding, because this government cancelled intervenor funding. That's gone. I guess they'll have to have a few bake sales again. There's no guarantee of a full environmental assessment, but even if there is, they have no money to participate in a very, very complicated technical process which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to get proper testing done.

This morning when the minister was asked about this, she said, "Well, the proponent could give the citizens' group money." There's nothing to guarantee that they'll get money. Therefore, the proponent, again, who stands to make millions of dollars, will be doing all the testing and saying: "Trust us. We'll hire the right scientist; not the scientist you'd like, but trust us, we'll make sure that the proper testing is done." That is what will be given in evidence before an environmental assessment; that is, if there is an environmental assessment.

If this at least actually achieved the purpose which the minister and this government said they wanted to achieve, and speed up the process, perhaps we'd have some support for this, but it doesn't even do that, and it shuts out public --

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. My question has to do with the government's coverup of the beatings that took place at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre on February 29, and the coverup of the fact that your government clearly knew about this incident nearly three months before the police were called in to investigate.

I use the term "coverup" deliberately, Minister, because no one can believe the stories that you and the Solicitor General were spinning last week. The Solicitor General has said he wasn't part of any coverup; he was just out of the whole loop. He says that even though his acting deputy was told about the event on March 4, this official, the most senior official in his ministry, didn't bother to tell the minister what was going on. But he did say that you knew, Minister, what was going on, because your deputy minister was told.

Your story goes like this: "Hey, don't blame me. I was as much out of the loop as Bob Runciman was. Nobody told me there were any beatings either."

Nobody can follow this, let alone believe it. You have had the weekend now for your spin doctors to get together with the Solicitor General's spin doctors and come up with a better story. So I ask you, what is your story this week, Minister? How do you explain this week why young people were brutally beaten up while they were in provincial custody? How do you explain why it was three months before the police were called in to investigate, and how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that neither you nor the Solicitor General knew what was going on even though both your deputy ministers were fully informed?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): It's the same explanation I gave last week, essentially, and we'll deal with it sequentially so it is quite understood.

On March 4, I was advised that an incident had taken place at Bluewater on February 29. At the same time, I was advised that since the facility was not under the auspices of my ministry, nor were any of the young offenders involved under the authority or case management of my ministry, nor do I have jurisdiction over that particular facility, we had no involvement in this particular incident, and that's exactly the story I told last week.

Mrs McLeod: Just that the few remaining shreds of your credibility are wilting badly under the glare of the scrutiny of this story.

Let me understand it again: You want us to believe, even though your deputy was informed -- clearly an issue of concern to your ministry, so that your deputy was informed -- on March 4 that the child advocate was very concerned about the treatment of 40 youths, that you weren't told about the beatings.

You want us to believe that even though your deputy minister made an urgent call to you on March 4 to tell you about this, somehow she failed to mention the fact that these young people had been beaten and somehow you just didn't ask; it was enough to be told there was an incident and you were simply relieved that somehow you didn't have to feel responsible for doing anything about it. You want us to believe that you knew nothing, that you heard nothing, that you passed on nothing?

Even by the standards of ignorance that you have sometimes demonstrated in the past, Minister, I find that a rather hard story to swallow.

The word "coverup" is written all over this, so why don't you admit that your deputy minister, when she briefed you on this, would tell you what was going on? Why don't you tell us whom you passed this information on to, why you took

part in the coverup and who else joined you in the coverup?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I guess I can repeat what I just said, but I can say this as well, that we had no authority over the matter. In fact, at Elgin-Middlesex we have absolutely no involvement with that facility at all. So clearly, once again, the facility was not one that was under the authority of community and social services, nor were any young offenders under our case management involved at all. Lastly of course we have no jurisdiction.

I might comment, though, that I think the child advocate, Judy Finlay, in a story in the Toronto Sun over the weekend, indicated that it would not have been appropriate for us to become involved; in fact, "the Ministry of Community and Social Services would not interfere," she said.

So clearly not only did we have no involvement in the matter, it would be highly inappropriate for us to become involved while it's under the authority of another ministry.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sorry, but this is simply an unbelievable story. On February 29, 40 youths were beaten, prodded, kicked and deliberately humiliated while in the custody of the province of Ontario. The child advocate told your deputy minister. The Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services told her about this a few days later.

You want us to believe that your deputy, when she then briefed you, as she was required to do, didn't tell you that the beatings had taken place -- this is the person in your ministry whose key responsibility is to make you aware of major problems, major issues -- she did her job; she briefed you; she called you to brief you, and yet somehow, as part of that briefing, she failed to tell you that anyone was beaten, that she just said it was an incident and you didn't need to worry about it, and as someone who follows a don't-ask, don't-tell policy you didn't think to ask her?

Minister, it is one heck of a story and it simply defies belief.

I will give you one more chance to come clean on this. Tell us what you knew. Tell us what your deputy told you when she called you to brief you. Tell us whom you told and tell us what they said once and for all in this sordid affair. Tell the truth of what happened.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, and let me make it very patently clear that what I was advised of was of the incident at Bluewater, which was the facility from which the young offenders were being transferred. Obviously my ministry felt, and I feel too, that we had no authority over the incident.

Clearly, once again for the third time, the facility was not ours, nor were any of the young offenders under our authority. Clearly there was no involvement by our ministry and clearly the child advocate also indicated that it would be highly inappropriate for us to become involved. I don't know how I could better answer the question to the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question. To which minister?

Mrs McLeod: To the Solicitor General and the minister of corrections, to see if I can at least attempt to get his story straight and get around some of the contradictions between what he has been spinning and what your colleague, Minister, is spinning now, because you said last week that your colleague did know about those beatings, had to know about those beatings. because the deputy minister had been briefed on them, even though somehow you claim that you didn't know about them.

A mother of one of the teens who was allegedly beaten by your officials while handcuffed called your office more than a dozen times during the month of March out of concern for her child's safety, and yet you claim you didn't know about that. The child advocate reported concerns about these beatings to your acting deputy minister and to the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services as early as March 4, and yet you claim you didn't know about that.

Then immediately after that briefing your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, according to you, learned about the incident at Elgin-Middlesex, and yet you claim that you still didn't know. How do you really expect anyone to believe it when you say you didn't know?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I think most objective observers outside of this assembly will believe me with respect to this matter. I want to indicate that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there was a major riot at the Bluewater Youth Centre that caused substantial damage to two of the five dormitories. The estimate of damage was a quarter of a million dollars. It included broken windows, smashed furniture, flooding, fires.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): So that justifies beatings?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): They informed you of that; they did not inform you of the other things?

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Oh, he's got all the details on this; he knows all of this.

Hon Mr Runciman: Clearly they don't want to hear this, Mr Speaker. I'll respond when they want to hear the answer.

The Speaker: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: If they're ready for the answer, I will respond.

The question here surrounds the fact with respect to how the ministry responded related to March 4 and the receipt of the child advocate's report. The reality is -- the child advocate has said this publicly to anyone who is willing to listen -- that during that interim period she and ministry officials made every effort to move young offenders out of the Elgin-Middlesex facility. No one was happy with young offenders being in an adult institution. Every effort was made to move them, but they were frustrated at every turn by the labour situation. As you recall, there was a strike at the time in the public sector.

They tried to move young offenders back into the Bluewater facility, but the union immediately filed an occupational health and safety complaint, and they had to pull the youth back out of that facility.

The advocate has said time and time again that the ministry did everything possible -- everything possible -- in terms of her concerns about young offenders. To the Leader of the Opposition, who is talking about a coverup, let her explain what she's talking about in terms of a coverup.

Mrs McLeod: I asked the minister to put himself in the position of somebody who would be looking objectively at the facts of what has happened here. Of course the minister was aware of the original riot that took place. We all were; it was publicly reported. That is why your attempt to explain, attempt to suggest that you were not made aware of what occurred subsequent to that riot absolutely defies belief.

You have a serious public issue, you have a response taken to that serious issue, you have the child advocate who has told both your deputy minister and the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services that she has serious concerns about the treatment of those young people who have been transferred to Elgin-Middlesex, and yet you are saying that neither your acting deputy nor the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services saw fit to tell either you or, apparently, your colleague what was actually happening.

Do you really expect that anybody looking objectively at the facts of this would believe that two senior deputy ministers would actually fail to understand how serious this incident was and that they would therefore fail to inform you or you colleague of what had taken place?

Hon Mr Runciman: Any objective observer, as the leader makes reference to, would indeed, I think, support the position we put forward publicly. There's no indication -- we have to look at the report of the child advocate, and what she has said publicly is that she shared the concerns of ministry staff with respect to extended incarceration of young offenders in an adult institution. Every effort was made to move those young offenders; they were frustrated.

When the advocate approached the acting deputy and the deputy, she indicated that she had concerns she wished to investigate. She was encouraged at every step of the way with respect to that investigation. She has said that publicly. The opposition members obviously do not want to pay attention to that perspective from the child advocate. In terms of the communication, I have indicated publicly that I have a concern with respect to the fact that the protocol was not followed and we're pursuing that through the internal investigation.

Mrs McLeod: The issue here is really what the minister responsible, the Solicitor General and Minister of Corrections, knew about this situation and why he is denying any knowledge of it, and the fact that apparently his colleague also was not told, denies any knowledge of what happened. This is not some protocol issue of an incident that was happening deep within the bowels of the ministry; this is something where the senior deputy ministers, the people responsible for briefing the ministers on issues, were informed of what was happening.

You are expecting us to believe that two deputy ministers failed to do what is the most basic thing for deputy ministers to do, and that is to brief their ministers on something serious which is happening within their ministries. I say to you that is not believable by any objective standard at all.

You are further telling us that although you have a mother who is calling your office directly more than a dozen times in the course of one month, your own hand-picked staff failed to see this as serious and failed to tell you this was happening, and that too is not believable.

There is only one possible explanation for what has happened here, and that is that both the Solicitor General and the minister responsible for community and social services are covering up their knowledge, their responsibility for what has happened and their failure to take action. If you do not agree that is the explanation, will you agree to a public inquiry so that the facts as you see them can come forward?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'd like to know what's being covered up. The advocate expressed her concerns on March 4. She was encouraged to conduct a full investigation with respect to her concerns. Her report was delivered to the deputy at the end of May, and immediately upon receipt of her report the London city police were called in. She has indicated that in the interim period with respect to her expression of concerns and the filing of her report the ministry acted appropriately, that she was quite satisfied with respect to the steps taken by the ministry to ensure the safety of young offenders.

When the member raises these allegations of coverup, again I ask her to be specific. What is she talking about with respect to coverup? I don't think there's been any suggestion of coverup. The ministry acted appropriately with respect to her concerns, encouraged the investigation, called in the police immediately upon receipt of her report.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to pursue with the minister some other aspects of the scandal that's plaguing his government.

Minister, you've said today that on March 4 you were informed that an incident had taken place at Bluewater. We know this call to you came from your deputy minister. Could you tell us in a little bit more detail what other details your deputy minister told you? She couldn't have just said to you, "An incident took place." You must have asked or she must have told you about the riot, about some of the other details. Could you please enlighten us on the nature of that conversation and what you understood from that conversation that had taken place?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I was told and what I understood were the same things, and it's essentially what I just finished telling the Leader of the Opposition. I was advised by the deputy minister that an incident had occurred at Bluewater and that the young offenders had been transferred. However, once again, at the same time I was advised our ministry had no involvement in the matter. Clearly, we have enough on our plate at community and social services to do without interfering in another ministry.

Once again I'll refer to the child advocate. I hope that the member is not doubting the integrity of the child advocate, because the child advocate has clearly said that it would not have been appropriate for us to intervene and the fact that we should not interfere.

Mr Silipo: No, we are not questioning the integrity of the child advocate but I am questioning very much your integrity today, and there could be no doubt about that. You expect us to believe that you get a call from your deputy minister saying that there has been an incident involving young people whom you are responsible for and you stop at that.

Whether or not the magical line had been crossed around 15-year-olds or not, Minister, the fact is as Minister of Community and Social Services -- and I know because I've been there -- you are responsible for the welfare of young people above any other minister in the cabinet. You cannot expect us to believe that on a call from your deputy minister that there had been an incident, that you would not ask, as she would not tell you, about the nature of that incident, whether or not you were legally responsible for it or whether or not the Solicitor General was legally responsible for it. How can you expect us, Minister, to believe this garbage?

What did your deputy minister tell you had happened?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can only hope to assume that when the honourable member was actually in charge of my portfolio that he did not go across and interfere in other ministries, clearly crossing bounds of jurisdiction. Clearly this is the case here, and in fact contradictory to what the member is saying, we were not responsible for these particular young offenders and clearly that's where we didn't have any involvement.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You're responsible for children.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The members over across the way are indicating a certain other responsibility, but certainly when the member was the Minister of Community and Social Services, had he felt so strongly about it, he could have done something about changing that authority.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you can just continue with your arrogance, with your petulance; you can continue with your attitude of, "I didn't know anything; it wasn't my responsibility," but that isn't going to get you anywhere, because the people of the province are understanding more and more, to put it mildly and to put it lightly, the uncaring attitude that's coming out of your ministry and out of you as the minister.

The other aspect that I want to ask you about, Minister, is, this was March 4 -- I think a Monday, according to the calendar, a Monday or a Tuesday -- how can you expect us to believe that you would not have talked, formally or informally, with your colleague the Solicitor General, given the seriousness of the incident that had taken place, at any time in the following days? You don't talk to him at cabinet? You don't talk to him as you meet him in other meetings? You don't raise at all this issue? Why did you not at any point in the days that followed March 4 ever raise these concerns with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This is going to be a well-known passage by the time I finish. The member is asking why there are no discussions held, but once again, Judy Finlay, who is the child advocate, indicated that it would not have been appropriate. I don't know how much of that is difficult to understand -- would not have been appropriate nor should we interfere. That's clearly the whys.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order. New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, you didn't know about the allegations at Elgin-Middlesex for three months, even though your acting deputy minister knew on March 4. You didn't know about the allegations that managers at Elgin-Middlesex and at Bluewater were, on the weekend of June 8, in the facility till all hours and that there were allegations that documents were shredded. First you said those managers were part of an internal investigation team and then you told us they weren't.

You said you called in the London police on May 31, immediately upon receiving the report, but in fact the London police only assigned officers to begin their investigations on June 10, after those allegations came to light regarding the possible shredding of documents and that records may have been tampered with. Then on Thursday in this House we raised concerns regarding the superintendent, George Simpson, who was informed in writing on numerous occasions from several of the staff at the institution of allegations of assault. He hadn't done anything to address those concerns. He hadn't called the police, as the policy requires, and he hadn't informed you.

As a result of our questioning on Thursday, we understand that George Simpson was reassigned outside the institution on Friday. Could you explain why the superintendent was reassigned not on March 4, when your acting deputy minister found out about these allegations, not even on June 5, when you found out about these allegations, but last Friday?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not at liberty to discuss the situation related to Mr Simpson.

Mrs Boyd: Perhaps then I should suggest to you a very good reason why this particular superintendent should have been reassigned a long time ago.

I have a copy of a memo that Superintendent George Simpson, the same individual who has now been reassigned, sent to all shift supervisors, that is management, at Elgin-Middlesex. That memo is dated June 7, 1996. Let me read to you from the memo:

"All shift supervisors are required to attend a staff meeting at 1300 hours on Tuesday, 11 June 1996....

"Commencing at 0800 hours on Monday, June 10, 1996, copies of the child advocate's report will be available from Doug Ogilvie for reading in the staff training room. These reports are not to be copied or removed from the staff training room and are to be returned to Mr Ogilvie upon completion."

That memo was signed by Mr Simpson as the superintendent. We find out now that those managers were allowed to read the child advocate's report and then were required to attend a staff meeting, where none of us can believe, of course, this whole issue wasn't discussed.

Minister, you refused to release the child advocate's report to the public because you said there were managers who might be subject to ongoing investigations and they were allowed to read that report. It's our understanding that managers at Elgin-Middlesex have read the report, that they did read the report. Could the minister explain why the child advocate's report was available to management staff who may be the subject of ongoing criminal investigations by the London police and by the internal ministry investigation?

Hon Mr Runciman: I haven't indicated that I'm not prepared to release the report at some point when it becomes appropriate to do so. I've indicated that initially I asked for a verbal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to the release of that report and expressed concerns. I then asked that I be given a written comment, report, recommendation from the ministry with respect to the implications of publicly releasing that report.

The Ministry of the Attorney General advised my office and me personally that it would be inappropriate, given the criminal investigation that is under way at the moment, that we release the reports, that we may indeed jeopardize those investigations. I'm following that advice.

Mrs Boyd: The memo from George Simpson is dated June 7. Those reports were available for managers to read on Monday, June 10, the Monday after the weekend when the managers were in the facility till all hours, and all those managers were required to attend a staff meeting the following day.

You said last week that releasing the child advocate's report to the public might jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations, but I wonder how you can justify the fact that the very people who might be the subjects of those ongoing investigations had access to these reports and may have had an opportunity to discuss among themselves, at a meeting which they were all required to attend, what their strategy would be. Minister, how can it be appropriate for you to have allowed this to happen?

Hon Mr Runciman: This is related to a matter which I am not at liberty to discuss, not only because of the criminal proceedings but the internal investigation and all the ramifications and implications surrounding that.

LANDFILL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. You are charged, as you well know, with the responsibility of knowing where all Ontario dumps are, whether those in actual use or those formerly in use. It's important to know where all the old dumps are because in many cases they contain dangerous materials and sometimes carcinogens.

Your records show that there are 79 old dumps in Metro Toronto. But Dr Richard Anderson, a York University geography professor, has finished some research which says that there are not 79 but 800 old dumps in Metro Toronto and that there are schools, houses and parks built on or near some of those sites. Can you assure us that you now know where these 800 sites are and tell us what steps you are taking based on this information?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I am aware of the report that a gentleman has recently released. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has not yet had an opportunity to examine the information contained within that report.

With regard to old dump sites across the province, in 1985 the ministry undertook to do an inventory of sites across the province, and about 2,300 sites were determined. From that, the most difficult were then narrowed down. About 370 sites were considered to be worthy of investigation. An independent study then looked at those sites, and of those, 25 -- so we started with 2,300 and we ended up, across Ontario, looking at a number, 25, which were identified as the worst by an independent consultant hired by the ministry. No significant impacts were identified when those 25 from that original 2,300 were studied.

Mr McGuinty: There are 800 sites with which this minister is not familiar. Those are 800 sites which potentially house or contain dangerous materials. This minister has taken no steps, obviously, so far to find out where those sites are. She's going to have to assume some responsibility in this regard. Her records show that there are 79 sites.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I'm having a problem hearing the question. Would the House come to order, please.

Mr McGuinty: We have independent confirmation to the effect that there are 800 sites, some of which are located below schools, parks and newly constructed homes. The minister is going to have to assume some responsibility here, and she has failed to do so to date. Will you now accept responsibility for this matter and immediately obtain Dr Anderson's work from him, test the sites and then inform us of what dangers we're facing?

Hon Mrs Elliott: To listen to my critic across the floor, he sounds as though there was never an environment minister who had come before me. These sites have been out here for a very long time. We are concerned; we have been concerned about it. My ministry has been working on this for years. The gentleman opposite was a minister at the time. My colleague across the way, when he was the minister, was also concerned about this.

The report this gentleman refers to has not yet been released to the minister. We can only hope that the gentleman who did the work will choose to share it with the ministry. Then we can pursue it further.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. In your job you're responsible for ensuring that police investigations go forward in an appropriate way, and yet, if I may be so bold as to suggest, your incompetence and lack of control within your ministry has clearly jeopardized the ongoing investigations into the allegations of what happened to young offenders under your control at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

You finally reassigned the superintendent, who in my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of most others in this House, ought to have been moved out months ago. You knew that the superintendent was present at the institution during the strike. We told you, as did OPSEU, that the superintendent was informed in both April and May of the allegations that young people had been beaten. He did nothing, even though he's required to do it by the policy of your ministry.

On June 8, managers went into Elgin-Middlesex, and there are allegations that the shredding of documents took place, documents that may or may not be related to this particular investigation. The superintendent was there at the time. He should have been reassigned months ago. And what about the other managers at Elgin-Middlesex who may be the subject of ongoing investigations who are still present at the institution and may have access to relevant information?

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

Mrs Boyd: Minister, do you not think it's appropriate for managers who may be the subject of internal and police investigations to be kept away from an institution while those investigations are under way and for the records in that institution to be secured? Do you think this could jeopardize the investigations, the fact that those records were not secure and were not kept safe from the very people who are under investigation?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): It's interesting to note that we've heard from both opposition parties today and the conclusion reached is "guilty as charged." I've said from the outset that these are allegations related to the complaints related to the managers and to the treatment of young offenders as they arrived at Elgin-Middlesex.

On this side of the House, we believe in due process. There is an internal investigation and there's a police investigation, and we think we've acted appropriately with respect to reassignment related to those allegations. When allegations have been raised related to the activities of correctional officers as well as managers, we have ensured reassignment so they are not in any way, shape or form involved with activities related to young offenders.

Mrs Boyd: We need to make it very clear that no one on this side of the House is making an assumption of guilt in these allegations at all. What we are saying to the minister is that you are making assumptions; you are not following the procedure that you yourself have said is appropriate when investigations are under way. We spoke last week about your very strong comments in the Piper case, where you said it was absolutely unacceptable for Mr Piper to be allowed to go to his office without the supervision of the police.

This is exactly the same kind of situation, only it's much more serious because it involves allegations of personal injury to young people under the authority of this government, young people who deserve the protection of this government.

Minister, you are responsible and indeed you must be held accountable for what happens in your ministry.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mrs Boyd: Frankly, there's been incompetence, there has been delay, there has been insubordination, and now there is a possibility that the very investigations that have been put in place may be useless because it may not be possible to have evidence untainted by what has gone on.

The Speaker: Would you put your question.

Mrs Boyd: We know those managers read the child advocate's report. That in and of itself smacks of a coverup. Why did they read it? Were they going to be talking together about how they were going to cover this up further?

Minister, quite frankly, as a result of our questioning over the past few weeks, you've shown yourself to be nothing but reactionary. You're not proactive on behalf of the youth in your care; you are simply reacting day after day, lurching from crisis to crisis. Do the honourable thing and resign.

Hon Mr Runciman: I've been waiting with bated breath for that one.

I've indicated from the outset that no one was happy with the movement of young offenders from an essentially destroyed facility into an adult facility. Every effort was made, and the child advocate has indicated from the outset -- if anyone in the opposition party is prepared to listen to the positions she's put forward with respect to efforts made to move young offenders out of an adult institution and into an appropriate setting. She has also indicated publicly again that she has been very much satisfied with the response of the ministry related to the treatment of young offenders during that interim period.

She also received maximum encouragement and support during the efforts in terms of her investigation of her concerns, and once that report was tabled, the ministry acted immediately in terms of calling in the police. Once the concerns were raised related to the managers' activities on the weekend in question, I indicated my strong concern as well, and I have broadened the investigation to include that particular element and called in a senior counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General. I think we've acted quite appropriately.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Recently you participated in the announcement of the government's package of auto insurance reforms, spearheaded by the member for Mississauga West. Although there was great attention given to the reforms that will ensure rate stability for auto insurance for Ontario motorists, many people may not be aware of the reforms around uninsured drivers that your ministry is undertaking. Would you explain the role of the Ministry of Transportation in these reforms?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for the question. Yes, this government is committed to reducing the number of uninsured vehicles operated in Ontario. MTO is working with the insurance industry to help stabilize the cost of insurance, reduce fraud and help distribute the costs of insurance more fairly. Thanks to the excellent work of the Ministry of Finance and my friend the member for Mississauga West, all road users will benefit from the amendments in this legislation. The part of this legislation that directly involves MTO is the requirement that the insurance industry report insurance status on vehicles being driven on our roads.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: This is a very interesting subject and I would appreciate it if the honourable members would at least listen. I believe the people of Ontario would like to know what this government is doing for them.

We will help consumers in other ways. We will further introduce legislation that will prevent fraud relating to wrecks and stolen vehicles. This will help reduce the cost of insurance even further.

Finally, we are working with the industry on a number of other initiatives to further benefit the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question has been answered. Supplementary?

Mr Ford: Would the minister also explain to the House how the insurance verification process will work and what the punishment will be for those who would have others assume the risk for them being on the road?

Hon Mr Palladini: MTO will not register a vehicle not covered by compulsory automobile insurance. Police will be able to verify insurance status during routine enforcement checks and have the information to lay the appropriate charges for operating a vehicle without insurance or possessing a false insurance certificate. Penalties for operating a vehicle without insurance are going to be quite substantial. For a first offence, fines will range from $5,000 to $25,000. For a subsequent conviction, fines will range from $10,000 to $50,000.

Those convicted of possessing and the use of a false insurance certificate will receive fines up to $50,000. MTO will work with the industry to enable electronic access of insurance information.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns nuclear reactor safety. Minister, in recent days the federal regulator, the Atomic Energy Control Board, has weighed in yet again to publicly complain about the sloppiness of the Ontario Hydro management at the nuclear power stations. Pickering seems to be a particular concern.

We've had evidence in recent days that the board of Ontario Hydro is actually going to go to court to try to prevent the order of the freedom of information commissioner that internal peer evaluations of what's going on inside Ontario nuclear power reactors become public.

Given what the federal regulator has said, given the concern and the interest of people living in areas like Pickering, Oshawa and Whitby, will you commit today that the order of the freedom of information commissioner -- that those internal peer evaluations of the operating practices within Ontario's nuclear power reactors will be made public forthwith?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I have stated on many occasions in this House, when asked about the nuclear facilities in this province, that we are very concerned about the safe operation of each and every one of these facilities. That has not changed. We are very concerned about this.

The issue of the peer reviews is a difficult one. I have said on many occasions that this is an issue of concern for this reason: A peer review is advice given by peers in a full and frank way to Ontario Hydro as part of its tool to maintain its operation by critically examining the maintenance of the facility. We are concerned that if peer reviews are made public, this is a tool that will no longer be available to Ontario Hydro for critical review and hence improvement of its facility.

Mr Conway: Ontario's information commissioner, having looked carefully at the case involving these internal reviews, has said that there is a public interest in these internal safety reviews being made public. The federal regulator, in recent days, has said that the pattern of sloppiness and bad attitude at Ontario Hydro's nuclear power stations is not getting any better.

Minister, are you simply going to stand in your place and tell the people of Durham region and Bruce county that notwithstanding the stated concerns, stated repeatedly by the federal regulator, and notwithstanding the position of the Ontario freedom of information commissioner that these internal reports should be made public in the public interest, is it still your position today that, notwithstanding all of that independent adjudication, your position and the position of the Ontario government is going to be to allow Ontario Hydro to go to court and to try to keep these internal reviews from seeing the light of public scrutiny?

Hon Mrs Elliott: What I do not want to occur is for the public to be confused between the two things that are being mentioned here.

The Atomic Energy Control Board is the board to which I look for advice on the safe operation of all nuclear facilities and, believe me, if they give this government advice that one of the operations should be shut down or that major changes should be made, we will act and we will listen closely.

But there is another issue at hand here, and that is the integrity of the peer review. This is a tool given to Ontario Hydro by peers who critically examine issues at nuclear stations. They are given because they know the information will be kept in confidence; therefore, they are frank and they are meant as a working tool, and they are expected to remain confidential. Neither did this government release it nor did this government when they were in power release it, because they knew it was critical to the advice given to Ontario Hydro to maintain its operation in the safest possible way.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Premier. The Solicitor General and the minister responsible for corrections has handled the situation at Elgin-Middlesex Centre after the riot at the Bluewater correctional facility in a most unacceptable manner. The minister should have known in March about the serious allegations that had been raised, yet three months later he was only finding out about those allegations, even though his deputy minister was aware of the child advocate's report.

The minister has been flying by the seat of his pants. He has given the House incorrect information which he has changed subsequently. He has given answers in the House which he has then corrected subsequently here and outside. It's clear that the minister hasn't had control over his ministry and what's happening in the ministry. He's found out about very serious allegations because they've been raised here or in the press; he hasn't found out about them from within his ministry. He's dealing with this in a manner of one crisis after another. Every day there are new allegations and new comments the minister tries to deal with.

If the Solicitor General and minister responsible for corrections is unaware of what is really happening in the ministry, the public can't have the proper confidence they should have in the correctional system. If that's the case, in view of this ongoing scandal, would the Premier restore confidence in the correctional system and request the minister to submit his resignation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I thank the member for the question. Yes, I'm feeling much better, thank you very much. I'm happy to be back.

Let me say that I have followed with some interest the question period over the last week, and as I have watched events unfold and watched media reports both from those of who knew what at Bluewater and Elgin-Middlesex and what has been revealed by the children's advocate, I want to tell you that I have been singularly impressed by the job the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services has done. It's been a challenge to restore integrity after 10 years of neglect, but this man has singlehandedly done it in one year.

Mr Wildman: It's interesting the Premier would give that kind of response when we're dealing with a situation that occurred in February of this year and which has been ongoing since. Surely the Premier agrees that the minister is ultimately responsible for the actions or inactions of his ministry staff, and he is responsible for knowing what is going on within his ministry and ensuring that actions are appropriate. If the Premier accepts that, how can he accept the fact that today and over the last week allegations have been made that the investigation of the events at Elgin-Middlesex has been compromised by the actions of ministry staff?

How is it that ministry staff could be in the facility to many late hours, going through materials, perhaps shredding them, and then subsequently the report of the child advocate would be made available to the managers who might be subject to investigation?

These are allegations. The minister was not ware of them. He should be aware of them. If the Premier accepts that the minister should be aware of what's going on within his ministry and in control of what's going on in his ministry, how can he now stand here and say that he is impressed? Surely the Premier understands that the minister is ultimately responsible and he should be demanding the minister's resignation.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to say very clearly that to date I have had not one single letter, and to the best of my knowledge phone call, from the public calling for what it is you ask for, so whatever it is seems to be either in the imagination or the political desire of the members of the opposition to raise these issues.

You had talked, by way of your question, about accepting responsibility. What has singularly impressed me is the dramatic change from the last 10 years of pointing the finger, of "Not me; oh, it was somebody else"; of doing this or of doing that; "Let's bring in" -- "Oh, we'll take a lie detector test," or, "We'll do all these things." For 10 years the public was faced with this, with ministerial accountability from the Liberals and then from the NDP. What I saw while I was at home not very well, perhaps having eaten strawberries at the wrong time --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Shame on you. Kids were beaten.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Riverdale.

Hon Mr Harris: -- what I saw was the minister stand in his place and say: "I accept responsibility. I am not happy. The whole reporting procedures were not handled well." He didn't blame the fact that he inherited all his staff from the mess you people left us, but he said: "I am not happy. I accept responsibility. I as the minister accept it and I as the minister have instituted a thorough review."

As you know, there are investigations being undertaken of a criminal nature involving we don't know who. You can't talk about that while that's ongoing. Not only that, but the minister himself has said, "I personally am not happy with the reporting mechanisms. Maybe it was good enough for the former government, but it's not good enough for me," and he's put in place a procedure to change it. Good for him for a change.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. The board of education in Huron county spends $4,500 and $5,000 respectively to educate our children, yet in some jurisdictions up to $9,000 is being spent per student. This inequity endangers the future of students in Huron county and leads to a two-tier education system. My office and the office of Mr Johnson from Perth county have been inundated by cards and letters from both public and separate school supporters demanding education finance reform. What response will you give to those demanding fairness in education finance?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I think this --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): How many portables in Peel?

Hon Mr Snobelen: One of the members opposite thinks this is not an important question, but I do. I think a lot of the people of Ontario would like to hear an answer to this question.

The member has indicated that 1,500 people have written in to her on this issue, and I'm not surprised. As we look for better value for taxpayers and parents and higher student achievement in our school system in Ontario, one of the astonishing facts that people are now waking up to is that there is a difference in per-student funding of over 30% between assessment-poor boards and assessment-rich boards. It leads people to question whether there is equity on a per-student basis for individual students in our current funding methodology.

As to the two-tiered suggestion, it's very interesting to note that while there is an enormous difference in the amount of spending per student, I can't find an appreciable difference in the only quality issue that really matters, and that's student achievement. It's very clear to me and very clear to this government that we need changes in the way education is funded in Ontario so that we can have an equal opportunity for every student in the province. We are committed to doing that and we are working with the groups, the people in Ontario we need to work with to get to that point that I think we could all agree on.

Mrs Johns: During the debate on Bill 34, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation dismissed the suggested reforms of education finance as provincial pooling of local tax assessments through the back door. Given that education finance working groups also seem to be unable to reach a consensus on the future finance model, what hope do you see for fairness in funding for the children of less wealthy school boards across Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: There are a number of people in the province who are clearly committed to equal opportunity in our school system and funding that represents that equal opportunity. We have said and the Working Group on Education Finance Reform recently reported and suggested a template for our current status quo of spending on a per-student basis. It's important that we keep in mind that we're funding students and not systems, and to make sure that our funding efforts are at students and not at systems.

It's interesting to note, and I think the members opposite would be interested in this, that the education finance reform working group, after spending over a year and a half -- and these are people who represented the unions representing teachers across the province, the board associations and a variety of stakeholders in the education community -- at the end of the day, representing their particular interests, these people could not agree on a fair funding formula for education.

We as a government, are committed to that and we will do what's required to make sure that every student in the province of Ontario has the same opportunity.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question today is for the Minister of Health. Mr Minister, today is D-Day in Essex county. Obstetricians as of today are taking on no new patients. You've had a year in government to resolve this growing crisis. Instead, you've provoked a showdown with our obstetricians. So far, the minister has advocated sending mothers to the States to have their babies, sending them to the emergency ward. He's blamed the doctors. It's all their fault.

Dr Keith MacLeod, the spokesman for all 12 obstetricians in Essex county, said very clearly, "We have not asked for a raise." They are still at 1992 levels. Instead, Dr Keith MacLeod says, "The minister is stealing what he owes us." I ask the minister today, will he stop this? Dr MacLeod is a very well-respected obstetrician and has seen parties come and go. He says he's never seen the likes of this before.

If you'll permit, Mr Speaker, my supplementary question: As of today, some 350 out of 500 obstetricians are stopping their practice in taking on new patients; 140 communities across Ontario are looking for obstetricians. Within two years 220 more obstetricians will be retiring. Every obstetrician in Essex county has been offered jobs outside and into the United States. Mr Minister, you're giving them the boot out the door. You are cutting health care. Windsor women will not find an obstetrician to take them on as new patients.

Mr Minister, if you cannot handle this very delicate situation, will you please find someone within your ministry who can?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm very much aware of the situation in the honourable member's area of the province and throughout the province. I'm working very hard on a solution to this problem. Much of what the honourable member has said in her two questions is just blatantly untrue and lacks any basis in fact whatsoever. Obstetricians, doctors who deliver babies were given a 30% increase on April 1 of this year, and for Dr MacLeod not to acknowledge that, he's simply wrong.

We offered recently to pay back all of their insurance, so they would not only get their insurance back in the offer we made, but on April 1 they received an increase of 30%. So I just reiterate that for the honourable member and I say to the honourable member and to all members, as I said last Thursday, that a more comprehensive plan for doctors in the province is being developed and I hope to announce that very shortly.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I move that notwithstanding standing order 8(a), the House will meet on Thursday, June 20, for private members' public business only, after which the House will adjourn until 1:30 pm on Monday, June 24, 1996.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

"We, the undersigned, tenants of Woodgreen Community Housing, 1070 Queen Street East, a community of seniors and disabled adults, are concerned that:

"

(1) Our homes will be lost because of the government's cuts to non-profit housing projects which will undermine their financial viability; and

"

(2) Low-income families and the most vulnerable in our communities will suffer devastating hardship because of cuts to the numbers of needy people receiving rent-geared-to-income -- RGI -- assistance, and the increased rents for those currently receiving such assistance.

"We call upon you to stop these government actions that seriously jeopardize our futures and the ongoing viability of our non-profit housing communities."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to present another petition, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives, while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

This is from people in Kinburn and Carp, Ontario, and I affix my own signature thereto.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition from some people in my riding, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, residents of public housing facilities in the provincial riding of Ottawa Centre, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that our homes will not be privatized. We object to the government's stated intent to divest itself of public housing stock as it will imperil the wellbeing of those tenants of fixed income or of poor health.

"We respectfully seek the assurance of the Legislative Assembly and of the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in this most important matter. We look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a citizens' petition to Premier Michael Harris. It reads:

"Whereas the cuts imposed on Ontario by Mike Harris and his cabinet target the poorest members of our province and will cause enormous harm to both the working poor and recipients of social assistance; and

"Whereas the cuts in areas of housing, social services like counselling, community centres and drop-ins, health care, education and municipal funding do not save money in the long run and will lead to high social costs and wasted potential from citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas abandoning the moral and social responsibility of government will serve to put enormous pressure on cash-strapped municipalities, increase local taxes and will destroy the social fabric in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to pressure the Premier and his cabinet to restore funding that has been cut to the citizens of Ontario and protect the interests of all its citizens regardless of economic status."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Port Hope driver testing centre is being closed and moved to Peterborough; and

"Whereas driving to Peterborough will impose hardships and inconvenience on seniors, especially in winter, and also on young drivers who must have a car and a licensed driver to accompany them.

"It will take more time. Depending on road conditions and traffic, especially in Peterborough, it will take half a day for many.

"The Port Hope Centre is always busy, serving Durham East. It takes several weeks to get an appointment in other locations. With added volume, Peterborough will be worse.

"A long-distance telephone call will cost more.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to maintain the Port Hope driver testing centre now."

I affix my name.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from it looks like over 100 people in the St Catharines area to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is considering the privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario;

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

"That the Liquor Control Board of Ontario remain a crown corporation because we fear that the privatization of that organization will lead to increases in crime, drunk driving, alcohol abuse and its health costs as well as loss of control over availability to minors and quality of product."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in full agreement with it.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Port Hope driver testing centre is being closed and moved to Peterborough; and

"Whereas driving to Peterborough will impose hardship and inconvenience on seniors, especially in winter, and also on young drivers who must have a car and a licensed driver to accompany them.

"It will take more time. Depending on road conditions and traffic, especially in Peterborough, it will take half a day for many.

"The Port Hope centre is always busy. It takes several weeks to get an appointment. With added volume, Peterborough will be worse.

"A long-distance telephone call will cost more.

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

"Please keep the Port Hope driver testing centre open."

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a like petition in that it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has a duty and responsibility to provide driver examination centres across the province;

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has decided to close the Leamington driver exam centre despite the fact that (1) the Leamington centre is the only exam office between Windsor and Chatham, thus forcing persons and local driver training schools to travel over 50 kilometres in order to obtain a driver exam; (2) the Leamington centre serves a population of over 35,000; (3) there already exists a six-month waiting list for driver exams in Leamington; and (4) the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario did not consult with the local community;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the MTO explore every option of retaining driver examinations in the Leamington area, and that the MTO postpone the closing of the present driver examination centre site until a new solution is formulated."

This is signed by several hundred residents of Essex South and I support it with my signature.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

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

I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of Dan Newman, the member for Scarborough Centre.

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 its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; 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 name to this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, wish to advise the Ontario Legislature that we are injured workers and/or friends of injured workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, are concerned about the potential transfer of control of the office of the worker adviser from the Ministry of Labour to the Workers' Compensation Board and reduction of funding levels.

"Further, we, the undersigned, are concerned about the potential withdrawing of funds from the injured worker group funding program.

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call upon all those who sit in the Legislature to insist that the funding for the office of the worker adviser and the injured worker group funding program be of sufficient amount to meet the needs of the clients.

"Be it further resolved that we, the undersigned, call upon the government to not remove the office of the worker adviser from the Ontario Ministry of Labour, as surely its credibility will be negatively affected if such a move were to occur."

I sign my name.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a petition to present to the Legislature from signatories in Napanee, Marley Lake, Etobicoke, Markham, Maple, Windsor, Ottawa, Verner and Sault Ste Marie. These hundreds of individuals address the petition to the Ontario Legislature, to Premier Michael Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and the members of the Ontario provincial Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, protest this government's actions against tenants described below. The Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants. Rent control allows for security and stability in their homes and communities. Uncontrolled rent increases leave tenants, their families and Ontario communities open to eviction, personal distress, and contribute directly to social instability. We want this government to stop any action that would allow uncontrolled rents.

"Further, this government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favourable to landlords for easier and faster evictions. This is unacceptable to Ontario tenants and damaging to Ontario communities. This government also plans to get rid of public housing, has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants to obtain accommodation they can afford. The government must cease all actions that reduce the affordability and availability of these kinds of housing.

"This government has eliminated funding for the United Tenants of Ontario, five municipal tenant organizations and other important tenant services at a time when they are attacking all tenants' rights. Funding for these groups must be reinstated so that Ontario's tenants, and not just their landlords, will be able to bring their views to bear on government deliberations on tenants' rights and protection. A consultation process with tenants' organizations should be initiated immediately to develop a plan for sustainable funding for services to tenants."

I affix my name to this petition.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is yet another petition to the honourable Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

Because this is so important to miners and construction workers, I affix my name to it, as I agree wholeheartedly with it.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider the announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1996

Mr Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr59,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

We have a deferred vote on third reading of Bill 31 and third reading of Bill 38. It will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1521 to 1526.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

Bill 31,

An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Will members take their seats, please. We're dealing with third reading of Bill 31 standing in the name of Mr Snobelen. All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Pettit, Trevor

Beaubien, Marcel

Harnick, Charles

Preston, Peter

Boushy, Dave

Harris, Michael D.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Boyd, Marion

Hastings, John

Runciman, Bob

Brown, Jim

Hudak, Tim

Sampson, Rob

Carr, Gary

Jackson, Cameron

Shea, Derwyn

Carroll, Jack

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Clement, Tony

Johnson, Bert

Skarica, Toni

Cooke, David S.

Johnson, David

Smith, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Johnson, Ron

Snobelen, John

Danford, Harry

Kells, Morley

Spina, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Klees, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

Doyle, Ed

Laughren, Floyd

Stockwell, Chris

Ecker, Janet

Leach, Al

Tascona, Joseph N.

Elliott, Brenda

Marchese, Rosario

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Marland, Margaret

Tsubouchi, David H.

Flaherty, Jim

Martiniuk, Gerry

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Maves, Bart

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Villeneuve, Noble

Galt, Doug

Mushinski, Marilyn

Wilson, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

O'Toole, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Morin, Gilles E.

Bradley, James J.

Gravelle, Michael

Patten, Richard

Brown, Michael A.

Hoy, Pat

Phillips, Gerry

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kennedy, Gerard

Pouliot, Gilles

Colle, Mike

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Crozier, Bruce

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Curling, Alvin

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Gerretsen, John

McGuinty, Dalton

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 69; the nays are 25.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

TORONTO ISLANDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993 / Projet de loi 38, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1993 sur l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We are now dealing with Bill 38. Is it the consent of the House that we have a vote immediately? Unanimous consent that we have a vote immediately? Third reading of Bill 38 standing in the name of Mr Leach.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Hardeman, Ernie

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Harnick, Charles

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Beaubien, Marcel

Harris, Michael D.

Runciman, Bob

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Sampson, Rob

Brown, Jim

Hudak, Tim

Shea, Derwyn

Carr, Gary

Jackson, Cameron

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Johns, Helen

Skarica, Toni

Clement, Tony

Johnson, Bert

Smith, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Johnson, David

Snobelen, John

Danford, Harry

Johnson, Ron

Spina, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Kells, Morley

Stewart, R. Gary

Doyle, Ed

Klees, Frank

Stockwell, Chris

Ecker, Janet

Leach, Al

Tascona, Joseph N.

Elliott, Brenda

Marland, Margaret

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tsubouchi, David H.

Flaherty, Jim

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Wilson, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

Palladini, Al

Witmer, Elizabeth

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Young, Terence H.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Pettit, Trevor

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise, one at a time, when your name is called.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Gerretsen, John

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Grandmaître, Bernard

McGuinty, Dalton

Bradley, James J.

Gravelle, Michael

Morin, Gilles E.

Brown, Michael A.

Hoy, Pat

Patten, Richard

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kennedy, Gerard

Phillips, Gerry

Colle, Mike

Kormos, Peter

Pouliot, Gilles

Cooke, David S.

Kwinter, Monte

Pupatello, Sandra

Crozier, Bruce

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ramsay, David

Curling, Alvin

Laughren, Floyd

Sergio, Mario

Duncan, Dwight

Marchese, Rosario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 29.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAFETY AND CONSUMER STATUTES ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'APPLICATION DE CERTAINES LOIS TRAITANT DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

Mr Flaherty, on behalf of Mr Sterling, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 54,

An Act to provide for the delegation of the administration of certain designated statutes to designated administrative authorities and to provide for certain limitation periods in those statutes / Projet de loi 54, Loi prévoyant la délégation de l'application de certaines lois désignées à des organismes d'application désignés et prévoyant certains délais de prescription dans ces lois.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to put forward for second reading the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996. The minister regrets that he cannot himself be present for today's debate. He has asked me to inform the House that he is meeting with government officials in Richmond, Virginia, on the very topic of self-management, specifically that of their motor vehicle dealers sector.

As members of the House will recall, this bill was introduced for first reading on Thursday, May 16, of this year. As they will also no doubt recall, this is a bill that, once enacted, will cut red tape for business and provide more effective services to the public. The act will allow the government to delegate to the private sector certain functions currently carried out by our ministry. We believe this move will enhance consumer protection and bring about the highest public safety standards.

As E.S. Savas, a leading expert on public service, said --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are too many discussions taking place in the House. Order.

Mr Flaherty: As E.S. Savas, a leading expert on public service, said: "The word `government' is from a Greek word which means to steer. The job of government is to steer, not to row, the boat." Unfortunately, it seems governments have been focused primarily on rowing.

This legislation will allow us to delegate to organizations outside of government the job of rowing their own boats. Then we as government can concentrate our efforts on steering in the right direction. The government will safeguard the public interest by retaining full responsibility for safety standards through regulations and legislation. We are certain this approach will provide better protection for the public.

As the members are aware, for some time now the consumer ministry has been exploring the possibility of giving some regulated industries the tools and responsibilities to manage their own affairs. In fact, two previous consumer ministers from the other two parties strongly advocated this type of change when they were consumer ministers. I hope my colleagues have taken note of the fact that what I am talking about here, what we have proposed, is self-management, not self-regulation or deregulation.

The purpose of this bill is to enable the government to delegate powers and duties under acts that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations currently administers to designated non-profit administrative authorities. These acts govern public safety and specific industry functions currently administered by the ministry.

The administrative authorities will be not-for-profit corporations that are separate and distinct from government or any government agency. These corporations would each have a board of directors and a chief executive officer. The boards will include representation from such groups as industry, government, consumer groups and the general public to ensure a healthy balance of views prevails.

This bill also gives the government the power to appoint one or more board members up to a minority number. All board members, under corporate law, will have an obligation to fulfil the organization's public interest mandate.

The act will allow corporations such as I've described to be set up to assume responsibilities over the following groups: real estate brokers and salespeople; travel retailers and wholesalers; motor vehicle dealers and salespeople; and cemetery operators.

Once we have reached self-management agreements with these sectors, they will assume responsibility for such functions as registration and accreditation of industry members, investigations of consumer and business complaints, suspension or revocation of registrations, and prosecutions of violations. These functions are currently carried out by the business division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

While we would be moving away from direct provision of those functions, government would continue as the watchdog, maintaining its presence in the areas of setting of standards, defining policy and monitoring industry performance and conduct.

The second major provision in the act would allow for the creation of a safety organization to administer the regulation of technical standards. The program areas affected are boilers and pressure vessels, elevating and amusement devices, hydrocarbon fuels and equipment, and last but not least, upholstered and stuffed articles.

Service delivery functions currently carried out by the ministry's technical standards division will be delegated to the new organization. These include participation in national and international technical standards development; licensing, registration and certification of facilities, contractors and tradespeople; reviewing engineering designs; inspections; enforcement; and training programs.

As with the other self-managed industries I've described, the consumer ministry would continue to be responsible for overall public safety standards and policy, and for monitoring the performance of the new safety organization. I can assure you that the government's safety proposals will result in inspections by a credible and independent body which will be held accountable for enforcing government safety standards.

Let me make it clear that a number of accountability mechanisms have been built into the proposed legislation and the agreements. These mechanisms will ensure that the consumer ministry retains the means to address any concerns regarding an organization's performance or accountability. For instance, the organizations would be required to submit business plans and annual reports and undergo independent financial audits. The government will have the authority to revoke delegated functions should marketplace or public safety standards ever fall below an acceptable level.

In other words, the safety and self-management organizations will be held accountable by the government for the performance of their delegated functions.

I'd like to close today with one final point: In addition to the safety organization and the industry self-management corporations being self-funded and not-for-profit, they will also be fully financed by fees collected from industry. That means they will receive no financial assistance from the Ontario government, which falls in line with this government's goal of reducing its spending while at the same time providing better, more efficient service to consumers. Because these organizations are non-profit, any surplus revenues must be reinvested into updating technologies, public education campaigns and other value added programs.

All of this means that we in government will be better able to focus on results rather than technical procedures and delivery mechanisms. This fits right into our mandate and our commitment to Ontarians to do better for less.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Durham Centre for giving an excellent

summary of what this bill puts forward. This is another bill that honours our commitment to reduce red tape and to provide more effective services to the government.

There is no question that we believe that many of these industries -- in fact all of these industries -- can do the work better than government can. They can do it more economically; they can do it better. Real estate brokers have been asking for this, and I believe they will be tougher on themselves than the government bureaucracy has been in the past.

I'm sure all members of the House will be supporting this type of legislation. The emphasis of what the member said is that we're simply transferring responsibility for administering regulations from government to industry, but we will continue to be a watchdog of what is going on with these self-regulated industries and will be ensuring that the delegated responsibilities of the various industries will be fulfilled rather than delivering them to them directly.

The public has been asking for a reduction of government, of government interference. At the same time, the public is concerned that they be protected with respect to these various industries. This legislation will do all of that. I think the more important thing is that it's going to be done at less cost to the taxpayer, that the fees charged to the various industries will pay for these industries and won't simply be put out to the general cost of the taxpayer.

I urge all members to support this legislation. It's an excellent step to not only reduce the bureaucracy but provide a more efficient and better service to the people of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This bill is another step towards the total emasculation of government in this province.

The government has had the role of playing watchdog on many of the situations that exist in our society, and what you're seeing now you're going to see a continuation of, that is, a decline in the number of inspections. You have people who are not going to be neutral doing the inspections in some of these cases. I know it extends on.

I was reading the other day how the Minister of Agriculture -- again in the field of protecting the consumer -- is now not going to do food inspections in terms of the pesticide content of the food. I'm sure a lot of farmers in the province are going to be beside themselves over this. When it is coming in from California, for instance now with the situation with the strawberries, I'm sure a lot of farmers out there will be saying, "Aren't we lucky we have inspections here," so the public feels assured, as they should be, that the food produced in Ontario is safe to consume.

As soon as you start taking that away, as soon as you start deregulating all the way down the line, you'll find out that public safety and people's health are jeopardized.

The next thing you're going to hear is that restaurants will have fewer inspections taking place. Look what Great Britain went through with the meat inspections when it started to cut back on meat inspections and started to look the other way instead of being very detailed in the inspections taking place in terms of health. That's what this is all about. As soon as you start privatizing, as soon as you start diminishing the number of inspections, the watchdog role government plays, you're going to find out that public safety and public health are jeopardized.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Durham Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Flaherty: I listened with interest to the comments from the member for St Catharines, who clearly does not understand the difference between deregulation and self-management. This is self-management legislation in Bill 54. I can assure the member that the government's safety proposal will result in exactly that: inspections by a credible and independent body which will be held accountable for enforcing government safety standards.

What self-management is all about is the delegation of administration and delivery mechanisms, not the delegation of rule-making, not the delegation of safety standards. Those remain. The legislative power and the regulatory power remain with the government. The delivery mechanism is moved to the industry organizations. That's a fundamental difference between self-management and deregulation that I'm sure my friends opposite can concentrate on so that they will understand it.

Self-management is an alternative delivery system preserving public accountability. In self-management, I repeat for the edification of my friends, complete regulatory and legislative authority remains in the hands of the government. The government maintains control of public safety standards. This is fundamental to an understanding of this type of system. Indeed it is the type of system that the Liberal minister Mr Sorbara advocated when he was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and that NDP ministers of consumer and commercial relations Ms Churley and Mr Kormos also advocated.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Mr Speaker, in the essence of time, I believe we have agreement that the member for York South and myself can split this time.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr Crozier: I'm pleased to participate in this debate today. When the minister made his statement originally in the House about this bill, I said at that time that I see this as a move where the government is totally abdicating its responsibility in a number of areas. But not only have I said that, I think it's helpful from time to time to quote others. I see a June 8 editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, and I'll quote parts of that.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): There's a good paper.

Mr Crozier: The members across apparently indicate they don't like the Ottawa Citizen. I suggest that like the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail and the Windsor Star and the Leamington Post and News, they oft-times have reasonable comments to make. To suggest they're unreasonable would mean you don't like to hear both sides of the issue.

In any event, I quote several parts of that: "Take the roller-coaster ride, but not before you weigh the risks. Because like it or not, every ride on a roller-coaster or elevator in this province involves some risk. No amount of government intervention can change that."

They go on to say: "While consumer protection could have been strengthened by deliberate change, allowing the government to put more resources into selected areas while getting out of others, the Harris government's ideologically based broad-brush approach should put consumers on alert. Consumers are best served by a system that combines government protection, industry self-regulation and an ever-watchful public."

That last paragraph is difficult for the government to disagree with, because that's essentially what they say they are trying to do. But you know, when they say that, it reminds me of an oft-quoted United States public official -- this government seems to like to quote them often, so I'll do that today -- that is, a former President of the United States, who said, "Trust me." I think this is a case where the government is saying, "Trust me."

The people of the province did that last June, I will admit. They trusted the government because the government said, "We won't touch one penny of health care." Then we had the health minister come along and agree with $1.5 billion in cuts. The government last year said, "Trust me, we won't cut classroom education," and then they came along and, on an annualized basis, said, "We're going to take $1 billion out of education." They said, "Trust me, we're going to be tough on crime," and we can see what they've done to the police forces and the effect it will have on crime in the province of Ontario.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You and Sheila Copps.

Mr Crozier: Obviously, I've touched a nerve over there.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Crozier: In this case they're saying to the consumers of the province when it comes to public safety and consumer protection, "Trust me." I agree with the editorial, that the consumers in the province of Ontario should be on alert.

There are several parts of this safety and consumer act that I would like to point out that are of concern to me, but first let me go the other way and at least give you credit for moving in a direction where I think it will be of some benefit.

The Cemeteries Act: I think that's an industry that can be self-regulatory, although even that has changed over the years. It used to be that cemeteries were locally owned, either by municipalities or people who lived in your community. Anyone who has been around lately would know that cemeteries are now being held by or owned by large international corporations. I suggest that some of the people who are going to answer to this act are probably again in that favourite place of this government -- the United States of America.

I suggest that you're going to have to keep an eye very closely even on cemeteries, gentlemen and ladies, because that industry has changed considerably. We're not dealing with the local cemetery owner and operator like we do in Leamington, where you can go down the street -- if you have a problem with the person from whom you bought that cemetery plot, you probably know them on a first-name basis. So I suspect in fact that you probably won't have a problem. But watch out for the large international conglomerates that own cemeteries.

The Motor Vehicle Dealers Act: That industry is going to become more self-regulatory. I think we will all agree that by far the majority of automotive dealers in this province are honourable, forthright people who can be dealt with and you can be sure that you'll be dealt with fairly. So I think, provided that the rules and regulations are sufficient to allow them to also discipline those in their industry who are bad apples, that may be one that will work well.

The Real Estate and Business Brokers Act: Again I think, by and large, the real estate industry could be self-regulatory. For the most part -- at least I think most of us do when we deal in real estate -- we have a lawyer involved to act on our behalf. Notwithstanding the fact that the industry is now going to be more self-regulatory, I'd still suggest that individuals dealing in real estate have lawyers acting on their behalf.

The Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act is going to become self-regulatory. I don't know whether that will still mean that I'm afraid to take the tag off the cushion, that little white tag they put on the cushion that says, "Do not remove." Until I got older and bolder, I had more pillows, I had more stuffed articles around the house that had this little white tag on them that said, "Do not remove." I hope that when they become self-regulated, they say, "You can remove the little tag after you've purchased it." Wouldn't that be better? I suggest that to them.

How do you tell your children when they're growing up and you're trying to educate them properly that they can tear the tag off their teddy bear? That's difficult.

Mr Sampson: That's how you guys pick a leader. The first one to tear the tag off is the leader.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, order, please.

Mr Crozier: Now we get to the one I'm more concer