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

October 30, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L117 - Wed 30 Oct 1996 / Mer 30 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

WALLY CROUTER

JEAN POIRIER

PROPERTY TAXATION

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

MEMBER FOR DURHAM EAST

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WARDLAW, MULLIN, CARTER AND THWAITES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (TORONTO)

YOUNG OFFENDERS

CHAIR OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (KINGSTON)

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (TORONTO)

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

APPAREILS DE LOTERIE VIDÉO

RENT REGULATION

PAROLE SYSTEM

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

ALLEGED ABUSE OF PATIENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIREARMS CONTROL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Once again we have an example of Mike Harris promoting his policies of intolerance and divisiveness. In responding to media questions about groups participating in last weekend's days of protest, the Premier said, "If you saw the banners going by from some of the Communist parties, as I saw, and I guess the Iraqi group (and) Iranian group."

It is incomprehensible that the Premier of this province would have the audacity to make racist remarks when speaking about groups and organizations protesting against his government's policies. The Premier has shown that he does not understand this great country.

Every single person in this room, every person in this province and this entire country is from a family whose ancestors were immigrants to this land. As Canadian citizens we celebrate our heritage but we are proud Canadians. For the Premier to utter racist views towards people who are building new lives in this province is a slap in the face, an insult to all of us. We came to this country to make better lives for our families, yet the leader of the largest province in Canada believes, through his remarks, that it is acceptable to promote racist views.

My constituents in the riding of Oriole and people right across this province are outraged. The Premier owes an apology to everyone in this province. I demand that the Premier stand in his place today and offer an apology to the people of Ontario and specifically to my constituents in the riding of Oriole who are offended by his remarks.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Oriole, I listened to your statement and I think there were some parts in it that I found offensive and unparliamentary.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Well, we found his comments pretty offensive.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, come to order.

I appreciate that I allowed you to finish, but I would ask that you withdraw the remarks about the Premier making racist remarks.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, the concern I have is I don't know what other word to use to describe --

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, I'm not here to debate -- the member for Oriole, take your seat, please. I'm not here to debate the issue with you. The fact of the matter remains that you said the Premier was making racist remarks.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): They were racist comments.

The Speaker: I'll have to deal with the member for Welland-Thorold later. The fact of the matter remains it's unparliamentary. You cannot suggest someone in here is a racist or makes racist racist remarks.

Mr Kormos: What would you call a racist then? What kind of language would you --

Mrs Caplan: With due respect, I did not call the Premier a racist. I did say that his remarks were racist.

The Speaker: That's splitting hairs, in my opinion.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): It is not. There is a very substantial difference

The Speaker: No, it is not very substantive at all. The fact of the matter is you cannot claim that a member of this Legislature is making racist remarks. The fact remains it's unparliamentary. I ask the member for Oriole to withdraw.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you that it is unparliamentary for the leader of this government to make racist remarks.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, this is your last chance. You have the opportunity to withdraw or I will name the member for Oriole.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order --

The Speaker: Not right now. Your decision is --

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I believe the Premier's statements were racist.

The Speaker: That's fine. I will name the member for Oriole, Elinor Caplan, then. Would the member please leave the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm asking you to leave the chamber, the member for Oriole. You've been named.

Mrs Caplan: No, I won't.

Mrs Caplan was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: I'm not finished. The member for Welland-Thorold, I ask you to withdraw those comments that you made.

Mr Kormos: I concur with the member from Oriole.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please take your seat.

Mr Kormos: That's racist where I come from.

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, please take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, the last opportunity to take your seat. I'm not going to listen to a speech. The suggestion is very clear from the Chair: I consider the remarks unparliamentary. You can withdraw them or not withdraw; that's your choice. I suggest that you make it right now. Are you going to withdraw?

Mr Kormos: You're making a climate where people can engage in racist comments --

The Speaker: I ask the member for Welland-Thorold to leave the chamber. I name the member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me that probably without intentions on anybody's part we have come upon a pretty substantive issue here today in the actions that have just taken place. I have to tell you, sir, that I am troubled by the approach you are taking. I'm obviously not in a position to question your ruling and I'm not doing that.

The Speaker: Can I hear your point of order?

Mr Silipo: My point of order is that I think it's important, sir, that you clarify for this House the parameters that you are going to use to determine what is parliamentary and what isn't parliamentary. If I can just go --

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, I heard your point of order. I'd appreciate it if you could take your seat. I will address your point of order.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Let him finish.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside, I heard his point of order. I will give you --

Mr Cooke: You get allowed to finish in this place.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside, the point of order is not in order at this point in time. What I will say to the member for Dovercourt is, I appreciate the fact that every Speaker has different terms and acceptable levels of debate in this place, and each Speaker must let those levels find their own course. What I am suggesting to the members of this Legislature on both sides, charging another member of this House with being a racist in my opinion is unparliamentary.

I understand that you may disagree with that ruling. I understand that you may not appreciate that ruling. But the fact remains, the member for Dovercourt, I find it unparliamentary. I gave the member for Oriole a number of opportunities to withdraw. She chose not to. Now, you may not find it unparliamentary, but the important fact here is that I do. Those are my parameters and I have to stick with them.

Mr Silipo: On a separate point of order, a different point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask you then, if a member of this Legislature were to stand up and say that a certain person outside the Legislature attributed comments to the Premier or to another person of this Legislature which they deemed to be racist, and so what the member is doing in standing in their place is relating comments that were made by someone else, would you, in your ruling, consider that to be parliamentary or unparliamentary?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): That's not a point of order. That's a hypothetical question.

The Speaker: First off, with all due respect to the member for Dovercourt, the question you're putting to me is exactly that, a hypothetical question at this point in time. The fact remains that as of today it wasn't a question of someone else making the charge; it was a direct charge made by the member about the Premier. Member for Dovercourt, if you want to put hypothetical questions we could be here all day looking and searching for rulings, but the direct response put by the member for Oriole was that the Premier was a racist. All I'm saying is, that's just not parliamentary, and that's my position.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all due respect, and I don't want to get bounced for this, I think it's a pretty substantive point of order. When you questioned the member for Oriole, she said she wasn't accusing the member of being a racist.

The Speaker: Order. I say to the member for Sudbury -- please take your seat -- we can go over this ground a number of times. From my seat and what I heard, it was very clear -- the accusation, including the heckling that took place -- that the member was specifically saying that. You may have heard something different, and I'm not going to tell you what you heard and didn't hear. What I heard was that direct accusation.

With all due respect to the members in this place, in my opinion, if I allow that, the decorum in this House would reduce to such a level that debate would be impossible. You must accept that fact. If that charge can be levelled against any one of you in this place and I don't step in and protect that individual, this place would be in a shambles within 10 minutes, so you must protect the right. That is a very vile word and it must be very well documented that the Speaker stand and protect those who accuse others of being racists. It's a dangerous word. I will not have it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The difference in this case is that she said the remarks were racist; she did not say the Premier was a racist. There is a difference --

The Speaker: Order. I say to the member for St Catharines that I appreciate that's your point of view. In my opinion, and as I said to the member for Oriole, that's splitting hairs. It's splitting hairs. You have a point of privilege. I can take it up now or at the end of question period, if you'd like.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, on the point of privilege specifically: It is incumbent upon us to follow the standing orders of this Legislature, and I understand the point you're trying to make here, but we are also charged as legislators to set the example about how citizens of this province should be treated. In this particular case it appeared in the paper on Saturday that the Premier had made what was termed to be by others --

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, if you would make a concise point of order, I would greatly appreciate it. If you would directly get to the point and cite the order you're concerned with, I'd very much appreciate that.

Mr Bisson: I'm up on a point of privilege, and the point of privilege I'm trying to make is not a point of order. The privilege is that we, as members here, have to be respected by you, the Speaker. I don't want to quarrel with you but the point is that what the member for Oriole said was that it was alleged that there are certain people in our society who feel that the comments the Premier made were racist comments, and that's what she was alluding to. She did not call the Premier a racist. What she was alluding to was a view of others within this province who --

The Speaker: Take your seat, member for Cochrane South. Again, I don't want to get into a long debate about this, but I sat here, I heard the phrase, I heard the heckles and I heard the process as it came about. I heard it very directly, to the member for Cochrane South. I understand I think as well as anyone in this place the fairness and evenhandedness of a Speaker, and I feel that I'm fair and evenhanded, but I can't stand for those words in this place.

Mr Bisson: Let me get to the point.

The Speaker: No, I believe you've made your point.

Mr Bisson: No, I --

The Speaker: Then finally, if you could make your point directly.

Mr Bisson: My point of privilege is that it is the responsibility of the Speaker to protect the members of this Legislature in regard to the minority, but it is also the responsibility of the Legislature to protect the minority within the province and that is what's going out the window today with that comment.

The Speaker: That's fine. Statements.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You're going to have to give us some leeway here to make some remarks, because on the issue of privilege we are affected by what we can and cannot say. You argue, and I appreciate you argue as a Speaker, that what you heard are two different things; a number of other members are saying there's a difference between saying you, Speaker, are a racist versus what you say is racist, or you, Speaker, are stupid versus your remarks being stupid.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York, just take your seat. Member for Fort York, would you take your seat for a moment. At this point in time, and whether you agree or not, this entire occupation of points of order and privilege is debating a ruling. I made the ruling. If the member for Fort York has some very real concerns about my ruling, you can come and talk to me about it at any time. I will always talk to any member with respect to a ruling, clarification etc. But at this time in this place at this hour, I cannot continue to have members debate my ruling. The fact of the matter remains I made my ruling. I appreciate that some members may not agree with it.

Mr Marchese: You're limiting everything we can say, completely.

The Speaker: I would hardly suggest, to the member for Fort York, that by suggesting you can't use the word "racist" is limiting your ability to debate, so I will go --

Mr Marchese: There is a difference between --

The Speaker: Member for Fort York. I will go on. If you'd like to discuss this with me at a later date, I'm more than happy to talk to you about it, but right now I will not have any more challenges to my ruling.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): People across the province are becoming more and more vocal in their opposition to what Mike Harris is doing. I can tell you that in my own riding of Dovercourt, just in the last week alone, I've been at two meetings -- one last night and one the week before -- focusing on education, on issues around prescription user fees for seniors, on rent control, on child care, on Hydro.

In each of these meetings the discussion that was going on was by people who were seeing through the Mike Harris agenda, people who were seeing that in effect the outrage that was expressed this weekend comes as a result of a government that is uncaring, of a government that is continuing to attack the most vulnerable, of a government that doesn't care about reducing the deficit, but cares more about putting more and more money and more and more power into the hands of the wealthy citizens and the most powerful citizens in this province.

And yes, Speaker, it's also become clear to me as I've been listening to people that one of the things people have been saying very clearly is that the attitude Mr Harris has been portraying, and particularly the comments he has been portraying, they believe are racist.

WALLY CROUTER

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): November 1, 1996, is an historic day. It marks the 50th anniversary of Wally Crouter as host of CFRB's morning show, making him the longest-running morning show host in North America. Recently voted the favourite morning man in Toronto, he's also been Toronto's number one rated radio morning host for 50 years.

Wally Crouter is the ultimate broadcaster and I'd like to add that he's been the one constant factor in Toronto's history since the end of the Second World War.

He shepherded the baby-boomers of this great province through infancy and has seen them become parents and grandparents. He's seen governments and political parties rise and fall. He's interviewed and socialized with more Ontario premiers than anybody, from Leslie Frost to Mike Harris. He's put his considerable talents to the task of raising funds for many charities, including the CFRB Children's Fund, the Variety Club, diabetes research, MS, Easter Seals, the Tim Horton Camp for youngsters and outfitting hockey teams in the Northwest Territories.

I know members of this Parliament join the people of Ontario in appreciation of the job Wally Crouter has done during this past half-century, and on behalf of this House and the people of Ontario I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding talent and consummate professional: Wally Crouter, a true and caring human being and a very rare and unrivalled broadcaster.

I call upon all members of this House to join me in saluting the signal contribution of Wally Crouter, a living treasure of Ontario.

JEAN POIRIER

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Je désire exprimer la fierté que je partage avec tous les commettants et commettantes de la circonscription de Prescott et Russell suite à la nomination de l'ancien député de Prescott et Russell, Jean Poirier, au rang de chevalier de l'ordre national du Mérite de France.

Au fil des ans, notamment durant les 10 années qu'il a représenté la circonscription de Prescott et Russell ici même à Queen's Park, Jean Poirier s'est dévoué au nom de la francophonie. Il est juste de dire qu'une telle récompense pour les efforts qu'il a déployés est un honneur digne de ses convictions. Notons qu'au cours des dernières années, M. Poirier a été, entre autres, décoré du grade de commandeur de l'ordre de la Pléiade.

Je me joins donc aux citoyens de Prescott et Russell et à tous les francophones de l'Ontario pour offrir mes plus sincères félicitations à M. Poirier pour l'obtention de cette élogieuse distinction.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing a document that was, in the last election, up front on the part of the Tories. It is the Common Sense Revolution, if you would remember.

In that Common Sense Revolution, you made a promise, Minister. You say: "Historically, municipalities have responded to provincial funding limits by simply increasing local property taxes. There may be numerous levels of government in this province, but there is only one level of taxpayer." You went on to promise that you would work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions taken by your government would not result in local property taxes going up.

Well, Mr Minister, in the township of Matheson, because of the cuts in funding that you have done to their transfer payments, they are now moving to annex a number of townships in and around Black River-Matheson. It means that people living outside of the municipal boundaries that are affected, that are going to be annexed, are going to have their municipal taxes go up by 100% and 200%. It's not that Black River-Matheson wants to do this because they just feel good about it; it's because you leave them no choice.

They're in a position because of your municipal cuts to transfer payments coming from the province that they have no room to move if they're going to maintain services in the community of Matheson. It means to say local cottagers will have increased taxes. The two local mines in my area will have their taxes go up.

Minister, you have broken one of the promises in the Common Sense Revolution. To boot, the tax cut that people have got has just gone out the door in the township of Black River-Matheson. I say, shame on you.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph) : I am wearing flowers in the House today to celebrate the city of Guelph's success as the 1996 champion for the Community in Bloom competition. This award has been announced by the Ontario Parks Association. Competitors from across Ontario were judged on community involvement and participation in planting, on neighbourhood beautification, on industrial landscape improvements and donations to city beautification. Turf appearance, park and street trees, downtown planters, hanging baskets and even neighbourhood diversity in landscaping were all judged.

The judges found Guelph to be a beautifully clean and well-maintained city. As well, our city was commended for its excellent waste recycling management operations, for which we're a world leader in the new wet-dry facility.

Perhaps the most outstanding feature that was significant in our success was the beautiful floral clock in Riverside Park that has been a must-see for visitors to Guelph for years.

It's my pleasure to congratulate all of those businesses, groups and community members who worked hard to make Guelph the 1996 winner of the Community in Bloom competition. From time to time, all of us in this House here think that our cities are the most beautiful. This time, Guelph's beauty has been duly recognized.

MEMBER FOR DURHAM EAST

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): When opposition MPPs receive feedback from their constituents that the Harris government is bad for Ontario, it galvanizes us even more to get our message through to the Harris government. But when a Tory MPP admits to his local paper that "the public is not being supportive enough of the Common Sense Revolution," I say, "Kudos to the people of Durham East."

The weekend Port Perry Star reported "O'Toole...hints he's already had enough," that "virtually all the feedback coming into his constituency office is negative and that he receives little encouragement from the people of Durham East," that "he receives constant complaints and zero encouragement." O'Toole finishes with, "I don't know why anyone would want the job." To that I say, "Bye, bye, O'Toole." It might serve the Tory MPP well to reconsider that his job is to represent the people of Durham East. The people of Durham East are saying that the Harris government is all wet.

I also say we expect the member for Durham East to stand up for the people of Durham East. To the Premier I say, let's call a by-election.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Never has Ontario's health care system been in such chaos. Let me just explain some of the ingredients that have contributed to this chaos. We've had $1.3 billion in cuts to hospitals. We've had layoffs of thousands of nurses in the province. We've had layoffs of thousands of support staff. We've had an absolute decrease in the quality of care for Ontarians. We've got a restructuring process under way for our hospitals which is completely unrelated to the $1.3 billion in cuts. There's little community input. There are no human resource plans.

There's no commitment from the province that there will be provincial capital. There are incredible demands on local communities to raise millions and millions of dollars which, to the three communities of Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Windsor, amounts so far to about $500 or $600 per household.

With respect to the doctors, we've got a minister who was provocative in the spring, threatened the doctors in the spring, made a tax on the doctors of the province. Doctors began withdrawing services. Then the minister said he would sit down and negotiate. He took several weeks to set up a negotiating committee. Then he got a deal, and then the minister himself interfered with the ratification process. Now the doctors will turn down the agreement and again our system will be in further chaos.

The minister is incompetent, and he has presided over the --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

WARDLAW, MULLIN, CARTER AND THWAITES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to acknowledge a law firm in my riding of Dufferin-Peel that is celebrating 100 years of practice. The firm was formed in 1896 by John Island, a farmer's son whose family immigrated from Ireland and settled in Mono township in the county of Dufferin. John Island practised in Orangeville for 32 years until his death, after which time the practice was sold to Norman Wardlaw for $1,600.

Norman was born in Chinguacousy township, within the town of Caledon. He struggled through the tough years of the Depression and at one point shared office space with another lawyer in town, H.B. Church. Norman served his country in the Second World War and returned to his practice in 1945. Norman's son James joined the practice in 1956 and became a partner immediately after being called to the bar.

James Wardlaw QC has been very active in the Canadian Bar Association, was elected a bencher of the law society in 1979 and became a life bencher in 1995. He was awarded a law society medal for services to the profession in 1994.

Geoffrey Mullin QC joined the firm in 1969, with the two partners being assisted by different lawyers over the years.

Terry Carter and David Thwaites joined the firm as partners, now known as Wardlaw, Mullin, Carter and Thwaites. This firm is the largest in Dufferin-Peel. Congratulations to the partners and associates Jim Wardlaw, Geoff Mullin, Terrance Carter, David Thwaites, Patricia Sproule Ward and Mervyn White.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In regard to the previous ruling, I'd like to add to the record so we understand the comments that were made by the member for Oriole.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Take your seat, please. First and foremost, I've made my ruling. Secondly, I caution the members, after a series of points of order, that any more points of order would be challenging the Chair. At this point in time, it would not be appropriate for me to hear what your comments are or put them on the record with respect to my ruling, because at this point in time I've made it. We're going to move on.

Mr Agostino: Can I ask you to review the comments that were made --

The Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please. I would make the same offer to the member for Fort York as I make to the member for Hamilton East: If you want to discuss any of these concerns or your concerns with the ruling with me after, I'd be more than happy to meet with you. At this time, it's out of order for you to stand in your place and speak to those. I have no problem at all if you would like to discuss this in my office at a later date; I'll be happy to talk to you about it. But right now it's not even close to being appropriate or in order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (TORONTO)

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier, who I understand is expected in question period. If my understanding is not correct, I'll have to stand down my first question. I appreciate the moment to wait for the Premier to arrive. As you will realize, my first question is for the Premier.

Premier, this morning some two million people woke up to news that you are likely going to eliminate their local level of government in order to create a huge new bureaucracy to govern Metropolitan Toronto. Many were rather shocked that Mike Harris, the man who likes to talk about bringing government to the people, now believes that bigger and more remote government is better government.

Premier, your plans for this mega-Metro, a huge, nameless, faceless bureaucracy, run counter to everything you promised during the election. I want you to remember what your task force on Metro Toronto said about the existing cities within Metro, the very cities you're now planning to cut. I quote from the task force when it says, "The government closest to the people is considered the most responsive, efficient and accountable." Premier, what would make you disagree today with your own task force? What new information do you have that would make you want to throw out the Golden report and throw out your own task force report in favour of a mega-Metro, a giant new bureaucracy?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know what you're talking about, but maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs knows something.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I first want to state that no decision has been made as of yet. However, having said that, I can say that if that decision were to be made, it would be totally consistent with the Common Sense Revolution, as it would eliminate duplication and waste and provide better government for the people of this area.

Mrs McLeod: This is getting increasingly bizarre. This minister has made it very clear what it is he wants to do, whether he says a decision has technically been made or not. It's very clear what the Premier has decided he wants to do. We are being told this is a done deal, so let's talk about the done deal and why you're doing it.

The very municipalities, Minister, that your Premier, when he was campaigning, said were the most responsive, the most efficient, the most accountable are about to be demolished in favour of a giant new bureaucracy. Mr Speaker, I think you know the risks of this kind of scheme. I think you know that not only will this huge new bureaucracy be removed from the people, but this is also a back door to market value and market value assessment. This isn't just about restructuring; it is also about taxes.

Minister, as you prepare to bulldoze your way through the very governments that your Premier once called the most responsive, the most efficient and the most accountable, can you tell me why you want to centralize power and take the voice away from local communities?

Hon Mr Leach: What this government wants to do and what I certainly want to do for my communities, the communities I live in, is to make sure that the delivery of services is done in the most cost-effective way possible and that government is provided as close to the people as possible, as long as it's effective, cost-effective and something that the individual communities want. But again, I stress, none of those decisions have been made as of yet. They will be in the not-too-distant future, I'm sure, but they haven't as of yet.

Mrs McLeod: We all have memories of previous Tory governments forcing regional governments across this province and saying they were going to be so much more efficient and we'd save so much money. In fact, that has not proven to be the case at all.

Yes, there have been studies, Minister. You've had a year and a half to study this. What have you done with the studies? It appears you're ready to throw them all into the trash can and now you're telling us that you want to ram the whole thing through by Christmas. You have studies of the issue. You want to impose an arbitrary direction and yet you're going to try to ram this through. This is Bill 26 before Christmas all over again, the Tory bulldozer on the move. It doesn't matter what people think; you're going to shut them right out of the decision.

In August, the Premier released a report that stated, and again I quote, "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their government rather than spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does." Minister, as you prepare to radically change the government of the people of Metro Toronto, their taxes, their representation, will you allow the people of Metro to vote through referendum before you impose a huge new bureaucracy on them?

Hon Mr Leach: I think the people did have a referendum. It took place in June 1995.

I'd also like to state that when they're talking about ramming things through and doing things without consultation, there have been at least -- at least -- a dozen studies undertaken on governance in the GTA. All we're doing is taking all the information that has been developed to date, we're analysing it and we're getting advice from a number of different sources. When we have an opportunity to consolidate all that advice, we'll make a decision and we'll implement it, but until that decision is made, nothing's happening.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if I may, just for the record, the quote that I read into the record was a quote from a report on the Premier calling for a referendum.

The Speaker: I appreciate that, but you've got to tell me who the question's to.

Mrs McLeod: I was just making a statement for the record, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: That's out of order.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I am placing my second question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Yesterday we heard some extremely shocking allegations about the conduct of ministry staff and officials at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre facilities last winter. We heard about youth being beaten, stripped, thrown naked into cells and denied medical attention, all of this in an adult detention facility. We all know about the tragic death of James Lonnee, also in an adult detention facility.

You said in relationship to the incidents that took place at the time that you were going to review it, that you were going to take the problems in hand, that we should be assured the problems would be dealt with. Yet today we see in the Hamilton Spectator that the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre has been called a powder keg, one that is ready to blow due to overcrowding. They're sleeping three to a cell there with dozens of people on the floor, and a lot of that is due to the fact that they have a surplus of young offenders, which is squeezing the adult inmates.

One teenager in your care has already died, Minister. We're worried about what's happening to these young people today. It is unbelievable that young people are being kept in another adult facility, one that has been called an overcrowded powder keg. Can you guarantee the safety of these young people?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This is -- I'm not sure how to term it -- the big, misleading line from the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Oakwood, come to order.

I appreciate the fact that you may not know how to term it, but that's definitely not one way to term it. Would you please withdraw.

Hon Mr Runciman: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The point I'm making is that overcrowding and the use of adult facilities with youth wings, if you will, is not something new. It has been in existence for some time. Certainly we've had problems with respect to the corrections facilities themselves in terms of aging, in terms of the whole nature of the system.

We are the first government that has committed to undertaking major structural change within the corrections system in terms of closing some of our facilities that are over 100 years of age, a whole range of initiatives, building brand-new facilities in Ontario. I think we have much to be proud of. With respect to young offenders, we are the first government that is moving in the direction of looking at a dedicated youth facility in the Metro area.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you are the first government in the history of Ontario to have a child die in an adult detention facility, and it happened on your watch. Surely you don't think it is in some way misleading to want to raise the concern about other young people today in adult detention facilities and potentially at risk.

We've been advised that there are currently 53 young people in the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre. Many of these are overflowing from the Metro West Detention Centre in Toronto. The Hamilton centre is virtually at capacity. They can sleep maybe a few more kids in an overflow unit if they open that, and that is not the only potential danger spot. We have been advised that there are currently about 140 young people being kept at the Metro West Detention Centre, which is another adult facility. Their youth wing has capacity for only 125 kids, so they are already overcrowded at 140.

You have admitted that young people should not be held in adult detention facilities. Why are there still so many young people in adult detention facilities when it is clearly inappropriate and clearly dangerous?

Hon Mr Runciman: This is an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions, even going back to 1987 when the member for Timiskaming was the Minister of Correctional Services, with respect to a crisis in terms of accommodation for young offenders aged 16 to 18, a real crisis, as it was described at that time.

We are indeed moving to address this situation in a much more effective and wide-ranging way than any government in recent memory. In fact the child advocate has been involved with this process every step of the way. We received a letter from Judy Finlay, the child advocate, with respect to our ministry's response to the report and recommendations on the management of youth. She indicated in her letter, dated September 13:

"I have reviewed the ministry response. I am pleased the response offers both immediate and long-term strategies to address recommendations outlined in the report of the office of child and family service advocacy."

The child advocate is very much involved, and we're very optimistic about the changes we are undertaking.

Mrs McLeod: A child has died on your watch. Young people in adult detention facilities have been mistreated on your watch. You have said it is not appropriate for young people to be housed in adult detention facilities. The question we're asking is, why is it continuing? Why is it still happening?

It isn't just Hamilton-Wentworth, it isn't just Metro West. There are currently 22 young people at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. There are 13 young people at the Windsor Detention Centre. In Kenora there are 22 kids in their unit. On the basis of just those institutions, there are at least 250 young people in Ontario today who are being housed in adult detention centres.

We know and you know, Minister, that the culture of these institutions is unsuitable for young offenders. You know that the staff isn't always trained to deal properly with youth. We know that the kids aren't being properly supervised. You have surely had enough evidence of how dangerous, how inappropriate this is. You've said that overcrowding itself is a recipe for violence.

I believe that the lives of these 250 children, and others that we don't know about and can't include in our count, are in your hands today and that you have a responsibility to ensure that we do not face another tragedy like the death of James Lonnee. Will you undertake today to guarantee the safety of these young people by removing them from adult detention facilities?

Hon Mr Runciman: Overcrowding in Ontario's jails is not a new phenomenon. This is a legacy left to us by previous governments. We don't control the number of inmates sent to the system by the courts every day. We have wide-ranging fluctuations in population. We are addressing this in a very effective way, supported by the child advocate. We're making the tough decisions that were not made --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Runciman: I should point as well, during the time the Liberals were in power from 1985 to 1990, they almost doubled provincial spending in this province from $26 billion to $50 billion. What did they spend on the corrections system? In very difficult financial times, this government is moving to correct the situation left to us by them.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Give those kids a break.

Hon Mr Runciman: You don't have any credibility.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Patti Starr is in charge.

The Speaker: Order. Government members come to order, please. Minister of Agriculture, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There's a level of debate that we get into, but some of the comments are completely sickening, and I would ask the member for Hamilton East to withdraw that one.

Mr Agostino: I withdraw that remark.

The Speaker: Thank you.

CHAIR OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier and it concerns the conduct of the Chair of Management Board.

The Toronto Sun report that Dave Johnson "was disturbed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision" on the TTC and said there will be a "reassessment" of the board. This is the same Dave Johnson, Chair of Management Board, who is actually before the labour relations board as a party. In fact, the Labour Relations Board ruled against Dave Johnson on October 22. Then, just three days later, the Chair of Management Board, Dave Johnson, threatens the independence of the labour relations board. He says they will be reassessed.

Premier, the labour relations board is just like a judge. It is supposed to be free from political interference. Recently, a federal minister, David Collenette, had to resign because he interfered with an independent board. Now the Chair of Management Board has committed a far more serious transgression. He has threatened retaliation against the labour relations board because he doesn't like its decision.

Premier, when are you going to ask for the resignation of the Chair of Management Board?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think it would be in order to hear from the Chair of Management Board himself.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I would be happy to address this particular issue. I was approached by a member of the press with regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I did indicate that my concern was for the riders of the Toronto Transit Commission. If you will note in the article, if you have a copy of the article, I expressed concern for the riders of the Toronto Transit Commission. Indeed, I would assume that's a sentiment shared --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): So you're going to fire the labour relations board.

Hon David Johnson: I made no reference to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The issue is that I expressed concern with regard to the riders of the Toronto Transit Commission; that the riders of the Toronto Transit Commission deserve to be able to use the system that they were paying for.

The Speaker (Mr Chris Stockwell): The answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: I also referred to a report that I indeed have received in a draft form from the Management Board with regard to the overall activities and as they relate to the strike. If you look at the quotes, I made no reference in terms of the Ontario --

The Speaker: The question has been answered. Thank you.

Mr Hampton: This was a question to the Premier and it was directed to the Premier for a specific reason. It concerns the Premier's standards for cabinet ministers.

Jean Charest -- the Premier might know of Jean Charest, the leader of the federal Conservative Party -- had to resign because he telephoned a judge on a particular case. This is far more serious. This is a case where the Chair of Management Board, in the context of what has happened, is threatening the members of the labour relations board because he doesn't like its decision. That's what's happening here. It's not a matter as to whether the Chair of Management Board meant well or didn't mean well. The fact of the matter is, he has made public comments that threaten the independence of the labour relations board.

Is the Premier saying that it would be all right for the Chair of Management Board to make threatening comments about a judge if a judge made a decision the Chair of Management Board didn't like? Is the Premier saying that's okay in his government?

Hon David Johnson: The only difficulty is that I did not make any comments with regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Indeed, I have the

article before me. I indicated, "A number of people have suffered." This is with regard to the Toronto Transit Commission. "It is an extremely unfortunate and very bad precedent to have the TTC shutdown." I suspect we all agree with that. That says nothing about the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

I indicated, "I'm...terribly distressed that a...number of people have been greatly inconvenienced by the shutdown of the TTC," simply. I indicated that I would be getting a report from Management Board with regard to the activities of Management Board.

Interjection: Read the whole thing.

Hon David Johnson: Read the whole thing? I'm more than happy to read the whole thing. Nowhere in this

article do I mention the labour relations board. Indeed, nowhere in the interview did I threaten or indicate anything to do with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Well, Speaker, I've got the

article too, and what's important here is the context that members of the labour relations board would read this

article in.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. Government members, please come to order. I'd like to hear the leader of the third party. Go ahead.

Mr Hampton: What's important here is the context that members of the labour relations board would read this comment in. They have just made a decision against the Chair of Management Board. Three days later the Chair of Management Board is in the press. The Chair of Management Board may not like it, but he is responsible for the comments he makes. He is responsible for the stories that result, and this is the story:

"The Ontario Labour Relations Board will undergo a reassessment after allowing a shutdown of the TTC, Management Board Chairman Dave Johnson says.

"Johnson was disturbed by the labour relations board's decision that saw the Toronto Transit Commission, which services one million" people, shut down. And then -- this is not just in the Toronto Sun, it's also in the Toronto Star, and it says:

"Management Board Chair David Johnson, too, referred to the TTC shutdown....

"And he promised a review of the labour board."

My question, Speaker --

The Speaker: No, it's been put, thank you. The leader of the third party, come to order, please. Management Board Chair.

Hon David Johnson: Well, Mr Speaker, I guess the question is, is it okay for the leader of the third party to stand up and read what is obviously not my quote in the paper, which has no quotation marks --

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): It's in quotation marks.

Hon David Johnson: It does not have quotation marks around it. Show the

article to the member behind. My quotes in this

article are clear. My quotes deal with concern with the riders of the transit commission and my quotes indicate the fact that I will be receiving reports and those reports are from Management Board with regard to the overall context of the strike. Not anywhere am I attributed a quote with regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and surely that should be evident even to the leader of the third party.

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

Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, a question to the Premier again because this concerns his standards for his government. I've already cited where the federal Minister of National Defence, David Collenette, had to step down because he wrote a letter to an independent board about a particular case, and I have already cited where the now leader of the federal Conservative Party had to step down because he contacted a judge about a particular case.

Here we have the Chair of Management Board, who is currently a party before the labour relations board in an unfair labour practice charge, and he has a decision made against him by the board and three days later he is in the press, and it's true, you said a number of people suffered as a result of the TTC shutdown. And then -- and it's very clear who the attribution is to: "Johnson said, noting the actions of the board will be reviewed."

So I say to the Premier, it's very clear that even in Brian Mulroney's government, someone who merely contacts a judge or an independent board has to step down. Here we have a member of your cabinet threatening a board. When are you going to call for the Chair of Management Board's resignation? He has interfered with an independent tribunal.

Hon Mr Harris: No, he hasn't. The allegations are false and that's been clarified to you.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Is that what he says? There's not going to be any review?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Unbelievable. You're in denial, a total state of denial.

Mr Hampton: I go back to the context in which this is made. The government has already fired four chairs of the labour relations board. Just in the past month, this government has fired four of the co-chairs of the labour relations board. The labour relations board reaches a decision which the Chair of Management Board disagrees with, so three days later we see in the press, and it's a very clear attribution, it's very clear what the Chair of Management Board is referring to, "`A number of people suffered as a result of the TTC shutdown,' Johnson said, noting the board's actions will be reviewed." Not Management Board's actions; the labour relations board's actions will be reviewed.

I say to the Premier and ask the question again: It's very clear what is being attributed and it's very clear what the comments are. Is it okay in your government for a cabinet minister to threaten an independent tribunal? Is it okay in your government for a cabinet minister to threaten a judge?

Hon Mr Harris: Other than some silly allegations, completely erroneous, completely false, denied by the minister, which I have asked him about, you've not brought me any little piece of evidence that indicates any impropriety has been done. Perhaps you have problems in your own mind understanding that, but I do not.

Mr Hampton: The Premier usually agrees with the Toronto Sun. It would seem that today he disagrees with the Toronto Sun. But the Toronto Sun wasn't the only newspaper to hear the comments of the Chair of Management Board. The Toronto Sun was joined by the Toronto Star. This is what the Toronto Star says, "Management Board Chair Dave Johnson, too, referred to the TTC shutdown as an `unfortunate aspect.'" Then it says that "he promised a review of the labour board." You have two reputable newspapers in Toronto that heard it very clearly, so Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I'll try again, as I was rudely interrupted by the Conservative side. It's very clear that the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star heard the same thing. They heard the Chair of Management Board say in the context of the TTC decision that he was going to order a review of the labour relations board.

I put it to the Premier again. I'm not confused. The Toronto Sun isn't confused. The Toronto Star isn't confused. When are you going to ask for the resignation of the Chair of Management Board, who has clearly threatened the independence of the labour relations board? When are you going to ask for his resignation?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the answer to the direct question is very obvious. I might indicate, you know, that I have asked about this and to the best of my knowledge, other than reading the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star has not talked to anybody or heard anything else.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with actions of government members as well. It has to do with the incident at Ipperwash on September 6, where for the first time ever one of our native people was killed during a dispute about land.

We have been told that on three separate occasions the Conservative member for Lambton, Mr Beaubien, was at the command post of the OPP. We've also been informed that on three separate occasions apparently he was in touch with your office, either yourself or your staff, including on one occasion written communication. That is right up until the shooting took place on September 6.

Premier, can you confirm that Mr Beaubien talked to either yourself or a member of your staff during those three days leading up to the shooting of the native at Ipperwash?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Not to the best of my knowledge. If the Attorney General knows more, I'm happy to refer it to him.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As everyone knows, there are currently criminal charges pending in connection with the events surrounding the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, and in the circumstances it would not be appropriate to comment on these issues.

Mr Phillips: Last week the crown decided not to proceed with charges. We have at Ipperwash an extremely serious matter. I return to my question to you, Premier, because it was to your office -- in fact, our information, it was to you, Premier -- that the call was placed by the member for Lambton on three separate occasions including four hours before the shooting took place, to you, Premier, including written communications.

The question to you, Premier, is this: Did Mr Beaubien speak to you or anyone on your staff in those hours leading up to that shooting?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Premier? Oh, I'm sorry. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, this is the subject of a very serious criminal --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. That was my fault. I said "Premier" when the question had been passed the previous time to the Attorney General. It is appropriate now that the Attorney General's on the floor. Attorney General?

Hon Mr Harnick: As you're aware, there are very serious criminal charges pending, and anything that could be the subject of evidence at those criminal charges, it would be most appropriate not to discuss. In addition, there are civil suits pending against the crown arising out of these matters and we have to be very careful not to interfere with the rights of private litigants. So it would not be appropriate to discuss this.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Premier. On the anniversary of the referendum in Quebec and the most unfortunate comments made by the then Premier of that province, subsequent to the outcome of the vote being made public, with regard to various groups within that province, would the Premier of Ontario clarify for this House the meaning of the remarks attributed to him regarding participants in the major demonstration in this city over the weekend and in relation particularly to the expressed concern by the Arab community and the Iranian community about the impact and import of comments attributed to the Premier of Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm happy to respond. I can't imagine what it possibly has to do with statements that were made by the former Premier of Quebec. But, quite frankly, there was a letter written to me by the Canadian Arab Federation, who seemed to imply, because I acknowledged they were in a parade which I said was very successful -- I congratulated the organizers of the parade, I congratulated the parade, I congratulated all those who participated -- that somehow or other they read into that some denigration of Arabs or Iranians and Iraqis.

I have written back and assured them that is not the case; that I complimented those involved in Saturday's protest parade and I further indicated -- and I thank the member for the question, to clarify any misrepresentations -- that if my remarks or indeed the

interpretation of my remarks caused offence, I've asked them to please accept my apologies.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate that final remark by the Premier, but could the Premier indicate to the members of the assembly whether he believes it contributes to social harmony and to the respect in which all members of various ethnic groups must be held within this province for the head of the government to single out particular groups for mention in this way?

I do believe that there is an analogy, unfortunately, between the impact of these statements and the unfortunate impact of the statements of M. Parizeau on referendum night in Montreal.

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, let me assure you and members of the House, and indeed the Arab federation. If they've taken offence I apologize. Let me assure they were not singled out. I had acknowledged a very large presence in the parade; a lot of teachers -- I am a former teacher -- they were parading with. I mentioned a number of union members. I mentioned a number of associations. If some chose out of that to mention one or two or three or four or five as opposed to all who were there, I think that is regrettable and indeed I have apologized. If there is any offence that has been taken, I assure people that was not my intention.

Furthermore, I want it clear that I've been very complimentary on all those who took

part in Saturday's parade and the cause and the concerns that they expressed.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Whisper in his ear.

Mr Clement: I wanted to put it for the public record, actually.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Government members are allowed to ask questions. I ask that you maintain order.

Mr Clement: Minister, there was an interesting

article in the Toronto Star today entitled "Ontario's Untutored Minds," in which 22 professors offered what they called a "bleak report card" on today's first-year university students. One of those professors in fact taught me a course called Politics and Morality, but we won't hold that against him. I did want to put on the record that this is a stunning indictment on the quality of some of the students who have been educated and tutored by our educational system.

I wanted to know from the Minister of Education, for the record, on behalf of my constituents, what his views are on the quality of education in our system and some of the criticisms that have been offered by these 22 professors of educational institutions in the province of Ontario.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for the excellent question. I share his concern and the concern that was expressed in the

article for the quality of the education that graduates of our secondary school programs are receiving. I note, and I've noted over the course of the last year, that there are a variety of remedial programs available in colleges and universities to first-year students to bring them up to an acceptable entrance level, and of course that's not acceptable to anyone, as was indicated in that article.

This government is committed, and we have been committed from the time we formed the government, to examine the curriculum in our secondary school program to make sure it's up to the demanding standards of our colleges and our universities. We're going to ensure that our curriculum in fact meets the highest standards in the world. We're reviewing math, reading, writing, science, history, geography and technology, among other areas, to make sure that we have those high graduation standards.

In addition to that, we have initiated the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which will be in charge of testing students across the province, therefore ensuring that colleges and universities can take the level of accreditation that a high school diploma should represent.

Mr Clement: Minister, one of the penultimate paragraphs of this particular

article says, and I quote, "Get the bureaucrats, whether union or government, off the backs of principals and teachers." It seems to me to be a very fair point. I'd like to know what our government's position is. How are we going to address this situation?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I candidly agree with the professors, although apparently --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Although obviously some of the members opposite don't agree that we need to take some of the bureaucrats off the shoulders of teachers and principals across the province, I quite candidly agree with that observation and with the one made by my counterpart in New Brunswick when they said the current layers of administration and decision-making, together with the competing forces of many interest groups, are formidable barriers to improving the system. I think that reifies that observation.

I don't believe it's the fault of the teachers, the students or the parents in Ontario that some graduation standards aren't up to par. I believe we need to examine, as we are, our system of funding and our system of governance to make sure our teachers and students have the opportunity to perform with excellence, and that's what we intend to do.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (KINGSTON)

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You were asked a question regarding municipal restructuring that involved the city of Kingston and the counties of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington yesterday.

From the self-congratulatory tone of the question and response one would gather that the restructuring has gone on without a hitch and that everyone is quite happy. You know that's not the case, Mr Minister. Local politicians are feeling betrayed by you because of your failure to live up to a commitment you made to over 200 politicians and individuals at the county courthouse in Napanee on May 9. At that time you stated that unless there was one restructuring deal brought forward by the two counties and the city, you would appoint a commission.

Minister, you know that hasn't happened. You were questioned about this at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in August by politicians of the city of Kingston and Frontenac county. You reiterated your comment that you would appoint a restructuring commission to look at the western urban boundary sooner rather than later. Now you've backed away from this commitment. Minister, won't you verify today that you made this commitment not once but twice at two different meetings?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I repeat that the Lennox and Addington county restructuring was extremely successful and that every community in Lennox and Addington is extremely happy with the way things are going. Frontenac and Kingston townships are very happy with the way they've restructured their county. There's no doubt that another issue may have to be addressed, and I've reserved judgement to appoint a commission at some time in the future. Both counties have to do a tremendous amount of work to implement the decisions they've made to date. My recommendation to them was to get on with that restructuring.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me just show you, Mr Minister, the lead editorial in the Kingston Whig-Standard today which reads, "Minister Leach Betrays Kingston."

The very last paragraph reads: "For a government that has pledged to make decisions based on common sense, Minister Leach's abdication of responsibility over the Ernestown boundary issue represents a breakdown in both philosophy and action. He has betrayed this community."

How can you expect other municipalities to restructure when they can't trust you to live up to the commitments you've made to them?

Hon Mr Leach: If we're going to be quoting newspaper articles, let's finish the quote: "The minister says that he may consider the issue again further down the road, but in the meantime Ernestown township will proceed to amalgamate with Lennox and Addington," which was the choice of the local community to do. All townships and communities within Lennox and Addington and the upper tier supported having that type of restructuring. We support that restructuring. However, we will revisit the issue in the future if there's a need to do so.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (TORONTO)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is also to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You continue to pretend in this Legislature that you have not yet made a decision on the question of amalgamating the six area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, yet you have no problem and no hesitation, in talking to the media, to state that clearly is your preferred option. When you say, for example, "`If you can run a city with one police department...why do you need six economic development departments...six fire departments,'" you're clearly stating your preferred position.

I ask you: Will you have the decency to show some respect for the Parliament of this province and state here in this House that while you may not have passed the final cabinet minute, for all intents and purposes you've really made up your mind and that the recommendation you have taken or are taking to cabinet is to amalgamate the six area municipalities into one upper-tier municipality in Metropolitan Toronto? Will you at least have the decency to confirm that today, Minister?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think anyone with a little common sense could understand that that's the type of question that must be asked, and we're looking for answers to that question. Does it make any sense to have that duplication? Does it make any sense to have seven garbage collection agencies? Does it make any sense to have six planning --

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Bring Crombie to the Legislature, for God's sake.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I hear Mel Lastman is coming to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Cochrane South, could you take your own seat. Heckling is difficult.

Hon Mr Leach: There are a number of options that are still on the table. If somebody asked what's my preferred option, yes, I have a preferred option, but that doesn't make it a decision of the government. When the government has an opportunity to review all of the options and all of the input that goes into that, this government will make the decision.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On this question, Minister, I want to tell you this. The people of Ontario can feel you slithering hither and thither on this question, as I feel it every day. The people across Ontario may think they're safe because we're only talking about Metro restructuring, but how are the people going to know about whether or not some people in Hamilton are likely to be joined to Brantford or Guelph, or Halton, for that matter? People are very concerned.

Can you give the people of Ontario any assurances that you're not going to determine their unique future without any consultation whatsoever and that you will not decide by fiat or simply the iron fist of Mike Harris on these very questions?

Hon Mr Leach: I'll refer back to the previous question on Kingston and Lennox and Addington, where we said repeatedly that we wanted local decisions on local issues and they made those local decisions on local issues.

Every region within Ontario is not the same, and we'll deal with each individual region on its own merits and make decisions that we feel are appropriate for those regions.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): You are being an idiot, Mike.

The Speaker: The member for Brampton North, I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Spina: I withdraw, sir.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last week I had the opportunity to proclaim the opening of Ontario Library Week at the Fort Erie Public Library, and a couple of days later I had the pleasure of attending a celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Wainfleet Township Public Library. Also, the Port Colborne Public Library has recently undergone extensive renovations to improve the high-quality services it offers to the good people of Port Colborne.

I believe these libraries play an essential intellectual, cultural and social role in these small communities in my riding. I would ask the Minister if her ministry will continue to support libraries in small communities like those in Niagara South.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): As the honourable member knows, we are currently examining what the provincial interest should be in a province-wide library system. I want to assure the honourable member that we remain committed to a very strong province-wide library network.

As the member is aware, libraries are a part of the Who Does What initiative and I have spent the last nine months in consultation with the library community -- that's municipalities, library workers and users and the private sector -- to discuss what we should be doing with respect to the whole issue of user fees and board governance and the role of government. I hope to be sharing my findings with the Who Does What committee in the next few weeks.

Mr Hudak: As you will recall, my office surveyed library patrons in Niagara South on library services reform, and I thank you for taking the time to read my survey as part of your extensive consultations. I understand that as part of your consultations you have met with many members of the library community, including Mary Padolyak, the CEO of the Wainfleet Township Public Library.

Madam Minister, from your extensive consultations and deliberations on library issues, what conclusions can you draw and share with the House about user fees as a potential source of revenue?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Thank you again for the question. I believe it's a well-known fact that most municipalities pay 85%, sometimes as much as 90%, of the costs to operate their local libraries. Given this fact, I think we have to ask ourselves how we as a province can then argue against giving them the tools by which to help themselves. When we provide an average of only 10% of the funding, I don't believe we should then be in a position of dictating to municipalities how they should be raising the additional revenues.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Premier. Premier, this relates to an issue in your own riding so I hope you will answer me directly. As the Premier will know, hospitals in northern Ontario are hurting because of the government's cuts to the health budget. Again, I go back to your own riding, Mr Premier, where the Civic Hospital which, through no fault of its own, had to close down the operating room on various occasions because of your cuts to health care.

Premier, let's go back to your commitment in a document that you sold to the people in northern Ontario, called A Voice for the North. You indicated that if elected you would recognize the special needs of people in the north, you would give northerners a direct say in change in the Ministry of Health's planning and resource allocations so that it includes more consideration for northern priorities and conditions. Again, Mr Premier, this was from your document, A Voice for the North.

Premier, why haven't you kept your commitment to provide northern hospitals with a say in changing the Ministry of Health planning and resource allocation? Again, Mr Premier, this was your commitment. This is your hospital.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister met with him two weeks ago and I think he could --

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The Premier is quite correct. I met with the leaders of the hospitals in North Bay and frankly, they told me a couple of things that I thought were quite innovative and quite exciting and were signs of very good planning that's going on.

As you know, North Bay and the hospitals around North Bay have been very much leaders over the past few years in terms of restructuring the system. Most recently, they've gotten together to ensure that they are working together to get rid of the waste and duplication and overlap in services there. They are in the process of going back to the district health council and presenting us with a specific plan to restructure the system. Do you know what they said, ladies and gentlemen?

They want to do it without the commission having to go into that area because they think the commission will take too long and restructuring's long overdue. That attitude should be applauded and not discouraged, as in your question.

Mr Miclash: I go back to the Premier because, Premier, this was your commitment to the people of northern Ontario. As I indicated, this is a hospital in your riding, the North Bay Civic Hospital. They've had to close down their operating room on a number of occasions this year because of your cuts. No operations were performed at the Civic for three weeks this past summer and one week in October.

I am also told the OR will be closed one week in November, two weeks in December and possibly three to four weeks next March. Again, Mr Premier, this is a hospital in your riding. You continue to state that your cuts are not having an effect on patient care. I want to know what you have to say to the patients of North Bay, who are concerned about their health care and about the deterioration of that health care when their operating room is going to be closed for a total of 10 weeks come this year.

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, the honourable member is fearmongering. There's no evidence that there's anything wrong with access to the General Hospital or St Joe's. There aren't the waiting lists that the honourable member is implying in his question, and the reason the question's brought up is that there is a --

Interjections.

Mr Miclash: Why can't the Premier answer for his own riding?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Interjections.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Under standing order 23(

i) it says, "Imputes faults or unavowed motives to another member." Yesterday "wimp" was not acceptable. How is what he said acceptable today if "wimp" was unacceptable yesterday?

The Speaker: I understand what the member for St Catharines is suggesting. In fact, in previous days in this House when I was Speaker, "fearmongering" has been used by both sides and I've allowed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The clock's running. I think it's important I address the point of order brought forward by the member for St Catharines. I will say to the member for St Catharines that it's difficult to understand because the Speaker has to make rulings every day on different words that fly around this place. "Fearmongering" in fact was used by the opposition in the first instance. I allowed it. As far as "wimp" is concerned, I didn't allow it. I think they are two different words with two different, clear connotations.

I now would ask the Minister of Health to summarize his answer, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: The basis of the honourable member's question I think is a media report out of North Bay very recently. It doesn't talk about there's a problem in terms of access to care or quality care. The people of North Bay and Nipissing and the health professionals there are providing top-quality care. This government has invested tremendously in northern Ontario. The first MRI announcements were in northern Ontario. The first reinvestment announcements for this government in terms of health care, some 16 months ago, were all for northern Ontario, most of them in your ridings, ridings of the opposition, because we're doing what's right for health care.

The

article the member refers to talks about operating rooms being closed at 3 o'clock because nurses have to be paid overtime, according to the collective agreement, after 3 o'clock. It implies that people aren't getting access. In no way does it provide evidence that people aren't getting access. Indeed, in the meeting I had two weeks ago with hospital officials, they're doing an excellent job of providing top-quality service to the people of the north and the people of Nipissing and North Bay.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General and it concerns the family support plan. My constituent's name is Rose Landry. She has a seven-year-old daughter. Before you closed the regional family support plan offices and laid off 290 staff, she used to receive her family support payments five days after the payor's payroll deduction happened.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Regularly.

Mr Hampton: Regularly she received her payments. But since August, that's changed. Since you closed the family support plan office in Thunder Bay and laid off the staff, that has changed. She has received no payment for October despite the fact that the support payor's cheque was garnished on October 11 for $215, and on October 25. She has received no money despite the fact these garnishments have happened. She's going to lose her hydro tomorrow and her gas service after that. I want to ask you, how much longer do women and children in this province have to pay for your destruction of the family support plan? How much longer does she have to pay?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Bill 82 has received first reading in this Legislature. It does two things: It cracks down on parents who don't pay their support and it allows payors who meet their obligations to opt out of the system, which in turn allows the government to put all our resources into the problem cases. These problems, and problems with the family support plan, have existed interminably, and what I say to the member opposite is that the faster this piece of legislation comes before this House for second and third readings, the faster we can begin the real repair to the family support plan --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker:

Section 33(

f) of the standing orders indicates that a minister may choose to refer a question directed towards the minister to a minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates. I take you back to the question that was raised by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. It was a question to the Premier and it related specifically to whether the member for Lambton had been in direct communication with the Premier immediately prior to the events at Ipperwash.

Although the Premier referred the question to the Attorney General, there's clearly no way the Attorney General could know whether the member for Lambton had been in direct communication with the Premier. It's an important piece of information. For the public understanding, I believe the Premier has an obligation to respond. I understand he can decline, but I don't believe a referral is appropriate.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): To the leader of the official opposition, the difficulty you're faced with as Speaker is, I do not know the conversations and discussions that take place between ministers and premiers and members. In the Premier's opinion, it may well be appropriate for the Attorney General to respond to that for any number of reasons.

You can't ask me to get inside the heads of all the members of this place and have conversations and so on. I can't ask government members to start referring or not referring and start measuring whether they can or cannot be referred, because there are far too many meetings that take place that too many people are involved in. When an honourable member refers a question, you have to understand, and I believe, that that is properly what is before this House and they have made a proper and honourable decision.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I have a concern about what information is properly given to the public in answer to a direct question. I understand there were three very legitimate options for the Premier. One was to say yes, there was a direct communication, one was to say no, there wasn't, the third was to decline to answer the question. But only he is able to answer the question directed to him by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. It doesn't matter what conversations --

The Speaker: Order. In your opinion: only the Premier is capable of responding, in your opinion. The fact of the matter is, there's the Premier's opinion and the minister's opinion and the caucus's opinion. We all hold opinions on how best we may answer or ask questions. It's not up to the Speaker to determine.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Speaker, you're skating here.

The Speaker: The member for Essex South, I'm not skating one bit. If you want to look at precedents on this issue, you can check the precedents all you want. I suggest to the member for Essex South that he take his time and look into it. The fact is that there's no Speaker who's going to start determining when and who a minister can start referring their ministerial questions to, and I can't get involved in that discussion. I would be here endlessly determining whether or not a question can be passed. Thank you for your point of order.

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"To Premier Michael Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the Ontario provincial Legislature:

"We, the undersigned, protest this government's actions against tenants described below.

"The Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants. Rent control allows for security and stability in their homes and communities. Uncontrolled rent increases leave tenants, their families and other communities open to eviction, personal distress, and contribute directly" --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. There's too much noise. Order.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, this petition is to the Ontario Legislature and also to the Premier Mike Harris, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Al Leach, and also members of the Ontario provincial Legislature, and it states:

"We, the undersigned, protest this government's actions against tenants described below.

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

"Further, this government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favourable to landlords for easier and faster evictions. This is unacceptable to Ontario's tenants and damaging to Ontario communities.

"This government also plans to get rid of public housing and has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There's way too much noise. There's too much noise in the House. The members for Cochrane South and Dovercourt.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is extremely important to 3.3 million tenants in this province and I would like the government to listen. They are the ones who are going to change this. I will not start all over, but again in the middle, just for time's sake. I hope they're listening this time.

"This government also plans to get rid of public housing and has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants to obtain accommodation they can afford. The government must cease all actions that reduce the affordability and availability of these kinds of housing.

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

I will affix my signature to the thousands who are concerned.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Yesterday afternoon I had the pleasure of meeting with seniors in the Lions centre in Fort Erie, Ontario. They are concerned about the senior driver exam, and I'm proud to present a petition on their behalf. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the driver examination centre in the town of Fort Erie has been closed as of September 24 and the centre in Niagara Falls will close later in October; and

"Whereas these changes represent an undue hardship in that they will require Fort Erie senior citizens to drive up to an hour away to take their annual road test on the unfamiliar roads of St Catharines; and

"Whereas the fact that a very high proportion of seniors eventually pass their road test has led the Minister of Transportation to state that he will re-examine the requirements for issuing drivers' licences to seniors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation to develop a system of licensing that is less onerous on the senior citizens of Fort Erie and that recognizes that when tests are required, familiar local roads are the fairest place to assess driver ability."

I affix my signature to this petition.

APPAREILS DE LOTERIE VIDÉO

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui je vous présente quatre des 32 pétitions provenant de différentes paroisses de ma circonscription s'opposant au projet de loi 75. Ces pétitions proviennent de l'abbé Côme Chenier de la paroisse Sainte-Trinité de Rockland, de la paroisse de Lefebvre, de la paroisse d'Alfred et de l'abbé André Bouchard de la paroisse de Plantagenet.

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que le projet de loi 75 aura un effet négatif sur les organismes de charité ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 75 provoquera une augmentation des cas de dépendance au jeu et causera des dommages irréparables à des familles de toutes les régions de la province ;

«Attendu que le gouvernement n'a pas spécifié quelles organisations de charité bénéficieront des revenus des loteries vidéo,

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

«Nous demandons à tous les partis représentés à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario de s'opposer au projet de loi 75.»

J'ajoute ma signature à cette pétition qui contient plus de 500 noms.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition from about 100 residents of St Andrew-St Patrick in buildings at 7, 10 and 35 Walmer Road who are very concerned about this government's intention to destroy the current Rent Control Act. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

I support this petition wholeheartedly.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of the parole eligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given rehearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with a jury hearing;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I agree with this petition and have so signed it.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge senior citizens and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled since July 15; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 user fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July letter to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned residents, strongly urge the government of Ontario to repeal this user fee because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, it is not sensitive, it is not accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors, and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I've affixed my signature to this document because I agree with it.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): It's a pleasure to present yet another petition on behalf of seniors at Port Colborne and Wainfleet about drivers' exams for senior citizens. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the driver examination centre in the city of Welland is slated to close later in October; and

"Whereas these changes represent an undue hardship in that they will require Port Colborne and Wainfleet senior citizens to drive up to an hour away to take their annual road test on the unfamiliar roads of St Catharines; and

"Whereas the fact that a very high proportion of seniors eventually pass their road test has led the Minister of Transportation to state that he will re-examine the requirements for issuing drivers' licences to seniors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation to develop a system of licensing that is less onerous on the senior citizens of Port Colborne and Wainfleet and that recognizes that when road tests are required, familiar local roads are the fairest places to assess driver ability."

Beneath the signatures of Edna Hannigan and Betty Hardman I affix my signature.

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition signed here by 3,968 residents of Ontario, in two binders, addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced the closure of Prince Edward Heights, a first-rate community-based facility for developmentally disabled adults; and

"Whereas Prince Edward Heights is not an institution in the traditional sense and is a community in and of itself for those who reside there; and

"Whereas the care provided at Prince Edward Heights is of a specialized nature requiring highly trained, skilled and dedicated staff; and

"Whereas alternate services and supports that would meet the needs of the clients of Prince Edward Heights are not in place in the community; and

"Whereas these clients have lived at Prince Edward Heights for up to 25 years and have developed many important friendships and relationships; and

"Whereas the clients of Prince Edward Heights have no desire to leave their home community to be repatriated to a community that they have no relationship with; and

"Whereas the economy of Prince Edward county will be devastated by the planned closure of Prince Edward Heights;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, demand that the decision to close Prince Edward Heights be revoked and that the clients of Prince Edward Heights be allowed to continue living with dignity, stability and without threat in the community that they call their home."

I have affixed my signature to it.

ALLEGED ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a petition here signed by over 300 people, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request a public inquiry into all aspects of the alleged physical and mental excesses and abuses which reportedly took place in the Centre for Behavioural Rehabilitation under the direction of a physical education teacher educator named Ahmos Rolider, PhD, teacher ed phys ed, during the years 1989 to 1993;

"We, the undersigned, wish there to be a public inquiry into the role of the administration of the brain injury program at Chedoke during those years with regard to the aforementioned abuses, as well as the administrator's subsequent action/inaction with regard to the victims of such abuse."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have approximately another 1,000 names with regard to the restructuring commission's report in Sudbury. That puts it at approximately 11,000, and it reads:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two acute care hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession, impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two acute care Sudbury hospitals."

I sign my name, as I agree with the petition.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking and the ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic in illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I endorse this petition and have so signed it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I beg leave to present the 23rd report of the standing committee on government agencies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr Crozier? No.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 81,

An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I had begun my intervention in this debate by quoting a resolution passed by the members of the Algoma District Municipal Association in opposition to changing the boundaries that would produce a situation in the constituency of Algoma where the distance from one end to the other of the proposed new constituency, if it were superimposed on southern Ontario, would run from Windsor to Quebec City.

They pointed out in the resolution that they felt this would make it very difficult for constituents to be able to have proper input to their representative, would be difficult for the area to be properly represented at Queen's Park, and they also raised the concern of the loss of five ridings out of the total of 15 from northern Ontario and the problem that would mean for northern Ontario having a voice in the assembly at Queen's Park.

Since that time I've received a number of resolutions passed by municipalities within the constituency such as the township of Johnson, the township of Dubreuilville, the township of Prince and the township of Michipicoten, all in support of the position taken by the Algoma District Municipal Association.

I just wonder whether members in southern Ontario constituencies really have any concept of what it would be like to represent a riding that would run from Windsor to Quebec City. The constituency I represent now already, if superimposed on southern Ontario, would go from about Windsor to Kingston. It's true that there is not a large population in the constituency and, as I said the last time, I am certainly not opposed to redistribution. I've represented the people of Algoma, and I'm proud to have represented the people of Algoma, for over 21 years in this assembly and I've seen redistributions.

There's no question that certain areas of the province are growing in population and need to have additional representation for it to be fair. But in the past there has been an agreement, because of a geographic situation, the factor of just the very size of northern Ontario, that there would be a minimum of 15 seats in northern Ontario. In this proposed redistribution that commitment has been broken and we are losing five seats in northern Ontario, and as a result the new constituencies are going to be enormous in most cases -- not in all, but in most.

It's been suggested by the government that they made a commitment in the election campaign, that people voted for them, and therefore they should proceed. Their commitment was that they would mirror the federal boundaries. I remind you that the federal redistribution is increasing the number of seats in Ontario in the House of Commons from 99 to 103, recognizing that certain areas of Ontario are growing and need representation.

They are also breaking their commitment to northern Ontario where there used to be a minimum of 11 federal constituencies in the north and they are dropping it by one. But there are factors involved in the federal redistribution that do not have any relevance to Ontario, and that is the fallacy of the government's arguments in this regard.

Before I get to that, I want to respond to one comment that was made by the Chair of Management Board, the government House leader. In introducing this legislation in the House, he pointed out that Saskatchewan has just recently gone through a redistribution and that there they significantly changed the boundaries based on one person, one vote, and increased the number of urban ridings and decreased the number of rural ridings.

What he did not mention was that in that particular redistribution, the government of Saskatchewan and the other parties in Saskatchewan agreed that the two northern ridings in Saskatchewan, which are enormous, would be maintained and would not be subject to the one person, one vote regulation or aim or goal that all the other constituencies were.

I wonder why the Chair of Management Board didn't mention that when he made reference to Saskatchewan. I suspect it's because this government isn't prepared to make a similar commitment to northern Ontario. I wonder why.

As I said in my opening remarks, the member for Mississauga South indicated in a debate in 1985 that the question is not just equal representation but effective representation. I made reference to the Camp commission, which reported the month I arrived in this place in 1975, in which a non-partisan or tripartisan, I suppose, commission recommended a redistribution and recognized the need to look at not only population and rep by pop, but also other factors in determining boundaries, one of those factors being geography. Those recommendations of the Camp commission have stood in good stead over the years.

I make clear once again that we in this political party do not oppose redistribution, but we are opposed to a redistribution which would produce a situation where rural and northern Ontario are not adequately represented effectively in this House. When I say "effectively," I mean that if you have a constituency or a number of constituencies which are so large as to cover from Windsor to Quebec City, I don't believe very many people in this place, including myself, can effectively represent those people in that kind of constituency in this House, and I call on the government to take that into consideration.

It's been suggested, "Well, the federal MPs are going to represent these kinds of riding, so if they can do it, surely the provincial members can do it." I suggest that the federal MPs have certain concerns that they expressed in the debates around their redistribution that relate exactly to that matter.

As I said, Camp said: "There should be some elasticity for regions where wide populations are scattered. Rep by pop should be tempered by broad determinations. We should retain representation from those areas without application of strict mathematics, because with the application of strict mathematics those areas would be deprived."

In the federal redistribution some of the factors that came into effect that affected that redistribution don't have any relevance to Ontario. For one thing, at one end of the spectrum, Prince Edward Island is supposed to have four members constitutionally, and there are also provisions for New Brunswick and Newfoundland to have certain numbers of MPs in the House of Commons.

At the other end of the spectrum, the government, I think quite wisely, said, "There has got to be a minimum number of representatives for the 90,000 people in Yukon and the Northwest Territories," so they said, "There will be three members: one in Yukon and two in the Northwest Territories." So when you look at the overall total allowed for in their redistribution, that affected the number of constituencies that could then be drawn in the more populous areas of the country, particularly Ontario.

Why is it that as a provincial Legislature we should be taking into account provisions made for Prince Edward Island, the Yukon and Northwest Territories in determining the number of seats we believe should be established to represent the people in this their provincial assembly? It doesn't make sense. Would anyone suggest that because the Yukon is entitled to only one MP in the House of Commons as a result of the provisions of the redistribution at the federal level, it should only have one member in its Legislative Assembly? Of course not. That's what is being done, though, in Ontario.

Because 103 ridings will be established federally in Ontario, therefore we should have 103 ridings in this assembly. It doesn't make any more sense than saying, "Because there's only one MP in the Yukon, there should only be one person in its Legislative Assembly."

I have yet to hear any argument presented by the members of the government party that deals with that. Are you suggesting that there should only be two members in the Northwest Territories assembly because it has only two MPs? It doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't argue this, but it might be argued that PEI should not be a separate province, since it has only 120,000 or so people. It might be argued, but as long as it is a province would anyone argue that it should only have four members in its Legislative Assembly because it only has four MPs? The government members take this rather frivolously.

I want to tell you that this is not a partisan issue in northern Ontario. Members of all political parties in the north are very concerned about the size of the ridings. As I said, when the debate about redistribution was carried out in the House of Commons, certain members of the Liberal Party, MPs for ridings in the north, raised concerns. I have the Hansard from the committee hearings in the House of Commons. Mr Réginald Bélair, the member for Cochrane-Superior, objected to the redistribution affecting the size of that riding and the combination of that riding with another riding in the north.

"The commission failed to consider the special geographic considerations in Cochrane-Superior and particularly the problems of size, the distance between communities, the remoteness and isolation of communities, and the limited access constituents have to their member of Parliament. The commission failed to give adequate consideration to the demographics of the riding of Cochrane-Superior and erred in using an electoral quota as the sole factor for determining electoral districts."

Peter Thalheimer, the MP for Timmins-Chapleau, also raised concerns in the committee and said:

"The commission failed to respect the criterion that a proposed electoral district be of manageable size for sparsely populated northern regions of the province of Ontario. The commission failed to consider factors other than population figures when proposing rural and northern ridings, including historical, cultural, economic, transportation and communication patterns."

Mr Thalheimer was supporting Mr Belair's description of the special difficulties in servicing a northern riding, and he emphasized how isolated northern communities feel and how physically difficult it is to try to maintain personal contact between the MP and his or her constituents.

The fact that the federal government and the federal commission did not listen to these federal MPs who represent northern Ontario constituencies does not mean therefore that this assembly should ignore these very same concerns with regard to the size of provincial constituencies in northern Ontario. Why should we compound the error of the federal government and the federal electoral boundaries commission? Why is it that the members of the Conservative Party and the Conservative government seem hell-bent on ignoring these concerns? I don't understand it.

I believe the area of the 905 area code deserves more representation in this assembly. There are ridings with far too high populations for those people to have effective representation in this assembly. But to say that because we need to give them additional and more adequate representation we should therefore deny adequate representation to the north and establish ridings which will make it very difficult for those areas to have effective representation in this assembly is completely wrong.

I note that leading members of this government, when they were in opposition, have made these very same arguments in debates about possible reorganization of riding boundaries in the past. In October 1985 the now Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, the member for Parry Sound, stated: "Beyond population sizes, equally valid considerations should be taken into account. That is geography. We shouldn't just focus entirely on population." Mr Eves said in that debate in this assembly.

The member for S-D-G & East Grenville, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in a previous debate in this House in November 1992, debating a resolution that he had brought forward in the House representing rural Ontario, said, "We don't want to see rural Ontario underrepresented in this assembly." As a matter of fact, he said, "We should be increasing the number of rural ridings, not lowering them."

The Minister of Health, who I note is present in this assembly this afternoon, in November 1992, during that same debate, talked about the size of ridings and the problems of rural Ontario, and said, "We need more rural representation." He said that was paramount. I want to know what's changed.

Why is it that the Minister of Health now is supporting a legislative proposal that will do exactly what he said should not be done in 1992?

Why is that the Minister of Rural Affairs is abandoning the people of rural Ontario and saying: "No, we don't have to worry about adequate representation for rural Ontario any more in this House. We needed to back in 1992 but not in 1996"?

Why would the Deputy Premier say in 1985 that we should be looking at other issues beyond population and now do exactly the opposite as a member of the government? Where is the integrity on this issue?

The government has argued that there has to be change because it has to save money.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It's $11 million.

Mr Wildman: They've indicated that this might save $11 million. Well, why did you campaign on it when you said the opposite in 1992?

Hon Mr Wilson: Because we can work as hard as --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, the Minister of Health.

Mr Wildman: Why are you ignoring what these MPs said in northern Ontario about the federal redistribution, just the way the federal government did?

Hon Mr Wilson: Life is --

The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Health, order, please. The member for Simcoe West, order, please.

Mr Wildman: I'm wondering if the member has grown in his views or whether he's practising situational ethics. I just wondered.

The members of the government have said we will save $11 million because we'll have fewer MPPs in the House, and yet this is part of a piece. The other part of that piece is the referendum legislation that has been discussed by the Premier in the paper that he has put forward to the public, which has been debated in the committee of this House and which we've heard representations about. The argument is that you don't need as many representatives if you have the opportunity for direct democracy, so that the people themselves can vote and make decisions.

But in terms of the cost, we were told in the committee by Mr Warren Bailie, the chief electoral officer of the province, that a referendum would cost about $40 million -- one referendum. He said the cost could be lowered to about $23 million because of new electronic technologies, so we could lower the cost to $23 million, so we'll have one referendum, which will cost double your saving by cutting the number of MPPs. You've said $11 million would be saved; one referendum will cost you $23 million at the minimum. Where's the saving?

The Minister of Health said we can work as hard as MPs. I think any of us can work as hard as MPs. I think the MPs generally work very hard. But the fact is that we have two MPs, Mr Bélair and Mr Thalheimer, representing the area of the province I come from who say they don't believe they can effectively represent their constituents with these boundaries. They don't think they can. They weren't listened to by their federal colleagues; they weren't listened to by the federal government. But why should we ignore that here to say, "The federal Liberals didn't listen, so the provincial Tories won't listen"?

It wasn't just these members of the cabinet who have made these arguments. In October 1985 the leader of the then third party, the now Premier of the province, stated that we have to look at communities of interest, that these must be mitigated. He argued that we shouldn't be mirroring federal boundaries at that time which would not take into account communities of interest. He talked particularly about a francophone community in his constituency of Nipissing. Why has the Premier now changed his view? Why is he no longer worried about community of interest? Why does he not care about the francophone constituents he cared about in 1985?

I close by pointing out that on September 30, 1996, the Sault Star, a newspaper that is not known for supporting many of my positions, stated that it's unfair for an MPP to have to be responsible for a constituency that stretches the distances of the new Algoma riding.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to go on record as saying to this House that it would do well to listen to the member for Algoma. He has served in this place for 20 years on behalf of a riding that to drive from one end to the other takes approximately eight hours. The riding as it now exists, as he suggested by the

article he just finished reading and as pointed out in the Sault Star, is probably as big as, and in most cases bigger than, many countries in the world today.

He has served it with great distinction but he won't say this because he's a humble man. I will because I've known him for 20 years. He spends literally every weekend that he's away from this place, particularly when the House is sitting, away from his home and family, in places like Hornepayne, White River, Dubreuilville, Wawa, Blind River and Spragge serving his constituents, listening to what they have to say about the laws within which we all live, working for them to make sure that government is working on their behalf.

In the interest of simply the bottom line, to extend his riding so that it now becomes twice the size belies any logic. So I would respectfully suggest and ask all of you on the opposite side, because you ultimately will determine the course of events on this issue, to please pay attention and listen carefully to the comments of the member for Algoma, who knows from whence he speaks.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am pleased to respond to the member for Algoma's comments on the Fewer Politicians Act. I'd like to draw to his attention that he made some very good points and pleaded with a great deal of compassion for the people of northern Ontario and in some respects I agree with him.

But I look back to the long study and debate that has gone into coming up with the numbers by the federal electoral group in recommending 103 seats. To understand this, what I see from the people of Ontario is that when they call the constituency office today where I am in Durham East, they are often confused between provincial issues and federal issues. We're there to help them whether they're federal or provincial issues. We help them to solve the problems.

I really think they could address the areas and travelling distances in northern Ontario by making it up with the allowances that are given to members and members' staff to help them solve constituents' problems.

It's very clear the people of Ontario feel, whether it's correct or not, that they're overrepresented, that they're overgoverned and that there are far too many public politicians. In that respect this government made a commitment and that what's totally new. We didn't invent the 103 number but we're going to go along with the federal boundaries, which by the way are Liberal. We're not making it political; we're just going to implement that because we feel our members, as I'm sure members on the other side, are there to represent the people. We don't need more politicians.

I was reading an

article recently that there are seven school boards in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and with those seven school boards there are 114 school trustees. Can you imagine it?

The people of Ontario are going to be very satisfied with this. I think we can address the difficulty and the duties of a member in the northern part of the province by allowing additional staff resources.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to offer some comments on the speech from the member for Algoma. One of the things people are missing is that when we hear the government side speak they seem to believe that this is rep by pop; it isn't. This is a number arrived at by the federal government, not in the context of Ontario but in the context of Canada.

Surely members can understand that when Prince Edward Island can have four members of Parliament with a population not bigger than most ridings in Ontario, where we can have I think 32 members of the Legislature in Prince Edward Island, we're not talking sensibly when we just talk about rep by pop. The context of the federal Parliament prescribes how these boundaries are drawn.

I want to talk a little bit about exactly what's happening in northern Ontario. We are losing 50% of our rural representation. The city of Sault Ste Marie will have the same number of representatives. The city of Thunder Bay has the same number of representatives -- Timmins, North Bay, Sudbury. But those people who live on 90% of the land mass of Ontario will now be represented by five MPPs. Think about it: five members of the Legislature, some of them representing an area a third of the province. I ask you in the name of democracy to rethink this. It might have been a good election slogan, it might have been easy to sell, but the reality is quite different. I think you should reconsider.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Algoma in representing the area for the past 21 years. He did an excellent job of representing that area. I can recall back in 1988 doing door-to-door campaigning in the federal election and I can vouch for the fact that his riding is big provincially. It's also very big --

Interjections.

Mr L