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

May 1, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L067 - Wed 1 May 1996 / Mer 1er Mai 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

NORTHERN POLICE SERVICES

CANADA-UKRAINE BUSINESS EXCHANGE

NEGRO CREEK ROAD

GOVERNMENT POLICY

GASOLINE PRICES

ST CATHARINES STANDARD

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

ROAD MAINTENANCE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

VOLUNTEERS

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

EDUCATION DIRECTORS' SALARIES

EDUCATION FINANCING

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OPP DETACHMENT

TAX REDUCTION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

RENT REGULATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I wish to read the first paragraph of a March 7 letter from a New Liskeard doctor to the Minister of Health that has yet been unanswered:

"I invite you to come to speak with me over dinner in a congenial manner to discuss the reasons why I, like many other physicians, am on the brink of ending my career in family medicine. You will not see anger, but you may see tears in my eyes."

The health care system is in crisis in the towns of New Liskeard and Kirkland Lake, which I represent. Just about half the doctors in New Liskeard are planning to leave. Two have gone to the United States; five more now have engaged the services of recruiters who are actively recruiting our northern doctors.

This is a time bomb. This is just the very beginning of the doctors who are leaving Ontario. It's a province-wide phenomenon. Doctors who have access to the OMA members' forum on the World Wide Web tell me that hundreds of doctors are signing off from Ontario.

Our medical graduates are also planning not to practise in this province. After spending $2 million to $3 million on these bright young men and women in Ontario, they are leaving for greener pastures in the United States.

I implore the Minister of Health to stop what he's doing right now and prevent this crisis from happening. We are on the brink of losing hundreds and hundreds of some of our brightest men and women who have put in a lot of years in Ontario and those who have put in a lot of hard work in our universities.

This is a crisis. I implore the minister to get at it and give our doctors some confidence that there is a future in health care in this province.

NORTHERN POLICE SERVICES

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The legitimate concern, the lament, emanating from the people of Lake Nipigon continues. Hundreds of people in my riding have taken the time to voice their anger and frustration at this government's arbitrary decision to simply dismantle OPP services in northwestern Ontario.

Because of cutbacks, residents of Schreiber, Terrace Bay, Upsala and Manitouwadge now have to travel for up to two hours along often treacherous highways to get certain OPP services. Travelling along Highway 17, as you may know, Mr Speaker, on the north shore of Lake Superior during winter is not a pleasant journey; most hazardous, indeed.

When people need OPP assistance, they expect to speak to a real person when they arrive at the station, only too often to find that the doors are locked, nobody to address their concerns to, no one available. Once again, rural communities such as Manitouwadge in the great riding of Lake Nipigon are being deprived of services they are entitled to receive.

Later in the House, as part of routine proceedings, I will present a petition which is signed by close to 1,000 residents of our riding demanding essential services that they so rightly deserve and that Torontonians take for granted.

CANADA-UKRAINE BUSINESS EXCHANGE

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Along with my distinguished colleague from Etobicoke-Humber, this past weekend I had the pleasure of addressing a delegation on the opening day of a week-long conference held here in Toronto. The name of the conference is the Canada-Ukraine Business Exchange, in which over 100 business leaders from Ukraine are participating. More than 80 of them are with us today in the public galleries.

This week's important conference has been organized to assist Ukraine in better meeting those challenges. Ukraine is a large country of 60 million enterprising, hardworking people. It has an abundance of natural resources and a groundswell of intellectual and technical expertise to share with the countries of the industrialized western world.

I am proud that Canada was the first country to recognize Ukraine as a free state in 1991. I'm equally proud that in 1996, Ukrainian business leaders have come to Ontario to deepen our mutual economic cooperation and partnership. On behalf of the Ontario government, I salute all participants in the Canada-Ukraine Business Exchange and assure them of our commitment to working with them towards the goal of ever-expanding trade relationships between Ontario and Ukraine.

Remarks in Ukrainian.

NEGRO CREEK ROAD

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is aware of the Underground Railroad and the significant role it has played in the rich history of this great country. One such area is Holland township, south of Owen Sound. Many blacks had settled, raised families and contributed to the economic wellbeing of the region.

As far back as 1851, it was recorded in historical documents that the name Negro Creek Road was established in that vicinity. It has recently come to my attention that this road has been renamed Moogie Road. This name was changed with total disregard for this most significant historical contribution.

The Ontario Historical Society, the Oro-Medonte History Committee and the Ontario Black History Society, to name but a few, are concerned about the threat of tampering with Ontario's documented history. I urge the Minister of Citizenship to undertake and to ensure that the black historical heritage of Negro Creek Road and other such landmarks is protected for future generations and that the changes are not done to further any private economic ventures or individuals with ulterior motives.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, you know that Harris and the Tories told voters during the course of last year's election that their government would work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions government takes will not result in increases to local property taxes.

Well, I'll be darned, because just yesterday down in Welland, the Niagara South Board of Education had to increase property taxes to the tune of 2.8%, and that's after they had gutted their reserves by in excess of $2 million, after they had slashed hundreds of jobs, including hundreds of classroom teachers and support staff, after they had to eliminate junior kindergarten.

I suppose this lends credence to the adage that if you're going to lie, lie big, tell the big one, because that's what folks heard and that's what people are saying down in Welland-Thorold today after being confronted by higher property taxes, real slashing and attack on the quality of education in the classrooms of Niagara south, the prospect of police stations being shut down, roads being unrepaired and indeed fewer and fewer services for people who need them.

People in Welland-Thorold aren't going to take it any more than people across this province are going to take it. They know when they've been had. They know when they've had their pockets picked. These are Mike Harris's taxes that are the new taxes being imposed upon property owners in Welland-Thorold. Nobody else can accept responsibility for them but Mike Harris and the Tories. People in Welland-Thorold are saying now, more than ever, Mike Harris lied.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I am concerned with regard to the language in the Legislature. I would ask the honourable member for Welland-Thorold to reflect on that.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Today I would like to speak about an issue on the minds of every motorist in the province, and that's the price of gasoline. I believe many of the concerns motorists have with the changing price of gasoline could be well addressed if the major oil companies were required to pay a price for gasoline at the gate, that is, as it leaves the refinery.

Currently, large oil companies require independent operators to pay for the gasoline when it gets to their stations, but the large companies do not have to do this because they only pay for the gasoline after it gets in the consumers' tanks. This puts a large strain on us as tax collectors, because they do not pay it until after the customer starts to burn it in his car.

Paying for gasoline at the pump really disadvantages the small individual companies and allows the large companies to abuse our system. By making all the major oil companies start paying that price at the gate, this will alleviate the price fluctuating up and down.

I hope this government takes some steps towards making the larger oil companies start to pay their fair price for gasoline.

ST CATHARINES STANDARD

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): An era came to an end in our city yesterday when the St Catharines Standard was purchased from the Burgoyne family by Southam Inc and one of the last independently owned newspapers became part of the Southam chain.

Over the years, the emphasis has been on community coverage, and strong support has been provided by the Standard for local projects, programs and initiatives. No event in St Catharines and surrounding area has been too insignificant to merit an

article or a photo, and no issue of local importance has been deemed subservient to those of international or national significance.

The quality of the Standard has been a justifiable source of pride, not only for those who have been part of the family of reporters, printers, advertising personnel, office staff, production employees and circulation staff, but also for the community at large. Many who have been in the employ of the Standard have, on their own or as an extension of the responsibilities at the newspaper, contributed immensely to the community organizations and community endeavours, and all residents of our city have benefited as a result.

From William B. Burgoyne in 1892 to Henry B. Burgoyne in 1996, the Standard has been an extension of the Burgoyne family which has set an outstanding example of community responsibility and involvement. A fine tradition has been established in the independent, family-owned, community newspaper known as the Standard. Its staff is highly competent, proud of its independence and ready to continue to serve the community in an excellent fashion.

All readers of the Standard express the hope that the new owners will continue that fine tradition and will retain all the qualities and people that have made it a success.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yesterday I asked a question to the Minister of Health regarding appointments to district health councils. Appointments are supposed to be made based on local recommendations. If appointments are made from the centre, that is, Toronto, then this government will completely destroy the credibility of the councils and will destroy the purpose of those councils. The health councils are set up as community bodies that inform and advise the ministry about local health concerns.

The appointment process has always been one where the candidates are recommended by council, not where the minister imposes his selection on the council. Previously, the council's recommendations were always based on the candidates' merits, not their political affiliation. This open and transparent appointment process was the case under both the Liberal and New Democratic governments.

When we were in government, the appointments we made were the people whom council recommended. We listened to the council. This government is listening to the Sudbury and District Medical Society and local Tory hacks.

Yesterday, the minister was petulant and defensive in his response to this issue. This proves that this government is not interested in working with communities but wants to impose the government's will on them instead, and that is wrong.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): May is Multiple Sclerosis Month, and I am pleased to stand on behalf of the Minister of Health and recognize this very important month.

Multiple sclerosis, MS, is the most common disease of the central nervous system affecting young adults in Canada. An estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS. As yet the cause and the cure are unknown, but recently drugs to reduce the frequency and severity of MS attacks have become available. In addition, many MS symptoms can be helped by medication and therapy.

MS affects more women than men by an almost 2-to-1 ratio and usually strikes people between the ages of 20 and 40. MS is more common in countries that are farther away from the equator, like Canada. Canada has one of the highest prevalence rates of MS in the world.

The reinvestment of $170 million to expand community-based care announced last month by the Minister of Health will help persons with MS to live independently through the development of flexible service arrangements in home care, attendant care and palliative care, as well as a greater flexibility to allow services to change with the condition of the consumer.

On May 9, 10 and 11, volunteers will be offering carnations to the public in return for donations to MS research and services.

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation from Ukraine headed by Professor Stefan Volkovetsky, Premier and head of the Ivano-Frankivske regional state administration in Ukraine. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Today marks the beginning of Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario, a month in which the government, in partnership with voluntary organizations and others, focuses on our initiatives to stem violence against women.

Too many women are not safe in their own communities, are not safe in their own homes as a result of violence. Sexual assault, wife assault and sexual harassment are just some of the forms that violence takes.

According to Statistics Canada, more than 50% of women in Canada over the age of 16 have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence. But statistics alone don't speak to the terrible human cost in pain and suffering endured by women and their children, nor do they speak to the economic hardship that violence imposes on its victims.

Both the human and economic costs to the victims of violence are high. Not only does violence inflict personal pain on its victims, there is also a huge cost to society. Violence against women costs Canadians more than $4.2 billion a year.

We must continue to focus our energies on women's safety. This government is firmly committed to that direction. Two examples are the government's recent announcement of an additional $11 million in capital funding for nine women's shelters and our ongoing commitment to provide front-line services to women and their children. More importantly, this government is committed to ensuring that the $100 million it spends annually on violence initiatives is spent on programs and services which are effective, responsive, efficient and accessible.

The government provides funding for more than 50 programs and services, including 97 shelters, 34 rape crisis and sexual assault centres, 27 hospital-based sexual assault treatment centres, community counselling services, 16 male batterer counselling programs, and victim/witness assistance programs in 13 crown offices across Ontario.

However, governments are only one part of the solution. Just as important is the dedication and hard work of thousands of volunteers and professionals in communities across the province. I would like to take this opportunity to salute their efforts on behalf of all Ontarians.

Our government firmly believes that shared responsibility, like the initiative demonstrated by these volunteers and professionals, is key to stemming violence against women. That is why we are providing funds to 78 community-based organizations across the province to develop public education projects on sexual assault. These are projects born of the community, tailored to the community, and best positioned to address the problem within the community.

Grants support numerous projects, from public seminars designed to change attitudes towards sexual assault, to initiatives in schools to change sexual attitudes and behaviour, to advertising directed at raising awareness of the seriousness and impact of sexual assault.

While the range of public education projects is great, the initiatives of community organizations is just one example of the government community link which we are fostering. It will take our best collective efforts to end sexual assault, not just in this month, but every day of every month, and as a result deny sexual assault a future.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I can't believe what I just heard here. The minister's announcement, her statement today, is nothing short of a joke. She speaks about the record of the government and I'd like to take you a little bit through that record.

Let's start with July and let's start with axing funding for counselling for abusive males which this government did.

Let's look at the cuts to second-stage housing.

Let's look at the cuts to legal aid.

Let's look at the cuts to child care.

Let's look at the cuts to social assistance which affected women disproportionately.

Let's look at the November 29 economic statement.

Let's look at the fact that they axed commercials that sought to eliminate violence against women -- $475,000 cut.

Let's look at the cuts in the Solicitor General's department with programs directed at wife abuse and sexual assault prevention.

This is a very serious record. Don't talk to us about the wonderful record of this government. Let's look at the very latest figures, the business plans that this government brought forth for the office responsible for women's issues. The Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues is going to be disbanded with cuts resulting from that. They are streamlining, so they say, the administration of violence-against-women prevention programs -- another cut of $1.6 million. The Ontario women's directorate is going to be restructured with additional savings, supposedly, of $2.1 million. There's going to be a transfer payment program saving for women's centres -- another $1-million cut.

"Restructuring" is a code word for this government. It's a code word which really heralds an ideological war against women, against women who are least able to look after themselves, against women who are victims of situations which are beyond their control. So they tell us, "Well, we're investing $11 million." That's capital. What about services? Where are the services for women anywhere?

As if that weren't enough, this minister threatened women's groups in her own community with funding cuts if they didn't stop criticizing the very severe situation that this government was creating. It's so bad that the White Ribbon Campaign of men working to end violence against women refused to send ribbons to this government because of its shocking record.

The record speaks for itself. It's not what you say today. The record is abysmal. Quite frankly, this government and this minister ought to be ashamed of themselves for standing up today on behalf of women who are sexually abused.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Might I just continue. In the minister's statement today she mentions that the government must continue to focus energies on women's safety. I'd like to suggest that the focus must be greater than that and in particular why this topic should involve children. I would urge the government to consider a focus on children's services and why they are certainly related to Sexual Assault Prevention Month and why they must be highlighted.

So many of these children, who are children at risk in Ontario, will either be abusers or they will be assaulted if we don't continue to focus on several ministries that deal with children and focus on the preventive nature, how to keep children out of those family circumstances and community circumstances which do lead to assault and how to speak to the prevention issue, that it does go far deeper than that.

If I look at my own community, the sexual assault treatment centre that is run within Grace Hospital at the moment is suffering from a 6.5% decrease in funding because it is affiliated with a hospital. What that means is that they must find those savings this year out of medical supplies. But that won't be the case next year, and yet they'll be hit again with a decrease in funding next year. This is such a vital area that I urge the government to continue to look at the very special needs of children at risk.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): It's absolutely disgraceful that this government is cutting funding to prevention-of-violence-against-women programs to help finance a 30% tax cut that is mainly going to benefit the rich in this province. This government has mastered the sleight of hand of taking millions of dollars out of vital programs and then putting a small amount back a few months later and patting themselves on the back and saying, "Look at the good work we're doing." That is exactly what they are doing.

The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres was told by the Deputy Solicitor General on Monday -- I hope the minister knows this -- that funding to rape crisis centres would not be cut in the coming year. Well and fine, but they were cut by 4.8% last September.

Now, it's very good news to hear that there will be no more cuts in that specific area --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Marilyn; thank you.

Ms Churley: -- but it doesn't change the fact that in this month of May we are talking about sexual assault prevention. Prevention is a major area that's suffering from this government's agenda, which is to focus on core services, which we must do. But in order to stop the violence and the sexual assaults that go on out there, the minister has to pay attention to prevention and make sure that the province --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Come and talk to us.

Ms Churley: Will the minister just sit and listen to my statement here, Mr Speaker? She is constantly commenting. I think I have something important to say here.

I'm going to remind the minister of something the Ontario women's directorate wrote just last year, in 1995. About half of the cases of wife assault result in physical injuries to the woman. In 80% of wife abuse cases, children are present. Violent behaviour is learned, says the OWD. Some studies indicate that between 40% to 60% of assaultive men witness wife assault during their childhood. There are many, many reasons why prevention and prevention programs are absolutely vital.

The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres said in a news release this morning, "Budget cutbacks from the provincial government have made prevention work a distant, seemingly unachievable goal leaving little hope for the future."

The coalition has not been able to get any information from the Ontario women's directorate -- and neither have I -- on where those cuts announced in the so-called business plan are going to be made. They have reason to believe the major cuts will be in training for police officers dealing with sexual assault. I really hope that isn't true.

The coalition says only about half of the rape crisis centres that applied for funding for sexual assault prevention month were approved. This is a far smaller number than usual.

Normally the OWD puts out public service announcements, buttons, leaflets and fact sheets on Sexual Assault Prevention Month. This material has been seriously cut back. There are no public service announcements. Where is the material for this year?

The coalition has also not been able to get confirmation that funding for long-term counselling will continue from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health. Coalition president Anne-Marie Aikins said, "Prevention must be a priority for the government, for agencies and for individuals if we are ever to stop violence against women and children."

Finally, as with most decisions this government has made, cutting prevention dollars is shortsighted and very costly in the long run.

I understand the minister is starting up a whole new review of the OWD once again, after our government spent three years looking at it. I would like to get information as to what this review actually involves. I understand they're going to be looking at a policy-based review and services review.

Let me say to the minister, if indeed there is a review going on, that prevention be part of that review and be looked at very, very seriously, because cutting back now is going to cost far more money and pain down the road.

ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to beg the indulgence of the House to make a short statement today on order and decorum.

This statement arises out of my increasing concern over the last several weeks for the dignity of this chamber and its parliamentary traditions. I find that the use of unparliamentary language is becoming commonplace. This is unacceptable. Members should refer to each other with respect and in a manner in which they themselves would like to be addressed. All members of this House are honourable and should be treated as such.

This chamber is the focal point for parliamentary debate and should not be used for actions that do not support that function. Demonstrations in this House by the public or by members themselves are out of order. I would ask all members to take this into consideration the next time they consider making their point by unparliamentary actions rather than parliamentary words.

Other Speakers have made statements similar to this one. I myself have addressed this House before on such issues and I again ask members on all sides of this House to conduct themselves honourably and to cooperate in imposing on themselves the order and decorum that they expect of others in this chamber.

Let me conclude by repeating what I've said before: The efforts of all members are required to maintain order and decorum in this chamber. The Speaker cannot do it alone. However, I can and will enforce the rules rigorously, and I have confidence in your capacity as members to behave with dignity. Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is to the Minister of Health and concerns the Harris government's plan to privatize much of Ontario's health care sector.

Yesterday you told this House, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, that you and your ministry knew nothing about the involvement of an American company, National Medical Care of Boston, in the Ottawa-Cornwall dialysis project which you happily launched last week at the national capital, that you and your department knew nothing about National Medical Care's involvement in that proposal until after you made the announcement in Ottawa last week. Is that still the official position of you, as minister, and your department?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The short answer is no. I think Dr Posen is correct that an official of the ministry was told about it, probably back in January or February. The problem with the RFP, I guess, is that the officials knew this is a sensitive area for us, the politicians, the people of Ontario, and they informed me -- I'm not putting any blame here, but reading through the RFP, it has Canadian proponents and a Canadian company. There is no American company in the RFP. It is called NMC Canada Inc all the way through the pages.

They said, "Minister, we didn't think to flag this to you as an issue because under the rules of Canadian preference here, we're dealing with a Canadian proponent," Dr Posen and the nephrologists in Ottawa-Carleton, who have a non-profit Canadian company as the proponent. Also, the management team that apparently is mentioned in the RFP is a Canadian company. It turns out it is a subsidiary of the Boston-based American company. That's what I know of it.

Now that we know of it, of course, we're in the normal process, which is to have the interviews with the leading contenders in this tender process, as is required under the Independent Health Facilities Act, and questions about the management team and quality measures will be asked and answers will be sought.

Mr Conway: The minister has said today that the information he gave to this House in a very declaratory fashion yesterday was at the very least incomplete, if not inaccurate. I submit it's both. The answer tendered yesterday to the House from the minister was, I believe, both incomplete and inaccurate.

Now we have Dr Posen, a distinguished physician, according to the minister's own words, telling the press over the last 24 hours that he, Dr Posen, told a senior official in the Ministry of Health three months ago that he, Dr Posen, was aware of the criminal investigations into National Medical Care of Boston. Dr Posen said that not only did he tell the senior official, Mr Donald Walker, at the Ministry of Health in January of this past year, but, quoting Dr Posen, Mr Walker admitted to knowing. Three months before you made your announcement in Ottawa last week, your official told Dr Posen that the department was aware of the criminal investigations into National Medical Care of Boston.

How do you explain that after three months nobody in your department informed you, as the minister, of this very sensitive and significant information?

Hon Mr Wilson: Perhaps the question is best answered by explaining the process a little more clearly. Prior to the request for proposal going out, the Kidney Foundation and other renal services experts in the province were brought together to develop the RFP and the evaluation process. Of course, what we're at is the first stage of the evaluation process, in which a point system was assigned to those proponents and proposals that were believed to be able to deliver the stringent quality services demanded by the RFP.

This particular proponent, Dr Posen, became the lead contender for both the Cornwall and Ottawa services. As a result, the normal process in the Independent Health Facilities Act is to sit down now and talk about: "How can you assure quality? You have to sign a quality agreement with the College of Physicians and Surgeons." It's their inspectors who make sure quality is maintained and that sort of thing.

Yes, there has been a slipup in the chain of command, but Mr Walker and the officials -- and Mr Walker is not that senior; he's a consultant, which is several layers below the minister's office in the ministry. I think it was an honest mistake. I think they said, "We didn't think to flag it for you, Minister, because we thought we were dealing with a Canadian company and certainly Canadian proponents in this case."

Mr Conway: The minister offers bureaucratic bafflegab, and it won't wash. We now know today that a senior official in your department knew three months ago that a company that was actively engaged in this tender, National Medical Care of Boston, was under not one but several criminal investigations in the United States. We know from Dr Posen that senior officials in your department knew that in January of this year, and you're asking this House to accept your answer that you, as minister, and your entire ministerial staff didn't hear a thing about that from your department and your officials?

Minister, I've been a minister. I don't believe it. I want to know: What did you know about National Medical Care and when did you know it?

Hon Mr Wilson: I am simply asking this House to accept the truth. I have spoken the truth and the truth stands.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the member for Renfrew North. A question to the same minister?

Mr Conway: I've been around politics long enough to know that when it looks like Richard Nixon and when it sounds like Richard Nixon --

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr Conway: Another question to the same minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: They are very tender, and they should be. This is a government that not only wants to privatize health care; they want to privatize Hydro and Norm Sterling's liquor stores. With this kind of ignorance and incompetence, we'll find out some day that the Las Vegas mob has won the contract to run Normie's liquor stores.

I want to say to the minister that ignorance and incompetence is not going to get you off the hook. I ask you again, are you asking this House to believe that three months after your department was told by Dr Posen that National Medical Care was under a series of criminal investigations in the United States, nobody in your department, nobody on your political staff, breathed a word of that to your ears?

Hon Mr Wilson: I wish I could give him more of a story, but I can't. The fact of the matter is, I didn't know.

I don't think the honourable member is suggesting I interfere in a tendering process. This is a sealed process. It's only appropriate for the minister to be involved at this time, after the awarding of the original preferred provider contract. It would be inappropriate for me or my political staff, during the awarding of the contract, to interfere.

Yes, I will tell you that I wasn't aware that a very fair and equitable process was set up in consultation with the Kidney Foundation and other experts to do a point system to rate the tenders as they came in, and there certainly wasn't any political interference there, and yes, I wasn't informed. Again, I think it was an honest mistake from people who felt they were dealing with a Canadian company, and the minister's office was not informed of this being a subsidiary of an American company. There really isn't much more to this.

Mr Conway: I think there's a lot more to this. All I know today is that the information you offered to this House yesterday on this subject was both incomplete and inaccurate. I know that. You've already admitted to most of that. That's what I know.

What I also know is that the New York Times, just a few months ago, wrote a series of articles about National Medical Care, and some of these headlines are absolutely breathtaking. "Death and Deficiency in Kidney Treatment" is one headline. Another headline is, "At Big Kidney Chain, Deals for Doctors, Ruin for Rivals." I can't believe it. If you haven't seen these New York Times articles about the kind of conduct that National Medical Care was involved with, and for which it is under criminal investigation in the United States, then you're even more incompetent and you're even more confused than I wanted to believe at the outset.

Are you telling me that now, eight or 10 months into your job, you've never heard about these American reports about National Medical Care? Is that what you're telling me this afternoon?

Hon Mr Wilson: After I became aware of the involvement of this company, or its Canadian subsidiary, last week, I did spend the weekend reading articles, including articles by Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star, about this company, and I did read the New York Times articles. If that's your question, the answer is yes, I've fully done as much reading as I can on this company.

Mr Conway: This is a government all on about privatization. You were all set to ink a deal with National Medical Care of Boston which, according to the New York Times, is up to some of the most despicable behaviour and is well known and well reported around the medical community.

Let me say again, I do not believe you when you ask me and this House to believe that no one in your office told you or no one on your political staff was informed by your officials who were told three months ago that there was trouble with this particular tender. But you can certainly be helpful, Minister. You can do something today.

You indicated yesterday that you were quite prepared, and I'll quote your words, "You" -- meaning the opposition -- "are very free to check the tender here." Let's just cut to the quick. Minister, will you table in this House in the next day or two the tender that you are about to endorse on behalf of the Ottawa group that involved National Medical Care of Boston, a tender, by the way, which I understand has National Medical Care of Boston all throughout it?

Hon Mr Wilson: I would be happy to table that as soon as I'm allowed to by law. The freedom of information office of our ministry informs me that because there's commercial proprietary information in these tenders, that only after a final decision of yea or nay is decided then of course all the information is made public, as required under law, and the member's fully entitled to review the documents at that time.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Health. I'm reading from Hansard, July 15, 1994, about the time these reports were made in the United States. "It's extremely disturbing, to say the least, that this minister" -- meaning another individual -- "would not be aware of such a serious allegation circulating in his ministry for some time." Further on, "He's simply furthering the coverup of this matter in my view and, I think, the view of all of us on this side of the House."

That's a quote from the member for Leeds-Grenville in which he is acknowledging, as all members of this House are aware, that a minister is ultimately responsible for what is going on in his ministry and for knowing what's going on in his ministry. At about the same time that those comments were made in this House, there was a report from the American Food and Drug Administration, reported June 1994 in FDA Consumer Report which describes National Medical Care as a chronic violator. They're under investigation for not following approved methods for testing finished products, investigation for device failures.

They were under review and evaluation for improper maintenance of master records, improper inspections of critical device components and so on.

Beyond that, it became evident in the press at the time in the United States that the parent company of this company, W.R. Grace and Co, was accused by the federal United States tax officials of tax evasions and payouts of chief executives in the order of $20 million to cover up sexual harassment allegations.

Does the minister agree with his colleague from Leeds-Grenville that it is the responsibility of a minister to be informed by his staff and to know what is going on with his ministry and therefore he should have known about the allegations about this American company which were widely publicized over a year ago in the United States?

Hon Mr Wilson: I believe strongly in the principle of ministerial responsibility, and as I said to the media on a couple of occasions today, I will take responsibility for not having been informed on this issue. I take responsibility for that.

No contract has been signed. A good process, which was the process set up under the Liberal government, followed by your government and now followed by our government, is in place.

I would reiterate to this House that we are dealing with a non-profit Canadian company sponsored by Dr Posen and his nephrologist colleagues in Ottawa, and the employees of this facility are to be Canadians, the doctors who would be there would be Canadians, and of course the patients would be Canadians. If there is responsibility, a breakdown in communication in my ministry, I accept that responsibility.

Mr Wildman: Yesterday the minister said, "Where his" -- meaning Dr Posen's -- "management team was coming from, which I assume is one or two people, no, we did not check that. We were not aware of that.

"Very clearly, the company we were dealing with is a non-profit Canadian company owned by Dr Posen. That is what the tender documents show and we took him on good faith with respect to those documents."

We've talked to Dr Posen and to Ed Berger of National Medical Care. Dr Posen informed us that he had worked closely with the official of the minister's ministry, Donald Walker, in developing the proposal for the management of the dialysis units and Mr Walker was aware of the criminal investigations involving National Medical Care. Mr Berger also said, "Canadian officials were well aware that National Medical Care was the subject of numerous police investigations."

Does the minister agree with his colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville in his comments made in July 1992: "We in this House and the public at large find it difficult to believe. That a civil servant with over 20 years' experience" -- referring to another civil servant -- "in the government did not inform the minister, did not inform any other official at a senior level in government simply boggles the mind. It's not acceptable." It certainly is not acceptable.

Can the minister explain why at least before he went to make this public announcement in Ottawa, his senior officials did not inform him of the police investigations in the United States?

Hon Mr Wilson: It's the same question I've asked those officials. I have asked them to explain to me when they knew that this was a sensitive issue in terms of the control and management of our health care system, and all I can say is that I don't want to point fingers. They work very hard, and I will take whatever responsibility I have to take for this matter and do so happily and in the terms of good government in the province.

Mr Wildman: Again I refer to comments made by the member for Leeds-Grenville in this House. I'll just place to this minister the question that was placed by his colleague: "When did the deputy minister know? Did officials of the minister's office know, and if they did, when?"

If the deputy minister did know, why didn't he inform the minister and why didn't he refer the matter to the investigative unit that was established in the Ministry of Health in 1993 to look into these very types of matters, to find out if there are criminal investigations into companies that deal with the Ministry of Health? Why wasn't that done? When did you know, when did the deputy know, and why wasn't the proper --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Wilson: It's quite a presumption that my deputy minister is a male. My deputy minister is Mrs Margaret Mottershead. She's doing an excellent job and has some 29 years of service to the people of Ontario in public service. I don't know when the deputy minister knew. She's on vacation right now. When she comes back, you're free to give her a call and ask her when she knew, if she knew, because I don't know.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday, when my colleague from Welland-Thorold asked you a question about the impact of the tax cuts on municipalities, you didn't get a chance to finish your answer. Being the fairminded person I am, I want to give you an opportunity to finish your sentence.

You said yesterday, "The user fees are an excellent way for municipalities" -- and then the rest you didn't get a chance to answer. I'd like to ask you to finish that sentence, and to help you out I've put together a couple of options, a couple of possible conclusions to that sentence.

Interjection: Pick one of the above.

Mr Silipo: You can pick one of the above.

Is it (

a) user fees are an excellent way for municipalities to deal with the transfer cuts, (

b) user fees are an excellent way for municipalities to raise hidden taxes or (

c) user fees are an excellent way for municipalities to kill any potential benefit to consumers from your tax cut? Which one is it?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It was probably none of the above.

Mr Silipo: I could go on with another three or four possibilities, but if it's none of those, would the minister care to finish the sentence on his own? He started to say, "The user fees are an excellent way for municipalities" -- could I ask the minister to complete that sentence.

Hon Mr Leach: It's a good question. I think user fees are an excellent way for municipalities to consider the options they have before them.

Mr Silipo: Let's look at what some of those options are that municipalities have had to not only look at but indeed implement.

We've seen over the last few months, and are likely to see more in the next few months, new user fees for health care -- the drug plan copayment as well as new hospital fees -- as a result of Bill 26; $13 million in new fees from the Ontario public service as a result of the so-called business plans; and through municipalities, as a result of these actions and others, increases in daily care fees, increased fees for parks and recreation facilities, new library fines, fees for garbage collection, fees for firefighting, transit fare increases -- this against the backdrop of what this minister and his Premier have been saying, that there is only one taxpayer.

How can you possibly say, as you've been saying in this House, that you're not responsible for these new user fees, indeed for these hidden taxes? How can you possibly justify them, given everything else your government is saying? If you don't think your tax cuts, which are resulting in these new user fees and property tax hikes, are going to negatively impact consumer spending, then I would say to you what you said to my colleague yesterday, which is that your plan is not only a sham, it's quite hypocritical. How can you say that your tax cuts and your cuts in spending are not forcing municipalities to simply raise taxes through user fees?

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for the question. I don't think any of the fees the member mentioned are new fees. There are fees that have been charged by various municipalities for years, for decades -- garbage fees, fees for skating rinks, fees for recreation facilities. None of those are new fees. I don't know what the member's point is.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question for the Minister of Transportation: When Arthur Ryan, the executive director of the Ontario Road Builders' Association, appeared before the finance committee, he was shocked at the cutbacks that you had made to road maintenance and reconstruction on existing roads. He said very categorically: "Since the election of this government there's been effectively no moneys being spent on the roads in this province, on the highways in this province, and this is unbelievable. It's never been faced with that before."

How could you, as the Minister of Transportation, knowing that the roads in this province were in such bad shape -- as confirmed by Mr Ryan, you weren't spending money, as confirmed by the Provincial Auditor. How could you continue with a program of cutbacks of simple road maintenance and repair? Didn't your officials warn you the roads had to be taken care of?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly want to thank the honourable member for the question. I believe it's a very good question. I don't know where Mr Ryan has received his information. This government at no time has cut any money from the provincial refurbishing budget, so where you're getting those numbers from Mr Ryan, I do not know. But I want to say to the honourable member that this government is committed to spend more money this year refurbishing our provincial highways than any government has spent in the last six years.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Supplementary, the member for Cornwall.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Despite what the minister says on the road maintenance in eastern Ontario, what he says he's been doing about the repairs and everything else that goes along with it, the insurance claims continue to roll in. A few weeks back I gave the minister countless examples of individuals who have sustained personal injury and vehicle damage. I know very well what he's talking about, because one of the potholes just cost me $350 to repair the undercarriage on my vehicle.

I want to ask the minister: Do you think the $50-million compensation for the worn-out provincial highways that you are going to transfer back to the municipalities and download on them is sufficient? My constituents and many of the residents all over eastern Ontario want to know, is the government going to pay damages and claims for the damages resulting from maintenance cutbacks on the provincial highways?

Hon Mr Palladini: I believe that potholes are not only a provincial problem, but also a municipal problem. But we have been saying all along that highway transfers are going to be done in a very orderly fashion. To answer your question, yes, I believe the $50 million that we have set aside is sufficient to get us through to that time period when eventually highways will be transferred. They are going to be phased in over a three-year period, and I believe this government is going to act responsibly.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In the interest of connecting the tax cuts to a reduction in jobs and a negative effect on the economy, my question today is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

A reporter in Sault Ste Marie, having done an independent review and report, says in last Thursday's Sault Star that the Tory cuts mean 500 fewer jobs and that the city is $30 million poorer in provincial funding since the Conservative election win.

Minister, do you have any idea of the impact of this on my community? What do you have to say to the over 500 people in Sault Ste Marie who are losing their jobs, and what do you have to say to the retail sector of my business community re the loss of $30 million in economic activity in Sault Ste Marie?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): To the member for Sault Ste Marie, I'd like to say that we have got some very good news in the last few weeks about new job creations and I think your community will also benefit from this new job atmosphere in due course. So I would suggest that you go back to your constituency, sir, and remind them that the policies we have in place are going to be creating jobs in the north.

Mr Martin: Minister, you and your government are single-handedly throwing my community, and I suggest every other community across this province, into a recession.

In the early 1990s Sault Ste Marie faced some major challenges to its economy, and with some significant contribution and leadership by the Bob Rae government, in fact by Bob Rae himself, Algoma Steel was restructured, St Marys Paper was restructured, the ACR was restructured and Lajambe lumber was restructured. What you're doing is the equivalent of closing St Marys Paper, the ACR and Lajambe put together. In the interest of even creating new jobs, we have attracted one company that's going to create 100 jobs in Sault Ste Marie. You've wiped out about six of them with the decisions you've made so far in your nine months in power.

What are you going to do? Where are the 725,000 jobs that you talked about in your Common Sense Revolution and that you talk about today for Sault Ste Marie? What do I tell the people in Sault Ste Marie re this government's agenda and its plan for them?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Let me say to the member for Sault Ste Marie what we are doing. We're going to be doing in northern Ontario what's happening in southern Ontario and in all of Ontario: We are creating jobs. Let me tell you some of the jobs that are being created.

Last week Magna announced that it will be creating 1,000 new jobs in St Thomas. Dana will be creating 100 new jobs in southwestern Ontario. This is a big list of jobs which I could go on and on with. I will not take the time but I'd be happy to share this with the member.

I'd like him to tell us what his policy is for jobs. We haven't heard a thing from him all during this study, and from you over there either. We're creating jobs and we're creating lots of opportunities for people in this province.

I would like to hear something constructive from the opposition benches. We're sick and tired of a bunch of Chicken Littles running around yelling out that the sky is falling down on Ontario. The sky is not falling on Ontario. We're creating jobs.

Mr Martin: I want to register my dissatisfaction with that answer. Are you suggesting that the people of Sault Ste Marie move to St Thomas? Is that what you're saying? I will be asking for a late show from this minister today.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Recently on the public affairs program Focus Ontario, the York South by-election Liberal candidate entertained viewers with the statement that social assistance recipients cannot work or participate in welfare activities in their community while they are in receipt of social assistance. My question to you is, why does the Liberal candidate in this by-election utter such silly and misinformed statements?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I can't possibly give a justification of why the Liberal candidate in York South is saying this. Just to clarify it, I think he indicated it was illegal for social assistance recipients to do volunteer work while they're on welfare. It is pretty important for us to set the record straight. There's nothing in the regulations that forbids people on welfare from taking

part in volunteer work. As long as they take care of their job search requirement, they're certainly free to volunteer.

I must admit I'm quite shocked at Mr Kennedy, who is the candidate there. Given his background and his apparent knowledge of the volunteer field from working with the food bank, I would have suspected he might have had some idea of what he was talking about. I can confirm for you that social assistance recipients can do volunteer work.

Mr Hastings: In regard to this sort of irresponsible misinformation, what can your ministry do to undertake to counteract such illogical statements and what specific assurance will you give social assistance recipients that they can participate in voluntary activities in their community while receiving social assistance?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I suppose the Liberal candidate in York South is learning now that, since he's a political candidate, he's going to have to start to be a little more accountable for what he says, and accurate. He has a responsibility as well to make sure he is speaking accurately. Clearly what our government is going to be doing is trying to assist people to break the cycle of dependency, to give themselves sufficiency, and that is where workfare comes in.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm not quite finished yet. I just want to end with the words of someone -- not myself. I just want to quote this. It says, "One of the things I like about it is often you hear people saying" --

The Speaker: Order. The question's been answered.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Premier of Ontario. On September 6 you were delivered a box of cereal as a constant reminder that you owe Ontario a provincial breakfast program. I'd like to know the status of that program today.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question. The member will know that school nutrition and making sure that every child is not hungry during the school day has long been a priority of mine. I think since the member has been elected and come to this Legislature, it has been a priority of hers as well.

I'm pleased to report there are more programs under way now than there have been in the past. The member has, I believe, talked with my parliamentary assistant, Julia Munro, who has been canvassing all of the existing programs to see how we can coordinate them and assist in a better way, both from government coordination and also involving the private sector.

I want to congratulate the member for being part of that exercise and that team of people. I know that when, in the not-very-distant future, a significant new program thrust is announced, inviting all members to participate, the member will want to be one of the first to be part of the team.

Mrs Pupatello: In September, the Premier instructed me to go about and be constructive, as some ministers have indicated today they would like us to be. On February 2, your office was delivered the package of research that we had done. Three months after you indicated your PA would work on this, your PA, in November, had yet to attend a school to visit such a program. It was delivered to you and several of your ministers, three ministers, all of whom are related to this program.

Today what I'd like you to do is confirm stable funding for the Ontario Social Development Council, because it's critical. Will you guarantee leadership from your office, will you guarantee that the package you received, which is the research you have been waiting for -- will you stand today and tell us you will guarantee that funding and that leadership from your office?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, we will be announcing a significant shift in direction that we think will help many more people, involve many more people, and that will be forthcoming very shortly.

I want to assure the member that my parliamentary assistant has visited numerous programs, has visited and talked with a number of groups involved and very much values your presentation and the research you have done and contributed in a very positive way to this program. We very much appreciate that. I want to say that, just in case you want something for campaign literature in the year 2000 or so. Would that other members of your party and your caucus did the same; it would make our job easier.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I too have a question to the Premier. A while back the member for Frontenac-Addington attended a meeting sponsored by the Reform Party, I would say a meeting to speak about national unities. At that particular --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: You might think this is not serious, but I do.

We'll try it again. The member for Frontenac-Addington attended a meeting put on by the Reform Party about a month ago, a meeting sponsored by the Reform Party on national unity. At this particular meeting the member for Frontenac-Addington made a speech, from which I have quotes here, in regard to the construction of a French-language high school in Kingston. I would like to read it to you. It says:

Mr Premier, these are extremely inflammatory comments to the francophone community, and my question to you is: Do you agree with these comments and was the member announcing new policies on behalf of your government?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No and no.

Mr Bisson: The question then that needs to be asked is simply this: If you do not agree with the comments made by the member for Frontenac-Addington, and you indeed support the policy that has been in place in this province for many years, supported by all three parties in this House, in regard to French-language education, what are you going to do about members of your caucus who are out there saying such comments as the member for Frontenac-Addington did? What are you going to do about it and what are you going to do about the member for Frontenac-Addington?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I appreciate the member's sensitivity to the whole issue; I hope I do. Let me say that on the issue of separation, of separate schools or immersion within schools, there is a great deal of controversy among a lot of people. I can recall francophones in my own community of Nipissing when the issue was raised of whether a separate super-French school would be desirable. This was when a previous administration was in government. It was pretty evenly split, and eventually a vote of francophones decided no, that was too much separation. So I think that's a valid discussion that takes place a lot in the communities and among francophones.

However, I would say to the member -- and I appreciate his colleagues' sensitivity as well -- that the word "apartheid" in no way is an appropriate word that ought to be used to apply to that, and as such I have talked to the member and wrote him a letter on April 8 indicating that.

EDUCATION DIRECTORS' SALARIES

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training, and since he's had an easy week this week, I figured we might as well keep him sharp.

I am sure that members of the Legislature support the efforts of senior education administrators. However, I find it disturbing to learn that there are 11 directors of education in Ontario whose salaries are over $100,000 and yet they are responsible to boards with fewer than 4,000 students -- some of them as low as 700 students.

Do you feel there is any reason for these officials to make six-figure salaries when they are responsible for fewer students than many high school principals are?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Lambton for an excellent question. I believe it's addressing an issue that's important in the minds of taxpayers and parents across the province.

The sunshine law has certainly allowed for a lot of public discourse on this subject, and I think it's an important one. There are directors in very small boards across the province who are paid over $100,000 a year, and that has been an issue that's been brought forward to my office.

There's also a gap between the salaries of directors in some small boards and the directors of larger boards in a very close geographic area, which is somewhat curious. Also, if we look at some of the administrative costs of other school systems, this is extraordinary.

So the member understands, I want to make very clear that the province does not hire directors or set the salaries; that's a function of the local school boards. But I believe the public expects the provincial government and the school boards to work hard to make sure that as much as is possible our administrative costs are as low as they can be so that we direct the largest amount of public funding into the classroom, where it makes a difference. We'll be doing everything we can to encourage school boards to do just that.

Mr Beaubien: Minister, I realize that the salary scale is the responsibility of the local boards, but to your knowledge, are you aware that any of these boards have attempted to make any savings by reviewing the salaries of these administrators?

Hon Mr Snobelen: No, I am not aware of any board that has currently taken on that issue as a way of finding savings outside of the classroom. There have been different responses to the public demand that we find those savings by different boards, and I can assure the member that this government and this minister will do everything we can to encourage our boards to make sure they look at every possible opportunity to find savings, tax-dollar savings, outside of the classroom.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training as well. Minister, in January 1995, in the edition of the Conservative Party document entitled A Voice for the North, your leader stated, and this is your campaign document of 1995: "Parents are...telling us they want a renewed emphasis on basic skills and knowledge in the classroom. They feel that the province's Ministry of Education is out of touch and remote from northern concerns."

Well, Minister, nothing has changed. Your government has given little or no consideration to the unique concerns facing northern students, parents and educators. We have here detailed and specific commitments to northern residents during the last campaign. What do you have to say to the 50 students from Lakewood school who are so concerned about the cuts you are making to the education system that they decided to visit my constituency office yesterday morning to demand that their voices be heard?

As well, students from Thomas Aquinas separate school in my riding marched from their school to their board office to demand an explanation for the fact that all but five of their teachers were declared redundant. That's 26 of 31 staff members in a high school of 401 students declared redundant. What do you say to them, Minister?

Minister, your

schedule has you coming to northwestern Ontario this upcoming weekend. I ask you if you would rearrange your

schedule to listen to the concerns of these students in Kenora.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I think the commitment of this government is well known. I appreciate the honourable member opposite bringing up again the fact that our government let the people know and made commitments to the people of Ontario a full year before the last election so that people were well aware of our agenda for change and well aware of our commitment to the schools in the province of Ontario.

We believe that schools are there to instill the skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviours that are necessary for young people to pursue their life goals. I think that's consistent with children really across this province, young people across this province, that they need those skills and that knowledge.

I accept, certainly, the honourable member's notion that being in the schools is very important, that talking to the students and teachers is very important. In fact, I've spend about 25% of my time in the schools over the last six months, and I intend to continue to do that and to visit communities in the north and to examine the conditions there.

Mr Miclash: Minister, it states very clearly in your election document that you and your party agree with northern parents and educators that the Ministry of Education is out of touch with northerners' concerns. Here in southern Ontario, your backbenchers refer to it as being "out of whack."

Northerners are frustrated with the lack of consultation from your ministry. I am willing to help you keep your commitment to consult. You indicated that you wanted to consult with northern residents and northern students. Again I ask you, will you meet with the students who have many concerns about their classroom education in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I will be in northern Ontario at the end of this week -- I've been in northern Ontario several times over the last few months, during the term of this government -- and I will see what my

schedule allows. I don't know; I haven't looked at my

schedule for the end of the week. But you can be assured that I will be in schools, I will be in schools in the north, and I will continue a dialogue with teachers and with students and with parents because I think that's important.

I want to remind the honourable member opposite that this government has taken actions to make sure we understand the problems particularly of small boards, and they tend to be northern, and that we've taken action to help those boards find savings outside of the classroom. We continue to listen to the people of Ontario, to listen to the boards, to listen to the teachers, to listen to the parents and to listen to the students, because we believe that's where we'll find the nucleus of a better school system in Ontario.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. We continue to get two messages from you and the government regarding health and safety in Ontario: One is your words; the other is your actions.

On Monday, you gave us more words when we discussed the day of mourning. You said, and I quote from Hansard, "As well, it is a day for the government, for labour and for management to reaffirm our shared commitment to the prevention of illness and injury." Further, you say, "I would encourage everyone in this House and outside of this House to continue to work cooperatively in order that we can achieve our common goal of preventing injuries and illness."

Those are the words, but your actions are: abolishing the Workplace Health and Safety Agency where workers and business had an equal say in training of health and safety representatives; your actions around WCB where you scrapped the structure that gave workers and business an equal say in the running of the WCB; and now we hear you're planning to cut funding to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

Will you begin today to put some integrity and honesty behind your words and commit that you will not eliminate the Workers' Health and Safety Centre?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): We have been diligently pursuing our objective of preventing workplace injury and illness. We have put in place a vision. We are putting in place strategic directions. We have introduced programs that are going to be able to demonstrate for the first time in the history of this province whether or not we are achieving our objective of reducing illness and injury.

You know full well that the Provincial Auditor took a look at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and indicated to us that despite the fact that they had spent $83 million, there was absolutely no evidence that there had ever been an impact on any reduction in injury and illness.

I can assure you, we have committed funding to the workers' safety centre in the same way we have extended it to the other health and safety organizations. They all have their funding. They have all received the commitment from our government. No agency is being treated any differently than any other.

Mr Christopherson: The fact is that your actions have already placed a heavier burden on worker participation in providing workplace health and safety training, your actions in the issues I've already mentioned, the gutting of your own ministry, in fact $40 million coming out of your ministry and a further $8 million coming out of the health and safety budget of your ministry.

I ask you very directly, to put some meaning and honesty behind your words, because all we get are words, will you recognize that the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, in addition to being one of the most efficient and effective organizations providing training, is a key component of workers playing an equal role in health and safety? Will you recognize that today by guaranteeing that you will not eliminate the centre? Don't talk about treating it the same as others. You've already treated workers in an unequal fashion. Please give us a commitment that the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will not be eliminated.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you were to take a look at the cooperative relationship that has developed in the construction industry between labour and management, the commitment they have made to health and safety is an example we need to duplicate in all the other sectors throughout the province. That is the type of cooperation we are looking for. We want to --

Mr Christopherson: You're not even talking to the labour movement.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I met today with construction. I am meeting next week with Mr Wilson. I met last week with Mr Hynd from the Steelworkers. We are meeting on an ongoing basis.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I wonder if the minister could dispel some rumours I have heard again and again, rumours that concern many in the farming community.

There has been much said about the future of agricultural colleges, including Ridgetown college in Kent county, and there is concern about the possibility of closures. I'm certain that I don't have to remind the minister of OMAFRA of the importance of education, training and research in one of the most important sectors of Ontario's economy, the agrifood section.

Could the minister please tell me and the other members of this House what fate awaits the agricultural colleges?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I can assure my colleague, firstly, that we have consulted widely with the agricultural community and that indeed the future of the colleges at Ridgetown, Kemptville and Alfred is very much assured, that they will continue to provide the leadership, the education and the agricultural research they have become famous for. As we speak today, negotiations with the University of Guelph, a world-recognized leader in agricultural education and research, are ongoing to ensure that the future of these colleges is going to continue as we have been used to in the province of Ontario.

Mr Carroll: I'm glad to hear that the minister realizes the importance of agricultural research in the agrifood sector and I'm glad to hear his commitment to our college in Ridgetown. I know the minister is aware of the promise we made to agriculture during the 1995 election campaign to maintain the agricultural programs and to squeeze the waste of duplication from the bureaucracy to ensure that we could maintain systems for our farmers.

Considering how during the past 10 years the two parties opposite overspent and mismanaged the economy of this province so badly that we now have a seemingly insurmountable $100 billion worth of debt, I would like to know if the minister could explain to me, was the status quo a possibility as it related to our agricultural colleges?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As I mentioned in my opening answer to the honourable member, indeed agriculture wants to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

In the short period of time since we've been elected -- in the book we promised to reduce government spending; we are in the process of doing so -- accomplished: The agricultural labour relations; we've fixed that. The farm property tax rebate remains in place. The ethanol projects have been supported, something the Liberal Party didn't always agree with; that's been done. Eighty-five per cent of the safety nets; that's been done. The Sewell report has been addressed; it's done. Waste management has been addressed; it's done. Provincial wetlands policy: We've looked at that and we fixed it.

We initiated a managed forest tax rebate under my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. This all happened in less than a year.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I move that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet on the morning of Thursday May 2 for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 30,

An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement and that the committee also be authorized to sit on the morning of Wednesday May 8 for the purpose of public hearings, and on Wednesday May 29 for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

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; and

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I trust that this most important petition will find the good office of the table. It's on good bond. More importantly, it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and signed by close to 900 concerned citizens in the riding of Lake Nipigon. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Provincial Police are reorganizing their operations across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario Provincial Police have stated that this reorganization is mostly being done to meet financial targets; and

"Whereas the Schreiber OPP detachment is under review and is at risk for closure to the public on a daily basis; and

"Whereas this office is situated in rural Ontario and closure on a daily basis will be detrimental to the residents of our community;

"We" -- all 900 of them -- "the following undersigned citizens in Ontario beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Not to relocate civilian clerical staff at the Schreiber OPP detachment."

I have affixed my name and I support the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition which has been forwarded to me by my constituents and which I'd like to file. It's signed by approximately 20 of my constituents and it concerns tax cuts.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe that the family support plan is a viable and necessary service provided by the government of Ontario, we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the proposed centralization of the family support plan will have a negative impact on the children who are supported under this plan and should be cancelled."

I have signed my name, as I agree to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition from concerned citizens in the province of Ontario in regard to rent control, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control;

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution;

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations" -- can you believe that? -- "campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system;

"Whereas, although all renters will suffer, seniors and others on fixed incomes will suffer particular hardship if rent controls are abolished;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop this attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province and preserve our system of rent control."

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster evictions by landlords;

"We, the undersigned tenants of 35 Shoreham Drive in North York, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I too share the concern of these tenants, residents of North York, and I will affix my signature to that.

Mr Bisson: I have another petition, this time from the good people of St Thomas in regard to their concerns about the scrapping of rent control.

"Whereas security of tenure and the right to remain in our homes is a basic need of all humans and where uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons, and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent control remains in effect in this province."

I have signed that petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

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

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

"Whereas during the 1995 election campaign, the Conservatives clearly promised to defend the health care system by protecting ministry funding, stating in a campaign backgrounder, `There will be no cuts to health care funding by a Harris government,' and calling this their first and most important commitment; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has already cut $1.3 billion from the budget of the Ministry of Health when on November 29, 1995, the finance minister announced a series of spending cuts designed to reduce the deficit; and

"Whereas the $1.3 billion in funding has gone directly to reduce the deficit and therefore cannot be reallocated within the health care system; and

"Whereas this government is considering introducing user fees to the Ontario drug benefit program; and

"Whereas there have been suggestions that hospitals will face a reduction in funding from this government when it cuts its support to all transfer partners in the coming years; and

"Whereas according to the media reports of the premiers' conference in St John's, the Premier of Ontario `wouldn't rule out user fees'; and

"Whereas the recent actions taken by this government contradict election promises and have confused a concerned public still coping with the negative impact of the previous NDP government's mismanagement of the Ministry of Health;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to restore the $1.3 billion that was cut on November 29, 1995, in order to maintain the promise made by this government to protect health care funding and not cut health care, to reaffirm this government's commitment to no new user fees and to ensure that the health care budget will stand at $17.4 billion for every day of the life of this government."

I affix my signature along with more than 20,000 others, my fellow citizens, who have signed this petition.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions and letters from Gwen Lee, Donna Bentley-Ward and Rose MacGowan regarding the unacceptable selling of Ontario Housing Corp stock.

"A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Realty Corp was directed to develop a plan to sell the more than 84,000 units owned by the Ontario Housing Corp; and

"Whereas the cut, slash and burn policies of the Progressive Conservative Party have forced seniors, families and social assistance recipients to rely more than ever on rent-geared-to-income public housing in order to maintain a decent quality of life; and

"Whereas the sale of OHC units would impose undue hardship on hundreds of thousands of people across Ontario and in particular in Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the administration of rent-geared-to-income OHC properties by our local housing authority of Hamilton-Wentworth is conducted in a more responsible and cost-effective manner than the proposed privatization shelter allowance concept,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned representatives of the three area tenant advisory committees in Hamilton-Wentworth, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing address the concerns and answer the questions of the hundreds of signators of the accompanying letters and we request consultation with OHC tenants beyond Metro Toronto regarding the proposed sale of their homes."

I affix my signature in support of this petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): A petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7 and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have the following petition, signed by a number of individuals:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has announced its intention to reduce provincial grants to primary and secondary education by 10%, colleges by 13% and universities by more than 15% in fiscal 1996-97; and

"This reduction in provincial funding will cause increased class sizes at all levels of education, massive increases in college and university tuition fees and decreased quality of education because of fewer program and course offerings at all levels of education and reductions of teachers, staff, library resources and services; and

"Education is essential to a civilized society and a productive economy,

"We, the undersigned, petition this Parliament to reverse the decisions made by the present government as to the funding reductions in primary, secondary and post-secondary education announced in a statement by Finance Minister Mr Ernie Eves, QC, MPP, on November 29, 1995; and

"That this Parliament examine through public hearings all aspects of the post-secondary education system in the province of Ontario; and

"That no college or university tuition fee increases or funding reductions be permitted until this study is completed and its recommendations are considered by this Parliament; and

"Finally, that this Parliament declare, by means of resolution, that education is common sense."

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

I continue to support these petitions.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): These residents petition the Minister of Health and the assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas health care experts have asserted that user fees for drugs and other items could jeopardize the health of individuals who cannot afford to pay for their medications; and

"Whereas Ontario's ex-psychiatric populace relies heavily on prescription drugs to remain stable and mental health care providers and the general public are scared of the outcome if these patients cannot afford to buy their medication because of the $2 dispensing fee, when it is normal policy to only prescribe them two or three days of medication at a time to prevent potential misuse or overdosing; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for suffering and misery caused by this user fee and will not even cover the costs of extra emergency services, nor repeated hospital services. The $2 copayment fee will consequently not lead to cost savings but will rather increases in the case of expensive health care services;

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

I've affixed my signature to this document.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits, excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational disease, eliminating pension supplements, handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury, privatizing WCB to large insurance companies, integrating sick benefits into WCB, eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT) including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeals structure with worker representation and that the WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I affix my signature also.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Thousands of people across the province are rising up against the Attorney General's clear intention to close the regional offices of the family support plan, and the people in northwestern Ontario are no different. I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we believe that the family support plan is a viable and necessary service provided by the government in Ontario;

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

"That the proposed centralization of the family support plan will have a negative impact on the children who are supported under this program and should be cancelled."

I've signed my name.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's eighth report.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting Anglo Canada General Insurance Company

Bill Pr60,

An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act and the Public Vehicles Act and to make consequential changes to certain other Acts / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission des transports routiers de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les véhicules de transport en commun et apportant des modifications corrélatives à certaines autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I bring to the attention of the House that there was a deferred vote requested on second reading of Bill 39.

It'll be a five-minute bell.

The bells rang from 1525 to 1530.

The Speaker: Mr Palladini moves second reading of Bill 39. All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Harnick, Charles

Ross, Lillian

Baird, John R.

Harris, Michael D.

Runciman, Bob

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Sampson, Rob

Bassett, Isabel

Hudak, Tim

Saunderson, William

Beaubien, Marcel

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Bert

Skarica, Toni

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, David

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Snobelen, John

Clement, Tony

Leach, Al

Spina, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Leadston, Gary L.

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

Marland, Margaret

Stockwell, Chris

Doyle, Ed

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Ecker, Janet

Maves, Bart

Tsubouchi, David H.

Elliott, Brenda

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Fisher, Barbara

Mushinski, Marilyn

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Newman, Dan

Villeneuve, Noble

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wilson, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

Palladini, Al

Witmer, Elizabeth

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Young, Terence H.

Hardeman, Ernie

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Curling, Alvin

McGuinty, Dalton

Bisson, Gilles

Duncan, Dwight

Morin, Gilles E.

Bradley, James J.

Gerretsen, John

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pouliot, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Gravelle, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Christopherson, David

Hoy, Pat

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Ruprecht, Tony

Cleary, John C.

Kwinter, Monte

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Silipo, Tony

Conway, Sean G.

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Cooke, David S.

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Cordiano, Joseph

Martel, Shelley

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 37.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Resources committee.

The Speaker: Referred to the resources committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Mr Leach moved second reading of 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.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm pleased to provide further details about the amendments we are proposing to Bill 61, the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, now known as Bill 38.

This legislation, which was passed in 1993 by the previous government, has been a concern to us from the very outset. The legislation was described to this House by the previous minister as being an innovative and fair solution which resolved the problems associated for many years with the Toronto Islands community. In particular, the previous minister told this House that the solutions contained within the legislation came at no cost to the province, the municipalities or the taxpayers. To say the least, and I'll be very kind, that was a very optimistic assessment on his part and rather a shortsighted one.

In our opinion, the legislation passed by the NDP amounted to nothing more than a sweetheart deal which gave the islanders considerations available to no other citizens in Ontario. Most distressing of all, it is a sweetheart deal which would have cost the taxpayers of Ontario millions of dollars.

Last summer, after our government took office, we ordered an independent audit of the financial status of the islands community under Bill 61. One of the problems pointed out by the auditor was that Bill 61 required the implementation of an extremely complex and non-traditional land trust and leasing arrangement. The legislation required the creation of a trust known as the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corp. The trust was to sell land leases to the residents of 250 houses on the islands. The trust was also to sell up to 110 additional land leases.

Eighty of these additional land leases were to be sold to a cooperative housing corporation known as the Flying Toad Co-op, which would have constructed a non-profit housing development on the islands. Thirty of the additional leases were to be sold to select individuals.

The independent audit of this arrangement confirmed our worst suspicions. For starters, the audit revealed that the trust was almost $1 million in debt. Specifically, the trust spent $916,000 more than it received, including $426,000 in legal and consulting fees. The trust had only managed to sell 113 of the 250 leases at the time of the audit. The trust's operating costs continued to increase, and because it refused to charge any kind of annual levy to the audit, its debt continued to mount.

At the same time, the former government gave the Flying Toad Co-op special considerations under the non-profit housing program. This allowed the co-op to exceed the standard guidelines for construction of a non-profit project. In the end, it would have cost the taxpayers of Ontario approximately $200,000 to construct each unit of the Flying Toad Co-op. The ongoing operating subsidies would have been equally exorbitant.

Last year, on July 25, our government stepped in. We cancelled the dreaded Flying Toad Co-op, along with 385 other non-profit projects where final commitment to build had not been given. The cancellation of the Flying Toad Co-op and the private housing saved the taxpayers $984,000 in infrastructure costs, plus subsidies of $1.5 million annually.

Our next step was to introduce legislation designed to put the Toronto Islands community on a financially sound basis over the long term, and that is the purpose of the amendments we are proposing to Bill 61 under Bill 38.

First and foremost, we must clear off the debt which has been built up by the island trust. To achieve this, we have turned to the recommendations of the auditor, who suggested that infill lots be developed and sold to enable the trust to break even without any further provincial funding and without incurring substantial infrastructure costs.

This legislation will allow for the development of up to 12 lots within the existing community using the existing infrastructure. The trust will use the proceeds from the sale of these lots to pay off its debts. The legislation requires that the trust start a new purchasers' list which will be administered through a public process, and lots will be offered for sale to people on that new list.

In addition, the trust will no longer be allowed to accumulate serious debt in the future. This legislation requires the trust to raise sufficient funds to carry out its daily operations and ongoing operations by charging regular fees to the island residents. Under the new legislation, the province will retain the responsibility for appointing members to the board of directors of the trust. We want to ensure the board is financially accountable and acts in the best interests of the entire community.

The amendments we are proposing also eliminate the ongoing financial obligations of the province to the island community. Bill 61 required that the taxpayers of Ontario provide $12 million in mortgage guarantees to help the island residents purchase their leases and bring their homes up to fire code standards. That is quite a sweetheart deal, no matter how you look at it. The island residents are perfectly capable of obtaining conventional mortgages in the same manner as any other citizen of Ontario.

On top of that, Bill 61 exempted the island community from the conditions of the Planning Act. Again, that's a sweetheart deal, if you can get it. The island community will now be subject to the same provisions of the Planning Act and the environmental act as every other community in Ontario.

Finally, it is clear that the island community needs many of the same services as any other residential neighbourhood. We believe the municipal level of government is the most appropriate to deliver these services. For this reason, the responsibility for the island trust and the residential community will be transferred to the city of Toronto.

The government is acting in response to the audit of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act. The changes we are proposing will eliminate the current and future financial liability of the province. Our legislation will restore the financial accountability of the Toronto Islands trust. Most of all, it will bring some common sense to the entire issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): There are a number of questions that aren't quite clear in this bill. When this bill, in its former life, came before this House as Bill 61, the members of the opposition at that time, being the government party, were very concerned about the so-called 99-year lease homeowners on the island were given. The big concern was that this 99-year lease was essentially a giveaway of public land at a great bargain price. I guess the call at that time from members on the opposite side was that this was a sweetheart deal where you would get lakefront property for $1 a month.

I think the honourable member for Etobicoke West at that time really was emphatic about it when he said, in November 1992:

"I'll say it 50 times. I'm going to keep saying it in committee, I'm going to say it in this House, because it's one of the most unbelievable affronts to the taxpayers in this province that you can suggest, considering you won both polls on the island, that you can pay these people off for 100 years, to give them rent on a house in a park on the island for a buck a day for 100 years."

I don't think this legislation changes that. In essence, that 99-year lease is still in place for those existing homes on the island. I don't know if I'm missing something in the legislation, why that hasn't been taken out, because that seemed to be the main objection from the government side when it was in opposition.

If you look at the history of the island, those of us who live in Metro look upon the island as a public, open park. It is a very easy getaway for people, and even though it's very close to the downtown core, with a short ferry ride you can almost be out in the country. A lot of people can't afford to buy cottages or to get away on trips, but with a short ferry ride it's almost like being in another part of the province that's away from all the hustle and bustle.

The island is a great respite. It's got all kinds of fish; you can fish there. You can swim. It's got -- it had, I should say -- still one of the best beaches in all this part of the GTA at Hanlan's Point. It's sandy, with very clear water, despite the fact that there's been some pollution in recent years. It was a great swimming spot, and it was a very remote part of the island.

The island's got three parts. You can take one of three ferries. You can take it to Hanlan's Point, which is a bit more remote; you can go to Centre Island where they have the activities for children, where they have more intensive use of the parkland; or you can go to Ward's Island. That's where the housing is, on Ward's Island.

This island is a great, affordable getaway for people on limited income. People come there to play tennis. There are even people who own boats who dock there. There were all kinds of opportunities, and there still are, for people who wanted to bring their families for a picnic, who wanted to play baseball, who just wanted to be on the waterfront, to be involved in it.

The sensitivity -- myself, being in Metro those years -- we were very concerned that Metro was losing part of what we considered to be a public park to the housing. It's not that people were against providing housing. Many of us on Metro council at the time were very concerned about giving up what little parkland we have left in the downtown core. It was the principle of giving that up and allowing it really for private use.

Those of you who have parks in your constituencies will know how sensitive people are to giving that up. That's why over the years it was such a contentious issue. Metropolitan council over the years did not want to give up a square inch of that park because they knew they had a mandate to provide regional park spaces. The islands are a regional park. If you go to an island on a Sunday, Saturday or Friday, people come from all over the GTA, from Oshawa to Burlington, to that regional park. They take the ferry boat over and they like experiencing the island experience.

I know there was always controversy about the city of Toronto's position and Metro's position. The city of Toronto was essentially a lot more favourable to the housing perspective on it. Metro, on the other hand, had a mandate to ensure that this park remained a public park. That's why Metro opposed the extension of housing and building on the island.

This is one of the major inconsistencies of this bill, in that in principle it continues the 99-year lease. They still are going to be allowed to live on the island and those people on the island -- again, it is not trying to condemn the individuals who live there, but the principle of having the right to have a home on the Toronto Islands.

One of the things that was very irritating to people at Metro and people in the city was that some of the people who had homes on the island were found to have homes also in the city. They had two residences. Some of them had homes even in Rosedale, in Moore Park. I know there was someone who had a home in a very wealthy area, to the south of where I lived, in Wychwood Park; they also had a home. It wasn't as if it was their single residence. The ordinary people who couldn't afford cottages or couldn't afford to live in Rosedale were quite upset that the government was subsidizing people in Rosedale who had a second home in a public park.

That's where the opposition to the housing and the lease arrangement came from. In principle, people said, "Why is it just that a certain group of people have the right to have an island home and I do not have that right?"

As you know, there was a lot of confusion over who had the leases: Were they original owners, were they squatters, were they opportunists? I'm sure among the islanders there were some very bona fide people, but we know through the records and through the intervention of the members on the government side that a lot of those people were not original islanders. They came in when they saw an opportunity, and then when the government basically subsidized this opportunity with this 99-year lease for $1 a month or whatever it is, it really upset people. That's what this bill does not address.

I'd be very interested to see what the members who were here in the last House have to say about that continuation of the 99-year lease. Do they still think that's a good idea? In my reading of the bill, it perpetuates that so-called sweetheart deal. I'm really trying to understand where the minister is coming from when he's saying he's ending the sweetheart deal. Is it still in here or is it not? Is the 99-year lease still in this bill or is it not apparent that this is in there?

Another concern is in terms of a cost -- I don't see any reference to it in the bill -- that is, in terms of the provision of ferry service. As you know, in order to provide for transportation to the island, you have to maintain a regular ferry service. My understanding of it is that Metro still has to provide for the ferry service, and I wonder whether the province is going to subsidize Metro or whether the city of Toronto is going to take over the cost of providing that ferry service, especially during the winter months. There's no reference to who is going to pay for that ferry service.

I hope the minister can make that clear, or the member for High Park-Swansea can make that clear, whether Metro is still going to pick up the tab for that or whether it's the city or the province.

The main opposition we have to this bill is on the principle that there seems to be in the public perception an advantage given to people who are now living on the island in terms of being able to reside on the island, and that the provision of financial support by the government to maintain their housing on the island is contrary to the opportunities other people may have. Certainly all of you here, and everyone, would love to have an opportunity to live on the island or own property on the island. It is a very attractive place.

The only trouble, is how do ordinary citizens get that same opportunity, to buy property, to have those leases, to maintain that residence on the island? That is the reason I think most members of our party that I've talked to do not support this bill.

Despite the protestations that were brought to this House when the NDP was in power -- in terms of the NDP government, at least they were very straightforward on it. They supported the island community. They were very forthright about it, unequivocal about it, and this is them fulfilling that mandate they had in the last government, so they're being consistent.

What I wonder about is, is the sweetheart deal for the lease arrangements still maintained or has that been changed, and does the government now in power feel it is no longer a sweetheart deal, this 99-year lease for $1 a month or whatever it is? I would like that clarified. At this point, as I said in my opening remarks, this government is essentially not clear on what happened to the sweetheart deal. Has it been eradicated? We know the co-op has been taken out, but what about the 99-year lease provision? Has that been taken out? That's the main question I have for the members opposite.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Hon Mr Leach: I want to thank the member for his comments on our legislation. I just wanted to address the last issue he raised on the sweetheart deal. I fully agree that this is one of the world's greatest sweetheart deals. However, the residents of the island, in good faith, under the laws of the land of the day, have taken out mortgages, committed themselves to expenditures, and it would be extremely damaging to the 250 homeowners on the islands and the 600 people who live there if we were to change direction at this point in time. If it wasn't for that, I can assure you we would just scrap this.

But they've taken out mortgages to rebuild the houses, to bring them up to building code standards. Being a reasonable and caring government, this is the most appropriate thing to do to ensure the residents don't go under any further concern.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think the member for Oakwood gave us a clear picture of what was happening on the island. But, Mr Minister, I do have some questions. Now that the Flying Toad Co-op is cancelled and you're responsible for the debts, I'd like to know the amount the government of Ontario is responsible for. How many dollars are you responsible for?

Also, now that you're allowing 12 lots to be built on, I want to make sure these lots are not located in the floodplain, because you will recall that when the previous government gave the co-op people the go-ahead to build 110 units, most of them were built in the floodplain. Also, the government was responsible for building a retaining wall to accommodate the co-op. I was dead against building such a retaining wall.

Another question: What about the building code? You say that the building code and the Planning Act will be respected under this. Can you assure us that the existing homes on the island have been inspected and that they meet all building code and Planning Act requirements?

Also, how much do you think these 12 lots will be sold for? You called this a sweetheart deal, and it was a sweetheart deal. Now I'm asking you, what will these 12 lots be going for?

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): This will be my only contribution to this debate, but I did listen very carefully once again to a position being put forward by the Liberal caucus. I don't know, maybe it's just the fact that I'm in my mid-40s now and I'm easily confused, but I don't understand where the Liberals are coming forward on this again. When they were in opposition in the early 1980s, they went after the Tory government time and time again to save the island community.

Then they were in power from 1985 to 1990, and Mr Peterson said, "We will save the island community," brought in a piece of legislation which was a transitional piece of legislation and said, "We're going to come up with a permanent solution."

Anybody who knows there's going to be a permanent solution over on the island knows that community has to be added to to maintain it and to strengthen it, to have the level of investment, the numbers of people living on that island. The member from Ottawa whatever knows that. But what the Liberals are doing once again is trying to have it both ways: "We favour the island community"; "We don't favour the island community."

We've got Hansards for people on all positions on all issues in the province of Ontario. I must say on this one the Conservatives suffer from the same disease, because Larry Grossman promised that the island community was going to be saved and put forward a plan to save the island community. Then, when we came up with a plan to save the island community, the Conservatives railed against it and said it was terrible. I remember the criticism from the members from Etobicoke whatever and Mississauga whatever; I remember those criticisms very clearly. At least now we will see some stability in the island community.

I recognize that. I recognize that the minister was forced into that by what I think was very solid, good policy by our government.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I'm certainly grateful that you do recognize Mississauga South. I'm disappointed that the third party House leader said "Mississauga whatever."

Mr Cooke: I had to do some quick thinking, and I can't do that any more.

Mrs Marland: You certainly would recall the number of times that I stood as the housing critic for the Conservatives in this House and, to use your words, railed against the NDP government on the issue about what was taking place on the Toronto Islands. The biggest injustice to building anywhere in this province was the legislation that was passed by the Bob Rae socialist government as it pertained to Toronto Islands. They exempted every single statute on the books in this province that every other developer in Ontario has to abide by --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Even the environmental ones.

Mrs Marland: Especially the environmental ones, as the former Minister of Environment for the Liberals has stated. The member for St Catharines is absolutely right.

When they were going to build this co-op housing project on Toronto Islands, they said they could build anywhere, even if it cost $5 million to build, and a retaining wall because they were building in the flood lands. They were building on wetlands. No one else in the province, thank goodness, is allowed to build on wetlands, but that government was behind a project that was going to permit that. That government also was behind the island trust having this wonderful lottery where anybody could put their name in, including the lawyer for the island trust itself. Ironically, he and his family's name was drawn out of the hat as being eligible for one of those homes.

Thank goodness this government has the fortitude to correct a major, gross error made by the previous government that was a lottery for life and benefited so few. It's an island resource for Ontarians, not just Metro Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakwood has two minutes if he requires.

Mr Colle: The government is very quiet, but the biggest complaint it had was this 99-year lease for $1 a day to have these waterfront properties. They are silent on that now, because despite the fact they were so easy to criticize the NDP on this part of it, now they have basically said, "The NDP were right, we were wrong and we are now partners in a sweetheart deal." The government now has changed its tune.

They now know the sweetheart deal can't be broken because of political reasons, so now not only has Larry Grossman made the deal, not only has David Cooke; it's now Al Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There's now the third dealmaker who's involved in a sweetheart deal which continues --

Mr Cooke: What about David Peterson?

Mr Colle: You can put anybody you want on it, but this deal for the islands continues under this bill, and that is the one major flaw with this bill.

The member for Etobicoke West said that if you can get a deal like this, it's like stealing: "They'd call that a thief in Metropolitan Toronto. If you can get a place to live for $30,000 for 100 years, you've just fleeced somebody. That's a steal. You've just ripped them off." You are continuing the ripoff if you really believed what you said in opposition before, and that is the major craw in people's throats, that this is a steal and people are continuing to be ripped off and this bill continues the ripoff at the peril of the majority of t