Journal des débats 1997-sept-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today I hold in my hand another example which confirms the level of incompetence which is synonymous with this Minister of Education and Training. It is a sample of the carte de competence, or teacher's qualification card, recently put out for francophone teachers in this province. This form is filled with spelling errors, grammar errors and structural errors.

I gave this form to a grade 3 French teacher and asked her, using the new report card which clearly measures student achievement, to grade the minister's performance. Sadly, the minister didn't do very well.

On spelling she gave the minister an R, meaning: "The student has not demonstrated the required knowledge and skills. Extensive remediation is required." In grammar she gave the minister a D minus, which means, "The student has demonstrated some of the required knowledge and skills but in limited ways." In structures she gave the minister another R.

On a national level, this Minister of Education fell below the norm. The people of Ontario deserve more for their hard-earned money. We deserve the best-trained Minister of Education. We deserve a Minister of Education who exceeds the national average. But what do we have? We have a mediocre minister putting out mediocre policies.

GAMING INITIATIVES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This government launches yet another attack on another sector in the small business community. While the break-open ticket industry, with its 60 to 70 gaming equipment suppliers across Ontario, like Mr Nevada up on Merrittville Highway in Niagara, works with hundreds and hundreds of hospitals and charities raising money so that these hospitals and charities can continue to function, especially in a time of dramatic and cruel government cutbacks to health care and other transfer payment agencies, what has this government done? This government proposes to put out of business every one of those approximately 70 gaming equipment suppliers here in Ontario, shut down all but one, possibly two, of the break-open ticket manufacturers, with a loss of jobs that will count in the hundreds, if not more. I tell you, that is criminal.

It's augmented by the fact that the government wants to scoop another 6% of the prize board from the break-open ticket industry, knowing full well that when that prize board drops below 70%, which it will if the government has its greedy hands in there, the sale of break-open tickets diminishes radically.

This government talks a big game about small business, but it simply doesn't deliver and it simply doesn't care. I join with Mr Nevada and its colleague companies in the gaming equipment supply industry and the break-open ticket industry in calling upon this government to end this foolish attack on that small business sector now and not repeat it again.

MOTHER TERESA

Mr John L. Parker (York East): The world had not yet absorbed the shock of the tragic death of Princess Diana when another outstanding world figure was taken from us -- Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa lived the faith that she believed. She grew up in Skopje in a household of modest means but in which no person in need was ever a stranger. She joined the Loretto nuns before she was 20 and was sent to serve in India, a country whose language she could not speak. While there, she heard the call not just to serve the poor but to become one of them, to live in the slums of Calcutta and to serve among the poorest of the world's poor. This became her life's work.

Among her greatest admirers, and perhaps the man who made her a media star, was Malcolm Muggeridge. He had a unique understanding and appreciation for the work of Mother Teresa. In his words:

"Most of what she and her Missionairies of Charity do is, in worldly terms, patently absurd. For instance, salvaging derelicts from the streets just for them to have the comfort of seeing, even for a few hours or minutes, a loving face and receiving loving care, rather than closing their eyes on a world implacably hostile, or at best indifferent, whether they lived or died."

Mother Teresa held to her faith and her beliefs against all of the dogmas of the contemporary secular world. For that reason, she has been regarded by some as controversial. Perhaps, though, the greatest controversy brought by Mother Teresa is the challenge that her life poses to each one of us to serve tirelessly, with humility and dedication, to be indifferent to things material and to hold in reverence at all times the miracle and sanctity of life.

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Did Mike Harris lend the Minister of Education his son's copy of Mr Silly? It seems that Mr Silly must have made it on to John Snobelen's reading list. Indeed, it may be the only book that he uses as a reference. "Silly" certainly seems to be the only word left in the minister's vocabulary.

Kathy Haas, chairperson of the Etobicoke Board of Education, expressed her concern that the government's proposed funding for heat, light and maintenance in our schools would be inadequate. She brought attention to her concerns by suggesting that children would have to wear mittens to sit in cold classrooms. The minister, ignoring her very real concern, as he always does, just said she was silly.

School board officials, expressing their concern that reduced provincial funding would mean the closure of schools, the loss of special education or the elimination of junior kindergarten, don't deserve a serious answer from the minister, it seems. After all, says John Snobelen, they are all just silly.

Opposition critics are just silly too, although we are granted some credit for at least being misinformed and just plain wrong. I was wrong, for example, to suggest that the minister is about to spend taxpayers' dollars trying to sell his government's misdirection for education. But lo and behold, today at 3:30 he will launch his new PR program.

What could be more just plain silly than a Minister of Education who talks about meeting the needs of every student when he has cut half a billion dollars out of education and is planning to cut $750 million more? The problem is, this isn't really silly when it comes from the man who controls the dollars and sets the priorities that affect our children's education. It's serious and it's truly scary.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The restructuring process in the north is not working. In an article published a couple of weeks ago in the Sudbury Star, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines gave a very rosy picture of the restructuring process in northern Ontario, saying, among other things, that the government is following up on the good suggestions made by northern leaders.

The same week in the Northern Times, Kirkland Lake Mayor Joe Mavrinac said that municipal members of the Who Does What transition teams, on which Mayor Mavrinac sits, are very frustrated by the whole restructuring process and are refusing to continue until they meet with Premier Harris.

The members of the transition teams feel that all information should be on the table when making important and irreversible decisions like amalgamation. They want to know if there's any flexibility along the implementation dates and initiatives this government is forcing them to put in place by January 1. They want to know how the financial impacts for each and every community are going to affect them. They want to know what assumptions the government is using to calculate their numbers because of the fact they don't match the municipalities' ones when we're talking about the transfer of roads and the transfer of the cost of policing and all these services on to the municipalities. Which figures do they go by?

It's very unfair and ridiculous for this government to ask the transition teams to comment and make a decision when municipal leaders don't have half of the information they need to make an informed decision.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Last night in my riding I had the pleasure of hosting a public forum on youth crime. I was also joined by members of the Crime Control Commission of Ontario. As well, the meeting was attended by a broad range of individuals and included representatives of youth, seniors, police, ratepayers, the local crime prevention association and other members of the public who want to see youth crime reduced.

What all of these people have in common is that the concern about the issues involving crime, justice and community safety brought them to this public meeting to speak out. The discussion included many constructive ideas to do with young offenders and ways to curtail any future criminal activity. It was clearly evident that those at this meeting favoured strict discipline measures for young offenders. In fact, the forum's audience supported a resident's suggestion to increase the use of strict discipline facilities.

While some may be critical of use of strict discipline facilities, I challenge any of you to look in the eyes of a victim of crime and explain your reasoning.

This government is continually focused on the goal to reduce youth crime in order to make our communities safer. My appreciation goes out to those who contributed to last night's forum.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise today to renew the attention of this Legislature to a court decision made by Mr Justice Dennis O'Leary on Friday that has serious implications for this government's agenda.

On behalf of Carlene Chambers and Kara Valian, the Service Employees International Union brought a case against this government charging that schedule J of the infamous Bill 26 unfairly discriminated against them by removing the proxy method of comparison for the purposes of pay equity. Schedule J capped the employer's ability to honour pay equity adjustments by requiring that no more than 3% of its 1993 payroll be devoted to closing the wage gap.

As Judge O'Leary noted, the proxy method was removed without any study of its efficacy. Its removal has allowed this government to meet its fiscal targets at the expense of women who face the greatest amount of pay inequity. It is an absolute disgrace that in their revolutionary zeal the Tories have trampled on discriminated working women and flagrantly disregarded the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People all over Ontario are calling on this government to slow down, as indeed we indicated when the bully bill, Bill 26, was passed into legislation. This is a stinging condemnation of this government's incompetence and disregard for women in this province. Slow down.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): The Minister of Energy, responsible for Ontario Hydro, has declared that he wants to appoint a legislative committee to look into the problems at Ontario Hydro and particularly Ontario Hydro nuclear. This party does not agree with that position. We believe there needs to be an independent commission to investigate the problems at Hydro, both in terms of how we got to where we are now and where we go in the future for restructuring. We do not think that a legislative committee dominated by neo-cons from the Tory back bench is the way to plot the future of Ontario Hydro.

We believe the mandate for such a commission should be as follows:

To investigate the economic, environmental and safety issues that led Hydro to its August 1997 decision to lay up seven reactors and embark on a multibillion-dollar restructuring plan.

To examine Hydro's multibillion-dollar recovery plan to determine whether it is the most economically, environmentally friendly, safe alternative for providing Ontario with reliable power supply or whether there are more suitable alternatives within the framework of public power.

To examine the government's promised white paper on the electricity industry restructuring and alternatives to it. Issues around what will happen to Hydro's debt, access to the Hydro grid and ensuring environmental and consumer protection should be a particular focus.

PEEL COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I'm pleased to announce the reopening of the historic Peel county courthouse. At the grand opening, Peel council will be holding a re-enactment of an early council meeting. This is a fitting way to celebrate the opening of the restored building.

This is an excellent example of making one of Brampton's most important heritage buildings suitable for today's needs, and I'm glad that the government of Ontario was able to play a part in funding this project. The provincial government is helping to finance a number of projects like this across the province for a very important reason: We want to revitalize Ontario's economy. More importantly, we want to create a positive economic climate to attract new business and investment for our province. Witness the 33,000 net new jobs in August alone in this province, over 1,000 net new jobs a day.

One important element in attracting business to a community is the infrastructure of that community, the condition of the roads and bridges, the schools, the municipal buildings, the recreational facilities and so forth. Our communities should have top-quality infrastructure if we are to succeed in a global economy. Put simply, we have to invest in Ontario.

With this project, we celebrate our past along with taking another step in rebuilding Ontario's economy and creating a more prosperous future for us all.

1350

VISITOR

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out that the former member for Windsor-Walkerville, now the current member for Windsor-Riverside, is here in the gallery with us.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you know what? If you had waited for me and I had introduced him, then the cameras would have gone on him and it would have been better for you. Now I can't do that.

Welcome. I guess we'll be seeing more of you next week.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I have a motion with regard to the order of private members' business. I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mr Shea and Mr McLean exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 99.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for second reading of the private member's bill introduced into the House yesterday, entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, which will allow for the direct election of chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to debate Bill 156, second reading? I hear a no.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Just over two years ago, this government was elected to deliver on a commitment to balance the budget and cut taxes for all Ontarians. After previous governments' 65 tax increases, doubling spending and tripling debt, we pledged to make a major change. We promised the people of Ontario we would get the finances of this province under control again and make the province of Ontario the land of opportunity it should be. We are delivering on our commitments.

Today I am pleased to submit to this Legislature the 1996-97 public accounts, which show that we are clearly turning the corner in the fight against the deficit, and as we promised, we will balance the books by the fiscal year 2000-01. I am pleased to announce that the actual 1996-97 deficit was $6.9 billion. That is fully $1.9 billion lower than the 1995-96 deficit and a further half a billion dollars lower than the deficit estimate announced in our May 1997 budget.

Today I am also releasing the 1997 annual report of the province of Ontario for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997. Our second annual report, like the first, highlights the government's financial achievements. In presenting the annual report today, I also want to emphasize that we are committed to giving all Ontarians access to information on our province's fiscal position and on the government's financial and economic performance compared to the goals we set.

Unlike previous governments, we are reducing the deficit and cutting taxes at the same time. We have always said that if Ontarians were only allowed to keep more of their own money, they would spend it and that, in turn, would increase tax revenues. The public accounts show that this is exactly the case. In the fiscal year 1996-97, tax revenues were up by $2.2 billion from the fiscal year 1995-96. Obviously, the plan is working.

While Ontario has 39% of the national labour force, we are outpacing the rest of the country in job creation. In fact, in August 60% of all new jobs created in the entire country were created in Ontario. In the last six months, employment in Ontario grew more than twice as much as the rest of Canada combined. Over the last 12 months, Ontario's help wanted index jumped 27%. Since the throne speech in September 1995, a total of 268,000 new jobs in the private sector have been created in Ontario. In that same period, more than 173,000 people have left the welfare rolls.

The evidence is clear: It is possible to cut government spending, reduce the deficit, cut taxes, reform the welfare system and strengthen the economy. The evidence is everywhere as Ontario continues to outperform the rest of the country.

Consumer confidence, one of our most important indicators, is up for the sixth straight quarter, increasing by an additional 10.6% in the April-to-June period. The Ontario economy continues to accelerate. For the first calendar quarter of this year, Ontario's real GDP almost doubled the national rate of 3.7%.

The Conference Board of Canada, in its latest provincial forecast, projects that the Ontario economy will post the fastest growth in the country in 1997, led by stronger consumer spending and continued gains in export-oriented industries.

Over the first half of 1997, manufacturing shipments are up 6.8% and Ontario exports are up 6%. Over the first eight months of this year, housing starts in Ontario are up 33.1% from a year ago, much stronger than the 20.9% national rise. So far this year, in the Toronto area new home sales have increased 53.1% and resales have risen 16.4%.

Statistics Canada's recent Investment Intentions Survey reports that Ontario businesses plan to raise plant and equipment spending by 11.8% in 1997. Residential spending is projected to rise by 20.1% this year.

This is all good news for Ontarians and for the future of this province. Our plan to cut taxes and create jobs is working. Clearly, those who say it is not cannot ignore these facts. All the economic indicators demonstrate that we are continuing in the right direction, and as a result Ontario is prospering.

A lot has been accomplished but there is a lot of work left to do. Ontarians are feeling optimistic about their future, and rightly so.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Let me respond to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't want to caution the member for Ottawa-Rideau any more. If I do, I'll have to name you.

1400

Mr Phillips: I want to respond to the minister's statement and speak on behalf of the people who weren't here to stand and clap for that address.

Who has paid for this fiscal situation? The young people whose tuition fees have gone up enormously. The government promised they would not increase tuition fees beyond 25% of the cost. They broke that promise and it is the young people of Ontario who are paying for this.

Who else is paying for it? The property taxpayers of Ontario. Mike Harris has decided to dump $660 million of provincial cost from the province on to property tax. The members who stood today and clapped for this fiscal statement will have to go out and explain to the property taxpayers why they dumped $660 million of extra cost on to property tax.

This document, the Common Sense Revolution, promised the seniors of this province that you would introduce "no new user fees on drugs." You broke that promise completely. Seniors are paying $100 plus user fees. You said you wouldn't do that and you did that. You broke that promise.

You said you would protect health care. You are going to freeze health spending for 10 years. For 10 years health spending in this province would not go up. The population is growing by roughly a million people, our seniors are growing in significant numbers, but you are funding this fiscal statement on the backs of our health care system, freezing it for 10 years and cutting $1 billion --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You said you were going to spend $17 billion, for goodness' sake.

Mr Phillips: I know you don't want to hear that, but that is a fact.

The Speaker: Order. I'm not going to warn the government whip either. You've got to come to order. The minister was allowed to make the statement. The responses have to be allowed to be made.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, I'm quite capable of handling this particular uprising here.

I caution the government members, if you'd please come to order. Pparticularly the government whip, it would be very helpful if you could come to order.

Mr Phillips: To go on with the health issue, you've cut $1 billion out of our hospital budgets. If you want to spend more money on health care, say so, but right now Mike Harris says we're spending plenty on health. We need to spend no more money. Freezing the health budget for 10 years; that's how you're funding this.

You proudly say, "We've cut the number of people on welfare dramatically." I would just say to you, look at the employment numbers. When Mike Harris became Premier of Ontario, there were 499,000 people out of work; today there are 487,000 people out of work, virtually the same number of people out of work. Those aren't my numbers, they're the government numbers: Virtually the same number of people are out of work today as when Mike Harris became Premier.

You can proudly say, "We've cut this number of people off welfare," but where are they? Exactly the same number of people are still looking for work, unemployed as when Mike Harris became Premier.

I would say particularly tragic is the unemployment rate among our young people. I remember Mike Harris, when I raised this a year ago, said: "You're full of hot air. I don't trust your numbers." What are the numbers?

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: You don't want to hear about unemployment. I would say to the young people of Ontario, listen to this. This is the Conservative caucus bellowing about youth unemployment. It is a tragedy.

Youth unemployment in this province for the first eight months of this year is up dramatically. Last year, for the first eight months, the unemployment rate among our young people was roughly 15%. This year it is 18%. It is a tragedy, yet this document today proudly announces how great things are in Ontario. I would say to you people that if you believe it's so great among our young people, you are completely out of touch with the real world.

I realize you don't like to hear this, but this is what Ontario needs to tell you. You are funding your fiscal plan on the backs of the most vulnerable in this province. Our young people: You're taking their tuition fees up. You're cutting services for our young people. You're cutting support for education. You're cutting support for health care. And you proudly say, "Employment is just great" when there are virtually the same number of people out of work today as when Mike Harris became Premier.

I think a statement today that smugly says, "Everything is fine," is wrong. You are wrong to assume everything is fine. We have significant, dramatic problems in the province. To fund the tax cut that benefits the best off -- without any question, the tax cut funds those best off in this province. We all know who is paying for it. It is the most vulnerable.

So I don't stand and applaud this statement today. I take it as an indication of smugness and arrogance by a government that is out of touch.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I too welcome an opportunity to respond to the Minister of Finance's statement. I have with me a copy of the Common Sense Revolution and would wish to draw your attention to page 18: "This plan will balance the Ontario budget within our first mandate." I also have the statement which has just been released and read. It says "in the fiscal year 2000-01." Are we to assume that no elections will be held before April 1, the beginning of the fiscal year of the year 2000? I'm trying to help the minister, as always, and trying to reconcile both documents.

"We are delivering on our commitment." At what cost? On the backs of the most vulnerable, the marginalized, on the backs of the poor, those who can least defend themselves. A chance to live has been taken from those people. That's the commitment this government is delivering on.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would caution the member for Mississauga South to come to order. I don't want to have to warn her again.

Mr Pouliot: Another quote from the minister: "Obviously our plan is working." I think the minister is right, in all fairness. If you make $247,000 per year the government plan is working, because you shall pocket $15,000 in tax cuts. If you have a family of four and if you make a mere $25,000, you will only benefit to the tune of $450 per year. Simply put, a person making $25,000 and a person making $250,000: 10 times the earnings equals 30 times the tax savings. Yes, the plan is working; if you're rich, if you're fortunate in our society, the plan is working big time. However, if you're marginalized, if you're trying to make ends meet, trying to make the mortgage payments, the plan is a failure.

Eliminating the deficit? The deficit is to be found among our youth, people who have no hope, almost 20% of them simply not working. The deficit is to be found in the false promise, the pretext of 725,000 jobs. Those are real human deficits. Nothing else matters: the essence of life. You can't fool people with numbers.

Proud indeed. He who takes the credit shall take the blame. How do we arrive at these figures. Simply put, the Ministry of Education: The 1993-94 budget was $8.691 billion. Well, subtract about $400 million. That's how you make ends meet to justify the tax cut, which will cost $5 billion.

If you're with the Ministry of Health, a lot less dollars are being spent per capita. You can dance around the issue, but when all is said and done, the lineups are getting bigger. There are more and more people bent in half sent home in a taxi, more and more people lined up in the corridor.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs: another downloading. People are scared and anxious because they will not release the figures, simply because they don't know the mess they're in, but they're passing the buck to the lowest common denominator. The property taxpayer will have to shoulder their ambitions. That's what it's all about.

Ministry of Natural Resources: budget cut from $502 million in 1994 to $426 million.

Ministry of Transportation: Are you with me, Al? You've cut your budget for roads -- it's in the Common Sense Revolution as well -- by $300 million. It's shameful. We give heavily at the pump and then your government has the gall and the audacity to charge $37 extra for northerners.

They're insatiable. Why? Because they're on the hook to the people who are rich, to the people who call the shots on behalf of this government. What you have is a chorus of seals that wish to be like them one day. Well, forget it, because you're getting it too. Wake up.

I wish I could applaud, but today is a sad day if you're not that fortunate.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have in my hand a copy of a document put out by your government called Your Ontario, Your Choice: A Preliminary Look at the Referendum Alternative. I just want to quote a few sections in this document.

"Public participation in government is both desirable and intrinsically preferable to capture of the policymaking apparatus by special interest groups. Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does."

Then there's a quote from the Premier: "We feel, unlike other politicians, that referendums are a good idea and do not limit the ability to manage a government. We don't think it's unreasonable for people to have those alternatives."

I'm just wondering, Minister, if you agree that referenda are a good idea.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yes.

Mr McGuinty: You'll understand why I ask that: because the last time we held a number of referenda here in the immediate vicinity, in fact in Metropolitan Toronto, you rejected outright, in the most dismissive manner possible, the results of those referenda.

I'll tell you why I also am asking you, Minister. A couple of days ago, we learned that the election officer, the person in charge of running the elections here for the new megacity, has decided that the local municipalities involved in this will not be entitled to place referenda questions on the ballot. So I'm asking you once again, are you or are you not in favour of referenda?

Hon Mr Leach: I assume from the comments from the Leader of the Opposition that he is a big fan of referenda. I wonder where he flip-flopped this time from the statement that he made on February 1, 1997, when he stated, "I am not, generally speaking, a big fan of referenda." I hear the sound of a flip-flop, where suddenly we're a big fan of referenda.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You're in charge now.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, come to order. I'm not going to warn you again -- one warning.

Hon Mr Leach: I assume the Leader of the Opposition is probably referring to the newspaper articles that were in the Star this morning that indicated that the existing municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto don't have the legal right to put a question on this fall's ballot. Technically, that's correct, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that I've already had a conversation with Mayor Hall in the city of Toronto and indicated to her that I would have our legal staff review the ramifications of putting through a regulation to allow that.

Mr McGuinty: A review isn't good enough, and I'm sure you understand that, Minister. I want you to commit here and now -- it's very simple. Shortly you will have the opportunity to stand up and reply. I want you to tell us that Warren Bailie was wrong and that you are going to ensure that any municipality in the city of Toronto that chooses to place a referendum question on the ballot will be allowed to do so. It's as simple as that. Now stand up and tell me that is what's going to happen.

Hon Mr Leach: I realize that the Leader of the Opposition has his questions written out beforehand, but he might want to listen to the answers that were given.

I stated that I agree with the elections commissioner. His read of the legislation is correct, that the question cannot be legally put on the ballot at this time. I said that I've asked my legal officials to review that legislation to determine if there's a way and means of allowing that. I said right at the beginning I'm a believer in referendums, as is this government, if they're done in a proper manner. As long as we can be assured that the referendum is done in a proper, precise manner, I'm all in favour of it and I hope we can accommodate the request.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education and Training. This morning a group representing more than one third of all university students in Ontario told you that debt loads and burdens on students today are fast approaching the unbearable. Let's review the record insofar as what has happened on your watch as minister.

You have cut funding to colleges and universities by $386 million, so that now we are the lowest funder per capita in Canada when it comes to funding for our post-secondary institutions. Second, you have hiked tuition fees by 30% on your watch. Third, you have cut by some $20 million the amounts for student summer employment programs in Ontario, making it even harder for students to acquire the funds they need to pursue their post-secondary studies.

My question for you, Minister, is very simple. When will you stop being the Minister of Education carrying out Mike Harris's cuts and start being the Minister of Education advocating on behalf of Ontario students?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the Leader of the Opposition, that's not the record. The record is certainly more fulsome than that. Our ministry has been working over the course of the last two years to provide some very innovative supports for students. Our goal is very clear: to make sure that the students in Ontario have access to excellent-quality post-secondary education. That has been what we've been moving forward with in partnership with the post-secondary institutions.

I can remind the Leader of the Opposition that your cousins, your colleagues in Ottawa, are people we've called upon for some help in terms of the income-contingent loans package that we are currently working on, and I'd ask you to encourage them to go forward with this with full speed so that we can have a better program for helping everyone have accessibility to those excellent programs.

Mr McGuinty: The minister has talked for quite some time now about an income-contingent repayment scheme and that this somehow is going to be the magic elixir that's going to solve all the students' woes.

I want to tell you about two concerns that they have regarding your scheme for this new loan program. First of all, they believe it's going to be a Trojan horse that you're going to use to sneak in even further dramatic tuition fee hikes in Ontario. Second, what they told us this morning was that the average interest payment by all student borrowers will increase from approximately $7,000 under the present OSAP system to $24,000 in interest under your form of an income-contingent repayment scheme.

I want you to offer your guarantee right now, Minister, that students under your new scheme will be paying no more interest than they are under the existing scheme.

1420

Hon Mr Snobelen: As we go forward in developing the models for an income-contingent program, we will look at all of the circumstances -- at the appropriate interest rate, at the appropriate amount of funds a person can provide.

The reason for this is obvious. It's so that we can have a program where people who graduate from post-secondary institutions have an opportunity to repay their fair share of the cost while as they earn more dollars in the work world. It's responsible to the real circumstances those people find themselves in. Again, we have been working for two years to move forward on this with the federal government. We were encouraged when it was referred to in the federal budget of a year ago. We hope that you will continue to talk to your colleagues in Ottawa and ask them to move forward with us on this to get the right model for the students in Ontario. It's critically important that we do this.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Minister, the students rejected your Tory student aid plan and called for a consultation. That was the cry we heard all morning. The program you put forward has been rejected by the students because they know it will hurt students who can least afford it.

Students who need financial assistance are being penalized if they make more than $800 over the school year. Coupled with all the expenses being borne by students, which my leader just explained to you, you have now reworked the student aid program, forcing the poor to pay more. The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance would like me to ask you to justify your program where interest payments on a $31,000 loan will be an additional $82,000 debt. How can you justify this debt load on the students who can least afford it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Our program will be designed around making sure that people can repay their fair share of the cost in a way that's responsible for their circumstances. That includes -- and I'm proud of our moves over the course of the last two years -- where we've asked colleges and universities to hold back 30% of any tuition fee increase to help students most in need. We're introducing the Ontario student trust fund -- $500 million to help the students most in need in Ontario. I could go on about innovative program after innovative program intended and directed at those students most in need in Ontario, including spending more year over year on OSAP, on assistance for students.

As we begin, step by step, to build a better program for supporting students in Ontario, I can tell you that it's very difficult some days in this chamber to hear from the Leader of the Opposition about the support for these students when he said there are too many programs being offered at too many universities which could be better offered on a more efficient, cost-effective basis at --

The Speaker: New question.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Minister of Energy and of the Premier, I'll put this question to the Minister of Finance. Minister, today I released a proposal for an independent commission into the situation at Ontario Hydro. Since Hydro released its so-called plan a month ago, the costs of the plan have ballooned by more than $1.5 billion. Governor Pataki of New York has said he is worried that Ontario will be dumping more pollution on New York state if you fire up the fossil plants, as Ontario Hydro proposes.

It is clear that the situation at Hydro is not under control. Minister, I know you wouldn't want the public to think that Hydro is squandering $8.8 billion of their money and I know you wouldn't want them to think your government has a secret agenda of privatization. You say your government is serious about getting all the facts on the table about Hydro. Will you accept our proposal for a truly independent commission of inquiry?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): It's my understanding that the Minister of Energy has sent to both opposition parties a proposal, which he is certainly willing to sit down and discuss, with respect to looking into the difficulties at Ontario Hydro. I don't think anybody disputes the fact that indeed there are some difficulties at Ontario Hydro. That has been acknowledged and recognized by everybody and I think everybody understands and agrees that the public has to be taken into account and we have to make sure we have an adequate supply of safe power in Ontario.

It's my understanding that the minister has sent a letter to the two opposition parties today and he's certainly willing to sit down and talk about these things.

Mr Hampton: The proposal from your Minister of Energy is for a very quick and dirty investigation by a committee that will be dominated by your backbenchers. With all respect, Minister, people across this province have seen what happens in those committees. In the committee dealing with the megacity, anybody who came forward and disagreed with your government was either ridiculed or ignored by government members on the committee. With respect to workers' compensation, some of your backbenchers have literally shown contempt for the very injured workers who are going to be hurt by the legislation.

People want the facts to emerge. People want the serious issues that surround Hydro to be dealt with in a serious way, not by some quick and dirty government committee that already has an agenda.

Minister, that's the proposal we put to you. There are very serious issues at Hydro. Those very serious issues ought to be reviewed by an independent commission of inquiry that has the capacity to do its own research and the capacity to demand answers to the tough questions. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, it's my understanding that the minister indeed has scheduled a meeting with one of his opposition critics for tomorrow. I might note that the official opposition has taken a slightly different tack on this than the third party has. If I might say so, I wouldn't want to cast any aspersions on the official opposition getting a compliment from me, but I think the committee process is perhaps the most appropriate one in which to look at this.

However, I would like to go on and say that I have had an opportunity to peruse some of the principles in a press release put out by the New Democratic Party and by Mr Hampton, the leader of the New Democratic Party -- Power for the People, it's called -- and a statement of principles. Many of the principles that are outlined in your communiqué are the same principles that the Minister of Energy indicates in his letter that he is prepared to look at.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Eves: I think the facts are out there, and enough consensus that perhaps --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have just for the first time seen the proposed terms of reference from the Minister of Energy. While I don't disagree with a lot of the suggested terms of reference, there is no mention whatsoever about the whole issue of privatization of Hydro or parts of Ontario Hydro.

I think that is what is bothering us about the investigation going to an all-party committee which will be dominated by Tory backbenchers. We know what the intent of the government is on privatization and where your backbenchers will come down: They'll come down four-square on the side of privatization. That is why we want to have included in the terms of reference the whole issue of privatization, and I don't see it in this set of terms of reference. That is why we are calling for an independent inquiry that would be able to look into that in a much more objective-minded way than your backbenchers will ever do. That is why we are asking you now: Will you appoint an independent inquiry?

Hon Mr Eves: The issue of Ontario Hydro and difficulties with Ontario Hydro, as anybody who has been in this place is quite aware, and I'm sure the member is quite aware, has been around for many years, many decades. It certainly transcends all three political parties in this Legislature.

I would agree that we need to balance the needs of the public with timely decision-making that will ensure a power supply that is safe and secure for the future of Ontario. I would think those would be the most primary things we would want to have a committee of the Legislature look at, and I think they can look at that.

The minister will be releasing shortly his white paper on Ontario Hydro in a response to the Macdonald commission's report, and I'm sure that context will be there for any Legislative Assembly committee at the time those deliberations take place.

Calls for public inquiry get a little exaggerated from time to time. I have here a list of some 19 different times that the opposition parties in this Legislature have asked for public inquiries. They want a public inquiry almost every second week. I think we should --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Finance.

1430

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Labour: It seems like every day now a court in Ontario has bad news for the Harris government and good news for all the people of Ontario. Yesterday the court ruled that this government's attempt to take away pay equity money from the lowest-paid women in the province was unconstitutional.

Today I want to talk about another court case. This one involves charges of contempt of the Ontario Labour Relations Board after Management Board Chair Dave Johnson was quoted as saying, "There would be a shake-up if the labour board decisions went against the government." Unbelievably you, the Minister of Labour, have fought tooth and nail to prevent the appointment of an independent person to hear the case against the Chair of Management Board. Now you have lost that court case too. The judge has issued an order saying that if you won't appoint an independent adjudicator, he will.

Minister, I want to ask you the same question I asked yesterday: Are you finally willing to listen to people and, most of all, listen to the courts?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I am well aware of the court's decision in the SEIU matter. I think you probably had some of the information a little different from what has been stated. But I will tell you I am very pleased that the court found the independence of the OLRB was not of issue. As I had indicated to the parties in my February 13, 1997, letter, they had possible remedies available to them in our court system and it would seem that those remedies are being pursued.

Mr Hampton: I invite any members of the public to get a copy of this court case, because the minister certainly has a sanitized version. Look, the court is ordering an independent adjudicator because the court is essentially finding that the Chair of Management Board has interfered.

I want to take you back to what this was all about: Your government took away the collective agreements of men and women who clean the office buildings at the Macdonald Block across the street. The allegations then expanded to include allegations that your government improperly fired labour board members, made partisan political appointments to that quasi-judicial tribunal and tried to intimidate the labour board into making decisions favouring your government. You were asked three times to appoint an independent adjudicator and you refused. Now the court has found that you were wrong.

Minister, I put the question to you: You have got all kinds of other labour cases. You are going to have some issues arise out of Bill 136. Are you going to start listening to the people, and are you going to start listening to the courts, finally, in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would simply indicate to you again that I am well aware of the court decision in this matter and that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the issue.

Mr Hampton: All the minister has to say is that she is going to start obeying the law, that she is going to start obeying the courts of Ontario.

While I'm at it, Minister, you can do something else. One of your hallmarks is that you made scabs legal again in this province. So we've got at S.A. Armstrong a scab situation; at Goldcorp in northwestern Ontario a scab situation; and now at PC World in Scarborough. You have given the signal to employers that they can treat workers with contempt. In fact, I would say you have led that whole stand.

The steelworkers have asked you to appoint a mediator at S.A. Armstrong. You refused to do that. Today the auto workers called on your government to intervene and to get good-faith bargaining started again to settle a bitter eight-month strike at PC World in Scarborough. I don't need to tell you that the labour board has already had some findings with respect to PC World.

Minister, are you going to do the right thing? Are you going to start listening to people and try to help these situations rather than making them worse

Hon Mrs Witmer: Fortunately, we are listening to people; in fact we have created an environment within this province which has created 33,000 jobs in the last month. If you take a look at retail sales, they have increased 5%. If you take a look at car sales, housing sales, everywhere you look there is a tremendous optimism in this province, simply because we have listened to the people.

If you want to take a look at the issue of the PC World strike, I can indicate to you that, as a result of the meeting that took place this morning between the Deputy Minister of Labour and the president of PC World, we hope the parties will resume their negotiations to reach a settlement as soon as possible. We have had our mediators available. --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. New question, official opposition.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I have in my hand the public accounts which you released a few moments ago and, reading from page 19 of the volume concerning notes on financial statements, I see some concern raised by your officials at the Ministry of Finance about the Ontario government position vis-à-vis the Ontario Hydro debt guarantee.

According to your own documents tabled here just a few moments ago, the Ontario government has now guaranteed approximately $29 billion worth of Hydro debt. According to your own document, and I read from page 19, "The Ontario government's risk to make payments under the guarantees has been increased as a result of recent activities at Ontario Hydro."

Given this statement today, what has your government done, what has your department done, to assess this so-called recovery plan that the Hydrocrats are engaged in that seems to many outside observers to increase the exposure of the Ontario government?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the honourable member, who always puts his questions so eloquently and so demandingly: The bond rating agencies, you will know their initial response, of course, to the report coming out of Ontario Hydro. Moody's, CBRS and Standard and Poor's all indicate that they think the province is more than capable of handling any difficulties that may or may not come out of the Ontario Hydro report.

Officials at finance obviously are talking to individuals and officials at Ontario Hydro. It would not be appropriate for us to do otherwise, I would submit to you. We are certainly of the impression to date that Ontario Hydro will be able to meet any financial demands it has with its initial plan, I might say, that's out there for the public to see today.

Mr Conway: Your own report today raises the concern about an increased exposure and risk to the Ontario government and its taxpayers as a result of recent Hydro activities. My question is very clear. Has anyone in the Ontario government, most especially has anybody at treasury and finance, done an independent assessment about this so-called nuclear recovery program the dollars of which have changed by over $1.5 billion in just three weeks? Has anybody looked at the Hydro plan, independent of Hydro, to come to some conclusions as to whether it's a good plan, the right plan, what options have been looked at and discarded, or are we just going let the Hydrocrats who got us all into this mess in the first place develop the recovery plan without anybody in finance or in the government, whose risk and exposure is pointed out today in the public accounts, doing an independent assessment in the name of the Hydro ratepayers and, more important, the Ontario taxpayers who are on the hook for all of this multibillion-dollar guarantee?

Hon Mr Eves: Obviously any time that there are additional debt problems created, if and when they are created for Ontario Hydro, the province of Ontario has increased exposure in that area. That goes without saying. Yes, finance officials are talking to people at Ontario Hydro, because the government wants to be satisfied that the appropriate plan of action is being taken and that indeed it's a workable plan. We talked earlier today; a question was asked by the leader of the third party about Ontario Hydro. We're going to have a legislative committee, hopefully, that will look at this entire issue.

I think these are all welcome suggestions and all very appropriate ones and I would share his concern, but I would not assume that because there may be some increased exposure to Ontario as a result of what Hydro is doing, we should go off half-cocked, so to speak. I think we should approach this in a rational and appropriate fashion, and that's exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.

1440

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question s'adresse au vice-premier ministre. Dès le début du processus Qui Fait Quoi, le Nouveau Parti démocratique et plusieurs francophones de la province ont soulevé des craintes que, avec le transfert des services provinciaux aux municipalités, les francophones iront perdre la protection de la Loi sur les services en français.

J'ai ici une lettre de votre secrétaire du Cabinet qui indique que vos propres ministères partagent nos craintes et celles des autres francophones. Laissez-moi lire une partie de cette lettre ; c'est une traduction parce que la lettre était écrite en anglais :

«Au cours des derniers mois, plusieurs ministères ont soulevé des questions quant à la disponibilité des services en français une fois que ces services seront transférés aux ministères.»

C'est clair que vos propres ministères s'inquiètent de ce qui va arriver quand les services seront transférés. Qu'allez-vous faire pour garantir que les services en français vont être protégés sous la loi ?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I would ask the honourable member to repeat the question. I do not have my earset in my desk. As a matter of fact, the set I borrowed is not working. So if he would be so kind as to repeat the question.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's a fairly reasonable request, because mine isn't working either, for some reason.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I don't even need one.

The Speaker: Could you stop the clock, please. Maybe it would be helpful if the member for St Catharines could repeat it for us.

Do you want to ask it again?

M. Bisson : Ça indique sûrement, Monsieur le Président, que l'on a des problèmes quand ça en vient aux services en français ici dans la province. On va essayer une autre fois.

Dès le début du processus Qui Fait Quoi, le Nouveau Parti démocratique et plusieurs autres francophones de la province ont soulevé des craintes que, avec le transfert des services provinciaux aux municipalités, les francophones vont perdre la protection de la Loi sur les services en français quand ça en vient à ce transfert de services.

J'ai ici une lettre qu'on a reçue de votre secrétaire du Cabinet qui indique que vos propres ministères ont les mêmes craintes que notre parti. Je vais en lire une traduction :

«Au cours des derniers mois, plusieurs ministères ont soulevé la question quant à la disponibilité des services en français une fois que ces services seront transférés aux municipalités.»

Ma question à vous est simplement celle-ci. Il est clair que vos propres ministères s'inquiètent de ce qui va arriver aux services en français. Allez-vous nous assurer, une fois pour toutes, que les services en français vont être garantis par une protection législative quand vous allez transférer vos responsabilités provinciales aux municipalités ?

Hon Mr Eves: I will refer this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I think it's a question dealing with providing French-language services via municipalities.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Should I ask him to repeat it?

The Speaker: Forget it. We're not repeating it again.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the point that is being made by the member of the third party, because the ability of the citizens of Ontario to have services provided to them in the language of their choice, either French or English, is extremely important to this party, as it is to all members of this House. I can assure you that there won't be any actions taken by this government that will take services away from those citizens who presently receive them. We will ensure, on a program-by-program basis, that the delivery of services to francophones will be there as required.

M. Bisson : Je trouve ce processus-là à travers lequel on vient de passer un peu frustrant. Premièrement, on ne comprend pas la question. Deuxièmement, on la réfère à un ministre qui n'a même pas entendu la question. Quand même, vous avez essayé.

Au ministre des Affaires municipales, qui est chargé du processus Qui Fait Quoi, si on lit cette lettre de votre secrétaire du Cabinet, il y a une partie là-dedans qui me préoccupe et qui fait peur.

Je vais faire de mon mieux la traduction. La lettre est écrite par le secrétaire du Cabinet à tous les sous-ministres adjoints de votre gouvernement. Ça dit, «Le gouvernement a récemment décidé» -- ça veut dire que le Cabinet de l'Ontario a décidé -- «que les prestations des services en français dans le cadre du transfert des services aux municipalités devraient être déterminées programme par programme, et selon les garantis de la Loi 8."

Monsieur le Ministre, nous vous demandons encore : vous avez une responsabilité, comme le gouvernement, de vous assurer que les services en français vont être garantis quand vous allez transférer les services aux municipalités. Allez-vous être capable de nous garantir sous la Loi 8 par un changement législatif ces protections ?

Hon Mr Leach: Again to my good friend in the third party, as I stated, one of the reasons for some of those pieces of correspondence is that every ministry and every department of this government wants to ensure that French-language service is protected. That's why those pieces of correspondence go from ministry to ministry, to make sure that each ministry is prepared to provide services to francophones in their native language. We are going to ensure on a program-by-program basis that the services required by francophones in Ontario are there for them as they are now.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Labour and it concerns this government's ongoing consultation around Bill 136.

Members of this House will be aware of the recent consultations between the Minister of Labour, the Premier and other ministers with the Ontario Federation of Labour. Members of this House will also know that the government is currently considering the various recommendations made by the OFL. It's clear that the minister and this government are continuing to listen to receive input on Bill 136.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate for us on other areas of consultation around this bill to give us some further sense of the government's consultation.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Yes, we are consulting and have consulted with the OFL. In fact, today my ministry staff continued to engage in consultations with the OFL. It was as a result of the input we had received from the labour leaders prior to the introduction of the bill that we did not include the successor right provisions and the restrictions on contracting out.

We've also met with AMO, we have met with the health and hospital organizations, we will be meeting with ONA and we have been consulting with the police as well. So we are having widespread consultation on Bill 136. I'm quite confident that at the end of the day we will be able to look at some alternative suggestions.

Mr Klees: I wonder if the minister could elaborate for us and give us some specifics as to the outcome of this consultation and listening process so far.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The results of the consultation, including the consultation today, have been very positive. We have heard from the Toronto transition team, who have written to us to say, "Bill 136 is an essential element in the objective of a smooth transition to the new city of Toronto." The president of AMO said in his speech, "AMO remains committed to the principles it originally espoused and are found in Bill 136"; and Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, has written to us and she has indicated in her letter, "I was greatly disappointed in the way Bill 136 was considered and voted on at the conference," meaning the AMO conference. "I am pleased that you are not going to withdraw the bill. You are correct that AMO has, over the years, asked for more control, especially regarding arbitration."

We are consulting, we are listening and we want to ensure that all employees receive fair treatment.

1450

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last week I talked to you about an individual who has been waiting since last April for an MRI at Sunnybrook hospital. His doctor called again last week and found out he is still going to be waiting a couple of more months. Last Thursday Ed Sprague, who plays for the Blue Jays, injured his shoulder. He got an MRI in a Toronto hospital the next day.

There's something wrong with this scenario, and it's your scenario: the idea that MRI services can only provide 40 hours a week through OHIP and then rent their services out to private insurance companies in order to make up the costs. We're finding out that in one Ontario hospital they're operating for 90 hours and only 40 hours of that is for OHIP; the rest is for private insurance and WCB.

Is it not a violation of the Ontario Health Insurance Act to charge directly to sell insurance for a cost of a medically necessary service? If that's the case, what are you doing about it?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): No. In the history of OHIP, it's never been against the rules that once the publicly funded system has paid for the hours, then hospitals are free to use the equipment for private services -- insurance services only. Individuals can't come in off the street; that's a violation of the act.

The act has been challenged many times. The federal government, including the current Liberal government, has clarified this area, and nothing has changed over the past several decades.

It's not uncommon, for example, that much of the workers' compensation work, which is an insurance company, is done after the OHIP work. It's simply a matter of the availability of times. These are decisions taken by the hospital. They are not taken by the Ministry of Health, and they never have been taken by the Ministry of Health nor the Minister of Health.

Mr Kennedy: There's no denying that this practice is taking place. It's supposed to be for very limited purposes, but nobody is checking on that, and from what you just said, you're not even concerned about it.

If you've got a private insurance company and you can pay for it, you get an MRI in days, maybe a few weeks. If you're a taxpayer in Ontario, expecting quality health services through your government, you wait for months. This isn't acceptable.

The hospitals have told us that you're only paying $150,000 of the upkeep for those machines. It doesn't even cover the service contract. They've got to rent out their machines, they have to do this, because you won't give them enough money to provide MRI services to the public. You have created the lineups. You are the one making this accountant who's got back pain, who can't walk, who is 53 years old -- he doesn't get the service, but Ed Sprague does.

We've heard how unconcerned you are and we want to know: Are you sponsoring this development of a two-tier system in Ontario for MRIs? You say the Ontario Health Insurance Act isn't violated. I would say to you that the Canada Health Act is being violated. I would like you stand up and tell us what you're going to do about it,

Hon Mr Wilson: It's a ridiculous assertion. If the member has any doubts about my answers, he can ask the federal Liberal Minister of Health.

Second, I'm proud to say that the federal government has made clear in the two years I've been health minister that we're the only province in which they have no complaints about the way we uphold the Canada Health Act. We have no irritants between us and Ottawa with respect to upholding the Canada Health Act.

Third, I don't like the system we inherited from you and the NDP either, and that's why we're adding 23 more MRIs so people can have access to modern technology that's long-overdue in our health care system. We're acting where you failed to act.

Go talk to the feds. Tell them to give back our $2 billion. And stop standing in our way of restructuring, because we need to get these MRIs up and running for the patients of Ontario.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Tomorrow is the start of the federal-provincial consumer ministers' conference in Regina. You introduced a resolution in this House almost two weeks ago, but while it was debated last week, there was no vote.

You can blame the Liberals for that all you want, but you're the government in Ontario and the government has not put the resolution on gas pricing on today's agenda. Minister, will you put the resolution on the House agenda today so that you won't be going to Regina empty-handed tomorrow?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Earlier last week we heard a lot of rhetoric from the opposition parties indicating a clear support for the resolution. To the credit of the third party, they were very supportive of the fact that we need to go to Saskatchewan. They understand how important this is to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I was saying, at least the members of the New Democratic Party understand how important this issue is to the people of the province and they are willing to carry through on their commitment to protect the people of Ontario.

I can understand where the Liberals are coming from. I guess they want to protect their cousins in Ottawa. They don't want to somehow bother their federal counterparts and they put that political agenda ahead of the agenda of the people of Ontario.

We have a commitment. It is on the agenda to speak to at the conference. I will carry forward the fact that most of the House supports the resolution, and certainly we'll try to do everything we can to protect the people of Ontario from high and outrageous gas prices.

Mr Martin: Where's the beef, Minister? Ontario consumers continue to be gouged. Gas prices in southern Ontario range from the high 50s to the low 60s. Northern Ontario consumers are gouged twice. Wawa's gas prices continue at 72.9 cents a litre. Other gas prices in northern Ontario hover around 65.9 cents a litre or higher. Gas prices in border towns like Windsor and Welland and Fort Frances and my own community of Sault Ste Marie are sending people across the border to the United States of America. They are not just buying gas; consumers are making other purchases.

Yes, the federal government is equipped to deal with this in the Competition Act and the standing commission which looks into competition policy. Minister, the NDP caucus will support the gas pricing resolution, but will you resolve to take some action yourself, check out Prince Edward Island's Petroleum Products Act, and to alleviate the double whammy on northerners, will you eliminate the $37 motor vehicle registration fee which you reintroduced?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't believe it's a question of looking for where the beef is. Perhaps I can look across at the opposition party and see the results of one end of the beef in terms of the gas prices and the gas situation.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: At least you guys got it.

Interjections.

1500

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's a relief to be able to get up and speak now after that cacophony of flatulence over there. Clearly we have a commitment to try to protect the consumers of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Perhaps you can pass the dictionary over there to the member for St Catharines so he understands that.

We have a commitment to act for the consumer in Ontario. It is being tabled at the ministers' conference. Certainly I will take the support of the House there.

I would like to just mention one thing. We had an opportunity to pass a resolution earlier on, and once again I must point out that the NDP support the resolution. If I could just say what Mr Hampton, the leader of the third party, said: "I've listened intently to the speakers who addressed this issue" -- speaking to the Liberal Party -- "and so far I'm a bit perplexed. I've listened to a number of Liberal representatives. I'm not sure if they're supporting the resolution or not supporting the resolution." Gee, what a change.

DOMESTIC COURTS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): My question is to the Attorney General. The minister recently announced the expansion of specialized domestic courts to six new sites across Ontario, one of which is in London. When does the minister expect these new courts to be operational?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In London we are setting up a court modelled on the Toronto K court experience. The court is made up of a designated team of crown attorneys, police and victim support staff with expertise in training in domestic assault cases. Before selecting and scheduling cases, the new crown attorneys, courtrooms and batterers' programs must all be in place. We are presently working with all parties, including the police, to complete these steps, and with the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham.

The court will be operational in December 1997. At that time, the court will begin selecting and scheduling cases for hearing. Based on the success of our pilot projects that are already running in Metropolitan Toronto, I'm hopeful that all six new courts will help to further combat the problem of domestic violence, while supporting victims of this crime before, during and after the court process.

Mr Bob Wood: In what concrete ways does the minister expect these new courts to make the system work better?

Hon Mr Harnick: To date we have taken a look at the concrete ways in the city of Toronto in the K court where prosecutors are unanimous that they are obtaining more convictions in cases where previously their only evidence was the victim's testimony. The new court uses additional evidence such as 911 tapes, photos of the crime scene and the victim's injuries, as well as audio-video recordings of the victim's statement to police, which has reduced the pressure on victims to testify in court.

In North York we have a court that's designed to break the cycle of abuse through early intensive intervention with first-time offenders where there has been no physical injury. One hundred and seventy-nine cases have been deemed eligible for this project; 107 of the 179 accused have entered counselling programs to change their behaviour and prevent future violence. That is why the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, has invested $5.2 million over the next four years into opening six new specialized domestic violence courts, something that neither of the opposition parties ever deemed to be important.

LOTTERY MACHINES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. There are 700 instant ticket vending machines in the province of Ontario, machines that dispense scratch-and-win tickets. Currently there are no enforcement controls in place to oversee the sale of these tickets. They're available in doughnut shops, laundromats, bowling alleys, all over the place. This summer, a 14-year-old boy visited four of these establishments and was able to buy four scratch-and-win lottery tickets.

Minister, you have in your ministry and the Ontario Lottery Corp the authority to withdraw these machines in the province of Ontario. Will you do that?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I refer the question to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): We share the concerns when under-age people use these machines. There were concerns given to us over the last few months, and I have asked the Ontario Lottery Corp to delve into any abuses by the people who run the vending machines which allow young people to use these machines.

The member has a very good point. I think we're all concerned that under-age people should be using these machines. I will continue to refer these situations to the lottery corporation for investigation.

Mr Crozier: You just don't understand. A referral to the lottery corporation isn't enough. They can't control them. There are four tickets there that prove that.

If you really care whether we stop children from gambling in the province, you'll do like the previous government did with cigarette vending machines and you'll get rid of them. That's the way to solve the problem. Why don't you stand up today and say, "I don't like children gambling in the province of Ontario and I'm going to get rid of these machines"?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think I made it very clear that I did not think it was right that young people use these machines. But I would like to say that our policy with the lottery corporation is to remove these lottery ticket vending machines from those retail outlets that are selling to under-age people. We have done this in the past and we will do it again. I'm glad you brought the point to me. I'd ask you if you could tell me what location it was where this happened and be specific.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'd like to say to the member from the opposition that the people who sell to minors can be fined up to $50,000 and corporations can be fined up to $250,000. If I could ask him for his cooperation, to give me the details of the situation, I would be glad to investigate it and report back to him.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Attorney General regarding the family support plan. It has been a year since you closed the regional offices of the family support plan and laid off 290 staff, and there has been no improvement whatsoever for women and children who are trying to get money they're entitled to. Every day our constituency offices --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you must withdraw that statement. That's out of order.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'll withdraw it, Speaker.

Laughter.

Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that some people don't think this is a serious issue.

Every day women and children continue to call our constituency offices because they can't get through on the 1-800 line, they get no replies to their faxes or letters, and cheques continue to be lost or delayed for no good reason whatsoever.

We want to raise with you today the case of Lorna Bell, who we've been trying to help since April of this year. She is in arrears right now of $3,167.49. She has received support payments for 15 years and had no problem with her payments until you closed the Windsor office. The last contact we had with family support on August 6 was for the family support plan to offer to call Chrysler and find out where her money has gone. We haven't heard from anyone since. Can you tell me why Lorna Bell and her son can't get the money they are entitled to?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will certainly take a look at the information the member has provided today and see if we can find an answer. I reiterate that there are a number of variables as to why money doesn't find its way into the hands of the recipient. Sometimes the payor is no longer working. Sometimes there are court orders that involve some work to be done. I don't know the answer, but we will look into that.

I know the member doesn't want to admit that the plan has gotten better. The fact is that 95% of money is processed within 24 to 48 hours. It's done by the Royal Bank. It's done through modern technology. Last month, $37.5 million was distributed by the Family Responsibility Office, and that is a significant improvement over anything this plan was ever able to do in the past.

1510

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Lorna Bell's problems didn't begin until this Attorney General dismantled the family support plan across the province. Just like Victoria Adam and her two kids, who first made contact with our caucus in March 1997. She simply couldn't get through to the Attorney General's new FSP consolidated up in Downsview. In fact, the 1-800 number that the Attorney General published seems to be accessible to nobody any longer; all one gets is voice mail. The special number for constituency offices -- because you see, family support remains the number one problem that our constituency offices remain confronted by -- the special so-called access line for MPPs has been cut off as well.

Victoria Adam is owed almost $1,300 by this Attorney General. Her problems began with his dismantling of the family support plan. Where's her money? How come you can't get your act together? How come neither these people nor constituency offices can get through to your staff?

Hon Mr Harnick: We all know there are about 165,000 people who are recipients of money through the Family Responsibility Office. This has been the case for many, many years. We also know that for many, many years payments didn't flow simply and easily through what was the former family support plan. We also know that today a greater percentage of phone calls are being returned and answered and problems solved in a one-step process than has ever been the case before.

We also know that as a result of closing regional offices, we found 90,000 backlogged items: 90,000 people who didn't have their cost-of-living allowance applied, 90,000 people who didn't have their mail answered. We are now eating into that backlog. That backlog should be gone by late October. The plan has made tremendous advances beyond anywhere that the plan ever existed. I say to the people who ask these questions to take a look at their facts and realize how terrible this plan was before and how improved it is today.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and is entitled "Let the People Decide."

"Whereas Bill 156 was introduced as a private member's bill and is entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, 1997; and

"Whereas this bill provides for the direct election of the chair of the regional municipality of Sudbury by a vote of the electors in the area municipalities; and

"Whereas the election of the regional chair will be held concurrently with the regular election in the area municipalities; and

"Whereas we, the electorate of the regional municipality of Sudbury, want to be part of the electoral process in electing a regional chair; and

"Whereas we, the electorate, believe that as residents of the area municipalities composing the regional municipality of Sudbury we have a right to decide who is elected to the office of regional chair; and

"Whereas we, the electorate, support Rick Bartolucci's private member's bill which lets the people decide;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the private member's bill entitled the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Statute Law Amendment Act, which will provide the taxpayers of the regional municipality of Sudbury with a voice in electing our regional chair, and urge the assembly to deal with this private member's bill immediately."

I affix my signature to the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by 170 residents, mainly of the Ottawa area, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, regarding the government's download to municipalities. The petitioners are raising objections to the download of the cost of transportation, social services, public health and the removal of school boards' ability to tax, the government's lack of consultation with those affected, and as a result, the petitioners are stating that they are registering a vote of non-confidence in this government.

I affix my signature to it.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 124 people. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass a bill empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code and to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to reinstate such partial nudity as an offence."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the undersigned residents living in the city of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario are in need of a new regional acute care hospital situated in the city of Thunder Bay to provide the said residents with quality health care services in a modern and up-to-date acute care hospital; and

"Whereas the partial renovation and restructuring of the existing Port Arthur General Hospital, a 65-year-old outdated and antiquated hospital building, proposed by the Health Services Review Commission and the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario will not be suitable, adequate or proper to provide such quality health care services to the said residents; and

"Whereas the undersigned residents endorse and support the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital and the trustees of the hospital board and their vision of a new centrally located hospital to serve the northwestern Ontario region;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reverse the decision and direction of the health services review commission and the Minister of Health to have all acute care services for the city of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario region delivered from the renovated and restructured site of Port Arthur General Hospital and to endorse and approve capital funding to build a new centrally located acute care hospital in the city of Thunder Bay."

Once again, several hundred residents have signed this petition, and I affix my signature.

TVONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario provides Ontarians of all ages with programming that broadens understanding and responds to specific learning needs;

"Whereas TVOntario does this through formal and informal educational programming on its two networks, TVO and TFO, which are available to 97% of households; and

"Whereas for over 26 years TVOntario has encouraged Ontarians to acquire new skills, advance their knowledge and pursue the benefits of lifelong learning through its educational programming; and

"Whereas without government support, programming which educates the viewer would not have the commercial appeal to survive;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the privatization of TVOntario."

I have affixed my signature to it as well.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I have a petition relating to the issue of toplessness, courtesy of the Kennedy Road Tabernacle and the Bramalea Baptist Church.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to appear topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to ban going topless in public places."

I affix my signature yet again.

1520

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in the election campaign of June 1995, the agriculture policy put forth in the Common Sense Revolution assured residents of this province there would be no further cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture; and

"Whereas the current Minister of Agriculture repeatedly stated during the said election campaign that a Mike Harris government would not cut but increase spending to agriculture; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has indeed cut agriculture spending by $80 million and is now proceeding with an additional $60-million cut over the next two years;

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

"To cease the program of cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture, to increase funding in this ministry to an appropriate level and ensure the existence of the Ministry of Agriculture for the years to come."

I also sign the petition.

BLOOD SYSTEM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition from a number of citizens of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw your attention to the following:

"That over 70% of persons with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through the use of blood-derived treatment products. With hepatitis C as with HIV, the same institutional players of the blood system failed to respond to the identified risk of transmission, failed to properly notify people of the potential risk of exposure, failed to implement safety measures to lessen the risk of transmission, that is, the failure of the Red Cross to implement surrogate testing for hepatitis C for over four years, and now continue to deny any responsibility for these failures.

"That the representatives of Hemophilia Ontario and its hepatitis C task force have been advocating for financial compensation to those individuals who have been infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system. The provincial Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, has three times cancelled meetings with Hemophilia Ontario, and the provincial and territorial ministers of health have publicly stated that they intend to keep the issue of hepatitis C compensation off their agenda in future meetings; and

"Further, that the only prescribed treatment for hepatitis C in Ontario is alpha interferon, which has a less than 25% success rate in clearing the virus among people who have had one exposure to the virus. Many haemophiliacs were repeatedly exposed to the hepatitis C virus through the use of blood-derived treatment products. The response to interferon therapy in haemophiliacs with chronic HCV infection is poor and appears inferior to that of other groups of infected patients. In view of the generally poor response to interferon therapy in haemophiliacs, treatment with interferon is inappropriate in the majority of individuals, as quoted in Blood magazine, volume 87, number 5, March 1996.

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon you to meet with representatives of Hemophilia Ontario's hepatitis C task force now to discuss issues related to compensation."

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition signed by approximately 100 constituents from the riding of Lambton. It states:

"Professing that our world belongs to God and believing that governments are called to secure justice for all, with prejudice towards none and with compassion for the weak and powerless;

"We, the undersigned, urge you, our member of provincial Parliament, to oppose and resist the spread of gambling into our area. Specifically, we ask you to resist all efforts to install video lottery terminals here and oppose the operation of local or regional charity casinos."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Northwestern hospital provides quality health care to the residents of northwest Toronto; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario and the board of Humber River regional hospital are planning to close Northwestern hospital as early as September 1997; and

"Whereas adequate replacement services are not available and the care of all residents in northwest Metro will be in jeopardy; and

"Whereas there have already been cases of risk to patients due to the rush to close Northwestern this summer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to guarantee no shutdown of services at Northwestern occurs until replacement services are available, and further to review the quality of health services which will be available to the whole northwest area."

I have several hundred local residents who have signed this petition. I add my signature to theirs.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government is abandoning its responsibility to provide good care for people who live in long-term-care facilities by defunding and deregulating the sector; and

"Whereas the resulting staffing shortages lead to loss of quality care, decreased resident security and more workplace injuries; and

"Whereas the selloff to for-profit operators of the care for our frail, elderly residents raises questions about accountability, accessibility, working conditions and quality of care and pits frail residents against robust profits; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that funding, staffing and standards provide a level of care which promotes dignity and respect for those who live and work in long-term-care facilities;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide adequate funding for the care of residents in long-term-care facilities, to establish and enforce provincial standards for care in Ontario long-term-care facilities and to impose a moratorium on the selloff of care for vulnerable residents to the for-profit sector."

I agree with this petition and I'm proud to affix my signature.

CHILD CARE

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

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infant and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature to (a) pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices, such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care, and to (b) pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

I have signed this petition.

RENT REGULATION

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that `rent control will continue'; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those that can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and to introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature as I'm in total and complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, woman-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health care."

I am proud to affix my signature as I am in agreement with the petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 142, An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes / Projet de loi 142, Loi révisant la loi relative à l'aide sociale en édictant la Loi sur le programme Ontario au travail et la Loi sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées, en abrogeant la Loi sur les prestations familiales, la Loi sur les services de réadaptation professionnelle et la Loi sur l'aide sociale générale et en modifiant plusieurs autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 4, 1997, I am now required to put the question.

Mrs Ecker has moved second reading of Bill 142. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1530 to 1535.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kormos, Peter

Laughren, Floyd

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 4, 1997, the bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on social development.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N^O 2)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 8, 1997, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Leach has moved second reading of Bill 148. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1540 to 1545.

The Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Kormos, Peter

Laughren, Floyd

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 8, 1997, this bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on general government.

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

Mrs Mushinski moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 109, An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques de façon à situer à l'échelon local les pouvoirs, la responsabilité et l'obligation de rendre compte concernant la fourniture et la gestion efficace des services locaux de bibliothèque.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Mr Speaker, I will be dividing my time this afternoon with the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

The Local Control of Public Libraries Act proposes to do exactly what its title suggests: put the responsibility and accountability for managing public libraries where it belongs, with the communities which are served by those libraries.

We are very proud of our libraries. This government wants to ensure that they will continue to serve the people of this province as repositories of books and as very accessible sources of information in all its many forms. The best way to do this is to allow the communities served by those libraries to determine how their own public library resources should be used.

Last year, the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation conducted consultations with the library community and the public. Officials from the ministry and I spoke with delegations of library associations and organizations, with members of library boards and municipal councils and, most important, with library users themselves.

This year, following second reading of this bill, the standing committee on general government held hearings in which my parliamentary assistant, Mr Derwyn Shea, participated on my behalf. In these consultations and hearings there was a strong consensus that library boards should be retained. The bill before you proposes to do just that.

The committee recommended other changes. The bill now provides that library boards have a minimum number of board members and that meetings of the library board be open to members of the public.

Library boards will ensure that the concerns of libraries will keep a high profile at the municipal level. They are an ideal way for citizens to become involved in the management of their local library's resources. A further opportunity for community participation in the governance of libraries will arise when each municipality debates its own bylaws on the makeup of its library boards.

In the hearings there was some discussion as to who should be eligible to be on library boards. Some presenters felt that a majority of citizens other than elected officials should be required by the bill. The advantages of having elected officials on the library board were noted by Tom Boyle, the chair of the Bruce County Public Library, who made the point that the presence of elected officials on library boards furthers the accountability of the board to the community. The standing committee adopted the position that municipalities should be free to constitute library boards as they see fit. This conclusion is reflected in the bill now before the House.

In the consultations there was also a strong consensus that core services of libraries continue to be offered free of charge. There would be no charge for access to libraries -- anyone would be able to enter a library and use library-owned collections free of charge -- there would be no charge to residents for borrowing books and other printed materials and there were be no charge for borrowing special-format materials for residents with disabilities.

During the hearings there was strong support for the network connecting Ontario's libraries. Through the Ontario library network, libraries communicate with each other to make interlibrary loans possible. Thanks to these systems of interconnectivity, small neighbourhood libraries have access to specialized collections held by much larger libraries on the other side of the city or on the other side of the province.

The network is currently being enhanced to carry high-speed digital information in multimedia form and to connect to the Internet and other repositories of information throughout the province, the country, and indeed the world. Under the new library framework, the government would continue to fund this network for the benefit of all of Ontario's public libraries.

If Bill 109 is adopted, day-to-day responsibility for and control over library operations will clearly rest with the local government. The province will continue to use its resources to advance the Ontario library network, and the new library framework will protect the traditional role of our libraries while recognizing and advancing their position on the leading edge of the information revolution.

These times have been called the information age. We know very well how thoroughly we rely on access to information and the exchange of information just to function in everyday life. Our public libraries are the most accessible source of information in society today. The goal of our new library framework is to ensure that libraries remain accessible while serving the rapidly evolving needs of the communities they serve. I am pleased to recommend this bill to my colleagues in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Chudleigh): Further debate? Questions and comments?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): She is splitting her time.

The Acting Speaker: Splitting the time, the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I am very pleased to follow up on the comments made by the distinguished minister, the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski. I remind all members of this House of the title of the bill before us today. It is the Local Control of Public Libraries Act. I remind us of that because that is extremely important throughout this debate. It proposes to do exactly what its title suggests: put the responsibility of accountability for managing local libraries where it belongs, with the communities which are served by those libraries. I ask us to remember that as we go through this debate. It puts the responsibility for governance of the libraries in the hands of those councils directly elected by the people.

I am confident that when passed by this assembly, this act will serve us well. Bill 109 would amend the Public Libraries Act to add the following purpose to the existing legislation:

"(1) To ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs;

"(2) To support Ontarians' requirements for access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society;

"(3) To allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network."

Surely those are three principles at which no one in this House would take umbrage.

This act would be the newest phase in the evolution of the relationship between the government and the province's public libraries. This is a relationship which, I remind us, predates Confederation. It is a relationship which has evolved and changed with the times. The Local Control of Public Libraries Act, together with a new regulation under the Municipal Act, would provide a new framework for Ontario's public libraries. This new framework would result in more effective and simpler management of library services at the local level.

I ask you to mark these words. We believe that municipalities, which provide the majority of library funding, are in the best position to make the decisions which affect the delivery of local library service. Surely this is a fundamental principle in a democratic system. I find myself struggling -- and I'll wait to hear with more than passing interest the arguments that will be posed by my distinguished colleague from Port Arthur in the Liberal Party opposition and from my distinguished colleagues in the NDP third party, who will try to tell this House why local government ought not to be trusted in the governance of local libraries. I look to hearing that.

1600

Our province-wide review of library services began, I remind us also, before Mr Crombie's Who Does What panel, and this proposed legislation and the new library framework are consistent with the principles of that report. I emphasize that the Who Does What panel brought forward this sort of recommendation for us to follow.

To safeguard the independence of libraries, I also remind us Bill 109 would continue to require that libraries be operated by library boards. I want to say at this point that's a point on which I was touched and persuaded by deputations during the public hearings. I think they were well made and I think the minister and the government have responded appropriately to those deputations.

After much discussion as to the minimum number of members a library board would be required to have, the standing committee has decided to recommend that no fewer than three members should sit on a duly constituted library board, and that is also in keeping with many of the comments raised by deputants before the committee -- three members. I also point out that that is the minimum number in the bill, as amended.

I would like to take this opportunity as well, on behalf of the minister, to thank all those who took part in the standing committee's review of this legislation, particularly the many people from around the province who took the time and made the effort to submit briefs and attend the hearings. I want to give them comfort to know that each and every one of us read those briefs diligently and listened very carefully to the deputations.

Our new library framework is appropriate for the age of the knowledge-based society -- the minister was making that point, and I want to re-emphasize that -- and the information economy that is before us now, two developments in which I am pleased to say Ontario has led the way. As new systems of information technology have been developed and applied to business, government and the institutions of learning, our libraries have made this state-of-the-art technology available to the public.

Even while our libraries are bringing us information on the electronic highways, they are continuing to fulfil their traditional and much beloved roles in society. Libraries are the places where youngsters have some of their earliest and most memorable experiences with the written word. Libraries are at the forefront of our literacy efforts. They are the storehouses of community information and of the collected wisdom of mankind throughout the ages.

But as I said, Ontario's relationship with our public libraries is changing. Under our proposed new library framework, the province would continue to develop its support for and involvement in the system that connects our libraries with one another and, I also point out, with the world. The province would continue to build on the support of the Ontario Library Service. The OLS resource-sharing system facilitates the sharing of print materials, electronic database access and Internet resources among librarians.

The province would also continue to be active in developing library policy, in setting standards and assisting libraries to achieve the standards necessary to make full use of the provincial library systems.

The province is now active and would continue to be active in encouraging and facilitating cost-saving measures such as the coming together of publicly funded resource centres. Under the new library framework, local communities would be encouraged to make cost-effective alliances and partnerships best suited to their particular needs. As the name of the act declares, there would be more local control.

I know that some of my colleagues in the opposition have serious reservations about such local control. I will recall the comments of the distinguished member from Nickel Belt, a member I have consummate regard for, at the time of the previous revision of the Public Libraries Act. Will you permit me, Mr Speaker, to remind us that Mr Laughren expressed his view that library boards "are more democratic in nature than even school boards or municipal councils"? His major concern was the power of municipal councils, and at the suggestion that municipal councils should have line-by-line control over the budgets of library boards, Mr Laughren stated, "I think that is simply horrendous." Democracy shocks my friend and colleague.

Mr Laughren continued: "It is going to allow the municipal council to say, `We think you are buying the wrong kind of books.' I hope I'm not reading too much into this, because I do not mean simply to raise a red flag, but what if the municipal council says, `We think your books are simply too liberal' -- by that I mean small-l liberal, of course."

This is a direct quote, I say to my colleague from Port Arthur. "We think they are too liberated," he perhaps meant. "`We do not like all these books on women's liberation. We do not like these books on liberation theology.'"

In another quarter, I may have an interesting and spirited debate with my colleague on liberation theology, but for now I find it appropriate to at least raise on the floor Mr Laughren's classic response. It bespeaks an attitude of a party towards local government which I find at the very least bemusing.

I ask you to also remember the words of --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe there is no quorum, and there should be, because we need to hear this member.

The Acting Speaker: Could the table determine whether there is a quorum in the House, please.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Shea: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the intervention by the member for Fort York because I want to turn my attention to him for just a moment. It was very timely that he made that usual intervention because I want to remind us of his remarks when we were debating this bill a little earlier this year. Let me just quote, and please listen very carefully to the thoughts behind these words. The member for Fort York said:

"Giving full governance to the municipalities means that we no longer have the kind of library system where we're guaranteed a majority of public citizens, ordinary citizens, to be there to preserve the public interest. When we take that away, which is what we had under the old act, we no longer will have, I suspect and fear, a citizenry that will be controlling those library boards, but we will have who knows what. We will have municipalities which will take complete control of those library systems, as many have wanted to do in the past.... Many municipalities may decide that we don't need chief librarians, that we can take it over by a bureaucracy of our municipal government and run it through other librarians, let them run whatever remains of our libraries in those towns and/or counties."

What in heaven's name does he mean by these words "ordinary citizens, to be there to preserve the public interest"? What does the member for Fort York think about locally elected members of council? I despair when I hear that kind of philosophy. I despair because it could be interpreted as arrogance on the one hand or abysmal ignorance on the other side. I despair when I see that. However, I suppose the member will have an explanation of why he won't trust locally elected councils, and we will look forward to hearing that with interest.

More than that, perhaps he will say why his party would believe that way, why he would run in the face of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which represents the municipalities of this province, who have said, "This is what they want," and run in the face of what the Who Does What panel has said. My dear colleague from the riding of Fort York and his party obviously won't trust the people and whom they elect to the office of council. I find that rather sad. He hides behind appointed agencies, boards and commissions, as though democracy can be positive there and is not to be found in elected councils. It may be that he arrives at that conclusion because he has never served on a municipal council. Had he served on such a council, I think he would be the first to rise in anger and outrage.

1610

To address the concern of the composition of the new library boards, I should point out the following: I am aware of several municipalities where there have already been informal discussions between the library board, the librarian and the municipality regarding the wording of the new bylaw to be presented to the new council. Surely such proactive measures as these on the part of the library community, working with their local councils, will do much to alleviate any tensions or concerns about the relationships of future library boards with their municipal councils.

The new framework would come into effect when the new councils take office following the 1997 municipal elections. As such, Bill 109 does respond to the government's Who Does What initiative to realign responsibilities between the provincial and municipal levels of government, and it's long overdue.

I should point out that neither the Who Does What exercise nor our proposed amendments will have any effect on the provincial funding for the approximately 50 first nations libraries, most of which receive in excess of 75% of their funding from the government of Ontario. Be very clear about what I said in that regard: No effect on approximately 50 first nations libraries, most of which receive in excess of 75% of their funding from the government of Ontario.

With technological advances and the trend towards electronic publishing being more and more the norm, there's some information that is only available or best accessed in electronic form. It's important that this information be made available to the public.

In the last century, information was disseminated in printed form. Libraries were founded to give access to this information to the public, not just to the privileged few who owned large collections of books. In this century and the next, more and more information will be disseminated in electronic form. Once again, our libraries will be there to see that this information is also available to the public, not just to those who own their own electronic hardware.

On June 6, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, attended the official inauguration of six dedicated Internet workstations at the Scugog Public Library in Port Perry. This is an important local initiative which will make the vast information resources of the global information highway available to residents. Our goal is to ensure that every public library in Ontario is able to offer electronic access to information. This will be an important objective under the new library framework.

Under this new library framework, libraries would continue to offer -- and I want you to mark these words, please -- free access to library facilities; use of library collections on library premises would continue to be free of charge, as would the borrowing of books and other printed material by residents. Borrowing of special-format materials for residents with disabilities would also be offered by the libraries without charge. Watch my lips: free, without charge.

I'd like to point out to my colleagues that the phrase "library collections" provides a wide interpretation entirely suitable for the wide range of media in which information is now presented. The wording currently in effect is "library materials," which does not clearly include information in an electronic medium.

There are some services for which the libraries' patrons must pay on a per-use basis, as they do now. The new library framework would clarify that libraries would have the right to pass certain charges on to their users if they choose to do so. The fees, if any, for such services would be determined by the local library boards.

Those boards, I remind you, would be directly accountable to the local council, which is directly accountable and elected by the people. Why the opposition party and the third party find that principle of democracy offensive is simply beyond me.

One possible user fee might be for the take-home use of videos. I know from the librarian of the Michipicoten Public Library in northern Ontario that they expect that the revenue from videos alone will exceed the funding shortfall that might arise from the Who Does What exercise. Please hear those words again, Mr Speaker, because I know you sat up most attentively to hear those words: They expect that the revenue from videos alone will exceed the funding shortfall that might arise from the Who Does What exercise.

That particular library could then increase its revenues without requiring an increase in funding from the township. That's extremely important. This is one of the many strengths of this bill. More flexibility will be given to each municipality to determine the best method of serving the public in their area.

AMO supports this bill. Why doesn't the opposition? As Grant Hopcroft, deputy mayor of London, Ontario, said in the hearings, the bill "addresses our need for more local control, efficiency and accountability while at the same time ensuring that public access to libraries is not jeopardized." This is indeed the intention of the act. This government has listened; this government has responded to those requests. It's gratifying to see that our efforts in this regard have been recognized.

Under the new library framework, communities would have control of their libraries. At the same time, free access to information, including information in media whose existence could not have been anticipated when the province of Canada -- I say again, the province of Canada -- passed our first Public Libraries Act in 1851, would be guaranteed.

This legislation and the new library framework would be an important footing on which libraries could continue to build their very proud traditions. I am most pleased to recommend Bill 109, as amended, to the members of this House.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm absolutely delighted to support Bill 109, because what it will do, as the member for High Park-Swansea reiterated more than once, is enhance flexibility. It's going to be interesting to hear, but I'm going to try and anticipate what the members of the opposition will probably raise; that is, that these libraries won't be able to operate in this new regime because the only option they'll have is to increase taxes.

In a fiscal restraint context, in the Etobicoke Public Library board, of which I had the privilege to be the chair for three years, and lots of other smaller, larger and medium-sized library boards in Ontario from 1992 through to 1995, what happened? Libraries saw decreases in the amount of money they got from both the provincial government at that time and from the municipalities, yet in many instances, Etobicoke being only one, they were able to build new libraries, replacing old capital plant that had been around 50 years, and they were able to be flexible in terms of customizing business services, as the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library was able to do, and lots of other libraries in Ontario.

To bring up the spectre that they're only going to raise taxes and lower municipal library service is absolutely inaccurate, absolutely non-factual when you look at the history of what library professionals were doing long before this bill came along. Now that we have this bill on the books, when it gets royal assent it's going to enhance flexibility of service, and also at the same time retrieve and retain intellectual access and freedom.

On those principles, I recommend this bill very highly to this House.

1620

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions and comments?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm glad to have an opportunity to respond to the minister, the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale clearly wasn't at the public hearings and didn't hear the representations that were being made all across this province, which made it very clear that the word "flexibility" you're using really is a cruel word. The fact is that we are putting libraries in a position where, in essence, they are going to be literally hounded out of existence in terms of some of the smaller communities. You have to listen to them to hear that.

The member for High Park-Swansea doesn't talk about the pure reality. They don't tell you that in essence what they've done is that this bill has removed all provincial funding, all per-household grants to the libraries in the province. Regardless of what he may say about one particular board saying they can raise the revenues, the fact is that in some municipalities that per-household grant was absolutely crucial to them surviving.

What is comes down to, though, is whether this government feels committed to libraries at all. It became very clear to us when this process began that this process is just part of the Who Does What downloading package.

I have great respect for the member for High Park-Swansea, but during the public hearings, and certainly during the clause-by-clause, he kept making reference to the fact that we didn't trust the municipalities. We trust the municipalities very much. They've been very strong supporters of libraries. They pay the bulk of the funding. The fact is that what's happened to the municipalities is that they will now be in a position where they will be expected to increase the amount of funding they provide to libraries to maintain the level of service they have, which they will not be able to do because of the downloading process that has taken place.

There are a variety of issues that need to be addressed. I look forward to having a greater opportunity to respond when my turn comes around. The question of a citizen majority on boards is a crucial one, again addressed by delegation upon delegation, how important it was to maintain citizen-majority boards. I'll look forward to hearing and talking further about this.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I've been waiting quite some time for this opportunity to say initially some brief words about this act. I travelled with the committee as it went around the province. On behalf of my colleague the member for Downsview, who has equally --

Mr Silipo: Dovercourt.

Mr Martin: Dovercourt. Let's get this straight. It's close. We used to have a member for Downsview who was very good in this House, and he will be back after the next election.

The member for Dovercourt has a tremendous interest in this piece of legislation. It was good to be able to bring back to him some of what I heard the people of Ontario saying about this piece of work by this government. It's really not very complicated. This piece of business is consistent with everything else this government has been doing over its short tenure of two years and some months here at Queen's Park.

It's about taking money out. It's about removing money. It's about downsizing the presence of government in communities by way of, in this instance, libraries. It's about diminishing the role of libraries. It's about making sure that people out there have fewer resources to access so they can take on this government in significant ways and so they can participate more fully in the life of their community. It's about taking away control.

One of the messages that came through loud and clear was the issue of democratic control, of citizen participation on the boards of directors of libraries. It's very clearly about that. It's in some instances about the very survival of libraries, particularly in smaller communities. We had a number of people come from smaller communities speaking very eloquently and passionately about the role and the importance of libraries in their particular communities. They were afraid that at the end of the day under this bill they would have no library and no access to libraries. That would be very sad.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's interesting to hear the different comments. First, my compliments to the minister and the member for High Park-Swansea and also the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for some excellent presentations on this bill, the problem and what's evolving with it.

I'm a little disappointed with what I'm hearing from across the House. It's obvious they're not up to date and current on activities and happenings in libraries.

Originally, libraries were books, magazines and newspapers. They came in at a time, back in the late 1800s, when they were desperately needed. People like Carnegie gave a tremendous amount of money and built some 111 libraries in Ontario. But things have changed since then. We're now into the information age, which Canada is really leading in, particularly here in Ontario; as a matter of fact, we're doing an awful lot of export of our information technology. I think it's time that the NDP and the Liberals were aware of what's going on in libraries and give to municipalities the tools they can use and take advantage of and have in their libraries and maybe charge, if they see fit, for some of those things in their libraries.

Libraries are no longer simply books and magazines and newspapers; it's a very different kind of operation than it was at the turn of the century or just a few decades ago. It's important to keep that very much in mind. They're high-quality libraries, and we just have to get on with current activities and what's needed in these libraries; not hamstring the municipalities as to what they can or cannot do, but get rid of some of the prescriptive rules and regulations that have been in the previous legislation.

This is certainly the direction to go. I don't think there's any question that if you sort out this particular bill, this happens to be a management issue. It's certainly not simply an emotional issue, as they demonstrate.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to comment on the presentations by the minister as well as the member for High Park-Swansea and build on some comments made by my colleague from Port Arthur.

The biggest worry -- I have a quote from a presenter at the hearings which I'd like to share: "The overall context is pressure, financial pressure in a changing world of communications and a changing concept of literacy. It's not just books any more, as we all know. We get our information from all different sources."

It's in this evolution of technological change where the pressures are going to come from, where the inaccessibility is going to exist. As someone has pointed out, there are some charges now. There will probably be more charges, if the service is even offered, in order to provide the vast array of opportunities to retrieve documents or even to have access to other libraries.

Heather Menzies, whom I know, represented the Ontario Library Association. She said that:

"In Ontario, Bill 109 threatens to make this a whole lot worse, not just because the province is terminating its partial funding of libraries in the province, dumping the whole $30-million cost on to individual municipalities," which can't afford to pick up the difference on their own.

In cases like Ottawa, in my riding, "city officials are offering no guarantees to people like Barbara Clubb, who is the chief librarian of the Ottawa Public Library.... Equally, if not more importantly in terms of the underdevelopment dynamic, the legislation will also end the requirement for independent citizen library boards." I hear the minister saying she is reviewing that. I hope she does comes up with an amendment that will address that factor.

The Acting Speaker: The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon Ms Mushinski: There are several things that have been said that I feel need to be corrected. First of all, the member for Port Arthur says this really is only as a result of the Who Does What initiative. He's wrong. This consultation process has taken place over the last two years, and I think what was important about that consultation process is the results of the legislation in Bill 109, because those results reflect clearly the input that was provided primarily by users and municipalities as a result of that consultation process.

It's interesting that I keep hearing this doom and gloom about the death of libraries, but I think what the legislation also speaks to is that there is a provincial interest in continuing to support a very strong library network. As a result of that we envision a strengthening of local libraries through that particular library network, including the interlibrary loan system, and that is something they failed to mention was a part of that input we will also receive through that consultation process.

In responding to the comments made by the honourable member for Ottawa Centre, I can only allude to one particular statement that was made here from the city of Nepean on April 9, 1997, when councillor Rick Chiarelli and councillor Doug Collins said that the library system was revitalized under the new Public Libraries Act of 1984.

1630

Mr Gravelle: I am glad to finally have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the public library users and the public libraries and all those who care about the health of our library system in terms of Bill 109, a bill that I think in many ways is going to lead to a very, very badly managed system and one that will not be able to survive, and I don't view that as a doom-and-gloom scenario so much as simply a reality of what we have seen in this bill.

Before I start with my remarks, I should probably let the people of Ontario know that in some way we are lucky to have third reading debate taking place at all, because last week the government put forward a time allocation motion on this particular bill, which in essence would have absolutely eliminated debate on third reading altogether, something that is virtually unprecedented in this province. There was an extraordinary outcry when we learned that it was the intention to do that, to simply decide there was going to be time allocation put forward. We would have debated the time allocation. We would have had third reading. The people of Ontario should have been outraged by that -- they were -- and certainly responded very strongly, and I presume that the minister recognized that the outrage was unacceptable and decided that third reading should go forward.

Having said that, we certainly hope there will be an opportunity to debate this bill more than just one sessional day. That is the impression we are getting. A variety of my colleagues -- the member for Renfrew North, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Ottawa Centre -- have made it clear they would like to have an opportunity to speak on this. I hope there is an opportunity to have another sessional day or two to discuss this, as we believe this is a very important bill. We think it is insulting that the government tried to simply sneak this by in terms of time allocation, although they have now obviously relented and are having third reading debate.

I want to use my time as best I can, recognizing that my colleague from Dovercourt also wants an opportunity to have some remarks today. With that fear being built in that we may not have another opportunity to do so, I will use my time as carefully as possible.

I want to start by explaining what this bill is all about. The government is going to put a spin on this, and I guess that is what governments do and that is recognized. It is recognized that it is what politicians do. What we want to do is make you understand, and the library community users understand this, that this bill really is about downloading. It is about giving this government essentially an escape chute, if you will, for a responsibility for Ontario's 412 public library systems. It is not about finding efficiencies or any duplication; it is about taking a system that works and essentially trying to break it.

We have the Public Libraries Act of 1984 that was still very much a workable library act and was only changed because of the downloading realities. It is not about improving public libraries, as the minister suggested when the bill was first introduced; it is about ending the provincial role in a 140-plus-year public library tradition in Ontario, and it is about creating a patchwork of underfunded libraries across this province.

This bill is about tossing away provincial responsibility for libraries by dumping millions of dollars of new financial responsibility on to municipalities. Through this downloading process, we do believe, and municipalities have spoken to us about this -- certainly the library boards have -- that municipalities will be left without the resources to maintain local library service to the current standards. I think that is why it is important to point out that municipalities have been extraordinarily supportive of libraries across this province, but this bill will put them in a position where not only do they have the extraordinary pressures of being faced by the variety of downloading measures that have come upon them, but they will be asked or expected to even raise their current level of support, and I think that is simply unrealistic.

This bill, we believe, truly destroys public library standards in Ontario. We believe the minister's credibility has suffered on this issue and we believe that values such as universal access to libraries have literally gone out the window. The member for Northumberland, for example, talked about the new reality in libraries, and he was quite right. What he didn't refer to and should have was that the only thing that is guaranteed in terms of free usage is core activities, which come down to print material. If the member for Northumberland had read that bill more carefully, he would recognize that one of the real dangers is that in our new technology, as things change, access to the Internet, access to all the technological advances are where user fees now will be -- if not allowed, the libraries will be forced to implement that.

On April 7, when we began our public hearings, the minister of culture said she would be open to amendments for Bill 109. On May 15, her parliamentary assistant, my colleague from High Park-Swansea, essentially orchestrated the defeat of almost every single opposition amendment to Bill 109. It was pretty extraordinary to listen to the minister on the one hand say she would listen to these concerns, and then to watch as we sat there in clause-by-clause while her parliamentary assistant could not find a way to support any of the measures, many of which were not that difficult for the government to support if they truly cared about the library system and wanted to maintain some level of accountability.

One looks at the Common Sense Revolution, and I can't recall the Common Sense Revolution saying that a literate population is not a priority, but that is what this bill means and that is what we keep seeing in this House when we watch what is happening with the Ministry of Education. I do not recall the Common Sense Revolution saying that any persons, regardless of age, regardless of ability to pay, regardless of geography, would be denied access to their public libraries, but as a result of this bill that is what it will ultimately mean as well. I do not recall the revolution saying that lifelong learning or the educational and informational needs of every Ontarian are not important, but that is what this bill will ultimately end up meaning. There is really no way the government members can get around that when one looks at what is in this bill and what the results are down the road. The support system is not there.

The Ontario Liberals believe in the tradition of public libraries. We understand the importance of libraries in this information age. Each and every government member across the way clearly has not read the bill, does not understand the bill, if they are simply going along and following on what again is the government mandate. I certainly want at this stage to applaud all the public libraries and all the library users, the friends of libraries across the province, who spoke to all their provincial members, many of whom I know were government members. Those library boards spoke in very clear terms about the concerns they had about the bill. It would be heartening to have the members on the government side now at least expressing the concerns they expressed, because those concerns came up very quickly in the process.

The government always uses the terms of talking about accountability and they suggest we don't trust municipalities. We trust municipalities; what we do not trust is a government that has no concern about accountability itself. We tried in clause-by-clause to put forward a number of amendments that would at least maintain some level of accountability by this government, including suggesting, once it was recognized there was not going to be any support for our amendments, to at least find ways of monitoring the process -- "Let's watch what happens" -- and have some process by which there is reporting back to the Legislative Assembly on what is happening in the library system. Even those were defeated. All this government ultimately has to do is look at the public meeting process that took place, look at the presentations that were made by concerned members of the public and all those who came forward, and the government literally has ignored the concerns of every single individual or group that came forward to make a deputation before the standing committee.

I want to use some time to state my position, our position, our concern about the importance of public libraries. That has not been expressed by the government members in any real way, and I'm sure there won't be any argument here. Certainly we know that libraries are important to children, they're important to seniors, they're important to the unemployed. They are important.

1640

I recall the member for High Park-Swansea talking about democracy. They are one of the truly democratic places where everybody is welcome. This is what we feel ultimately will be threatened by the process that is starting with this particular bill.

We know that libraries are important to the people in each and every community in Ontario, whether they live in a Toronto neighbourhood or a rural community in northern Ontario. Libraries are important to the information needs of every Ontarian as we approach a new century where access to information will become even more important. Libraries are important to the information, education, recreation, leisure and civic needs of all Ontario residents.

Libraries are important to the values of lifelong learning and very much connected with the education system. They are important to ensuring that we have a literate population. It's ironic that yesterday was International Literacy Day, a day taken by the Ontario Literacy Coalition, along with the Thunder Bay Literacy Coalition, to remind this government of a declaration signed by Canada and the world. I will take some time just to read the declaration:

"Literacy, conceived broadly as the basic knowledge and skills needed by all in a rapidly changing world, is a fundamental human right. In every society, literacy is a necessary skill in itself and one of the foundations of other life skills.

"We therefore commit ourselves to ensuring opportunities for all to acquire and maintain literacy skills. The provision of learning opportunities for all, including the unrelated and the excluded, is the most urgent concern."

It seems quite ironic to me that a piece of legislation such as this, which ultimately will make accessibility to libraries far more difficult, that will change the process by which libraries are funded, that will make this government itself ultimately totally non-accountable for the process in this province, is very, very sad -- a day after we are proclaiming International Literacy Day.

There is an interesting document that was sent to me, and on behalf of the authors and the publishers of the document, I passed it on to every member of this Legislature. I certainly hope all of them took the opportunity to read it.

The document is called Dividends: The Value of Public Libraries in Canada. Nancy Fleming, the executive director of the Book and Periodical Council, graciously provided me with copies of this excellent resource which I distributed to the members in August. I want to have an opportunity to at least make some reference to some of the issues she brings forward. I should probably be fair: It's researched by Jody Warner, written by Leslie Fitch and Jody Warner, and it was for the library action committee of the Book and Periodical Council. So it's an important document that I hope the members of the House had an opportunity to read. If I have more time later, I will perhaps get back to it, but this is an important paragraph that I want to read right now.

"The reduction of a library's budget has an impact more profound than a simple decrease in the number of items acquired at that library. Budget reductions affect publishers and vendors, library users, staffing and service levels, service hours and the quality of library collections, and compromise the necessity to add new technologies. At a time when more Canadians than ever need and use public library services, budget cuts threaten the staff and services that users require for success in their day-to-day lives." Those are incredibly important words.

We look at this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that, based on just the facts of it, absolutely sets up a system of underfunded libraries across this province. There is no question that when you take a government that previously provided some funding, although the government has had two years of previous cuts that the libraries have been forced to adapt to, but when you remove that support altogether, especially in some of the smaller library branches, you're simply setting up a system. To say that the video collection can make up for it in terms of user fees is unfair, it's inaccurate, and I just find it irresponsible for the government members to talk in those terms.

What I said at the beginning is just so true: This is about downloading. This is part of the Who Does What exercise. Despite what the minister said in her response, it's part of the package that is being forced upon municipalities. The fact is that the municipalities may indeed need the tools to deal with this reality. They don't want this so much as they may require this. As we said all through the hearings process, and continued when the opportunity came up, municipalities are in a position where they have no choice but to essentially deliver and force some of these realities on to the public in terms of user fees.

That's where we also have to deal with the fact that the citizen-majority boards, a long-standing and important tradition in the library system, are being done away with. No matter how the government paints this picture about the number of members on the library board -- and we appreciated and supported that there were three members of the community on it -- the fact is it is not going to be a citizen majority. We think that's terribly important for a number of reasons: for intellectual freedom reasons; for the reasons of being able to fight for what they believe in; and for finding, we believe, as does almost everyone who made a presentation, that citizen majorities are crucial to maintaining the integrity of the library system.

We look at a bill that does those things: removes the per household grant and creates a setup where municipalities will have the potential and the likelihood of setting up a board system that can be literally run from within their own municipal structure.

In terms of the doom-and-gloom scenario, let me say that we know this is not going to mean the system is closing down in the course of the next year. What we see is that without the support from this province in terms of provincial government support, over the course of a number of years we're going to see more and more systems being threatened and closed down. That's why we wanted to have a process in this legislation to at least monitor what was going on. I think that is absolutely crucial, and we're not getting that opportunity.

We are seeing now the Atikokan library literally being forced to close down for 11 weeks in the summertime because they can't get the financial support they need. We know that various municipalities have made it very, very clear to librarians and board members that they cannot expect more support and in fact may expect much less support, depending on what the downloading realities are.

It's appalling to me, frankly, that the government can simply withdraw from this process and talk about the fact that they've got an interlibrary loan system that is still in place. That's threatened as well because that costs money. You can't simply say, "The interlibrary loan system is going to stay in place." It's a very important part of the process but it's absolutely threatened because of this bill and because of the withdrawal of funding.

When the government tabled Bill 109 during mega-disaster week here in the Legislature in January, nine months ago, this government certainly heaped on the rhetoric of how their downloading plans would be better for the people of Ontario. They defended actions which I think in most cases were indefensible. They spoke of the value of dumping public health -- extraordinarily wrong -- and social housing -- I can't believe they're doing it -- ambulance services, social programs and public libraries on to the property taxpayers of this province. They've used words like "accountability" and "flexibility" to achieve local needs. The minister actually had the audacity to predict that library services would be improved in the province. She said we would be getting more libraries with no more provincial dollars flowed.

Applause.

Mr Gravelle: The member for Nepean is applauding. I just find it astonishing that we can have improved library service. I wonder if you've actually looked at Bill 109. Have you looked at Bill 109 and seen what the changes are and seen the fact that there is no accountability?

Interjections.

Mr Gravelle: I appreciate that the government members are going to be in lockstep in terms of this legislation, but I ask you to look at it very carefully, not just at the libraries in your own communities, because what we're looking at is a patchwork. Some communities will be able to maintain their public library system in much the same fashion, I won't deny that. I know in the city of Thunder Bay, my community, the loss of the per household grant is about a quarter of a million dollars. I have no doubt that the public library system will be retained in Thunder Bay, but it may be difficult to maintain it at the level it is. It may be difficult to maintain all the branches. The smaller communities, which I think this government just tends to want to ignore, the small and rural communities, we know how threatened they are. We are seeing it happen before this bill goes into effect.

But there is no question that this bill is going to have an extraordinary effect. I think the members of the government, while they will applaud and back up their minister in this, should look at this very carefully because they will also be held accountable for what happens to the library system in this province.

1650

This may very well be the last day, the only day we will get to debate this bill. Again I call on the government and implore them to allow more debate on this because there are so many members of the Legislature who want to have an opportunity to talk about their communities. They have all talked to their communities. But on behalf of the Ontario Liberals and our caucus, I want to thank and congratulate those from the library community and the friends of the library and those who care about the library who came forward to speak on aspects of this bill and to write letters and to send petitions. It was an extraordinary outpouring. I do not know how the minister could it ignore and say the things she said in her opening remarks today.

The library community is filled with individuals who care passionately about public libraries in this province. I want to personally thank all those who came forward to speak or those who wrote.

I'll say to the members of this House there is a strong, creative and compassionate corps of people working and volunteering for public libraries and they deserve our respect and praise.

While we have no time -- very little time in fact -- there are some people I want to mention, and in advance I apologize for not being able to literally pull out my extraordinarily thick piece of paper with all the people who gave their presentations. They all were extraordinary, but there many we spoke with very often and they helped us out and I want to mention them. I apologize if I mispronounce some of their names, and I'll do this as quickly as I can:

Linda Linton, the president of the Ontario Public Library Association: Steven Burdick and Janet Walker, from CUPE, Toronto library locals; Hilary Bates Neary, Ontario Library Trustees' Association; Karen McLean, from the East Gwillimbury Public Library; Wendy Newman, from the Brantford Public Library; Rick Goldsmith, a strong supporter of the Toronto Public Library; Reed Osborne, from the London Public Library; Barbara Taylor, from St Mary's Public Library; Harry Nesbitt, from the Stratford Public Library; Patricia Moody, from the Woodstock Public Library; Susan Moskal, from the Ontario College and University Library Association; Viola Poletes, Friends of the London Public Library; Frances Marin, from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Library; Lori Nash, from the Friends of the Library of Cumberland township; Eric Hicks, from the Gloucester Public Library; the Ontario women teachers' federation; Alan Pepper, from the Northern Ontario Library Service; and Moses Sheppard, from the United Steelworkers in Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario; Larry Moore, the executive director of the Ontario Library Association; and Greg Hayton, the president.

There were some people from northern Ontario, and again an extraordinary list. I am so conscious that under these new rule changes we are so limited in terms of the time we have to debate. There is not very much time left. The member for Nepean mocks that. I just find it astonishing.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Forty minutes?

Mr Gravelle: Exactly. I've got lots of need here and I won't carry on arguing with you, so I apologize.

Other people who should be acknowledged, because there are many who should be acknowledged:

Margaret MacLean and Karen Harrison, from the Thunder Bay Public Library; Laurie Wright --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Hear, hear.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you -- from the Red Rock Public Library; Jackie Boughner, from the Beardmore Public Library.

Interjection.

Mr Gravelle: The member for Lake Nipigon is very interested and I appreciate that. Members from his riding: Bryan Buffet, from the Dryden Public Library.

Mr Wildman: He didn't agree with the first one.

Mr Gravelle: No, he didn't. Elizabeth Russell, from the Ignace Public Library; Carol Cooke, from the Geraldton Public Library, whose son was a page here in the Legislature previously and very proud to be so; Jeanne Marcella, of the Terrace Bay Public Library came forward and wrote us about this; Susan Lawson, from the Burlington Public Library; Doris Brown, from the Atikokan Public Library; Valerie Scott, from the Cobourg Public Library; Steve Salmon, from the Windsor Public Library; Frances Schwenger and Maureen Rudzik from the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library.

While I can't name all those in the library community who proved an invaluable resource through the discussion of this bill, I would like to use the opportunity to read for the record some of the various comments and concerns that other people brought forward. I am going to just find my letters here.

This is from Darlene MacLeod, who is a Toronto Public Library worker. I don't know if I can read her entire letter, but I'm going to try. It's an extraordinary letter that really says it all:

"It is with a heavy heart that I write this letter to you. I was born and raised in southern Ontario and although I have studied and lived in other countries, I find myself settled in Toronto. I have considered library services to be an essential part of my life and I am greatly concerned about the impact of Bill 109 on libraries throughout Ontario.

"As a child I was instrumental in having our Wainfleet library board established by circulating a petition at our rural village school. The village fathers at that time appreciated the democratic expression that was instigated by the students. Today, the library is a symbol of civic pride that provides a wonderful service to the members of my family that remain in the village.

"While teaching in London, England, I was greatly impressed by the public library archives that are available for research by individuals from the world community. These invaluable resources are as precious as gold. They also provide sources of revenue generation, not by charging people to use them, but by allowing businesses within the locale to prosper from the many people who travel worldwide to study and research in these great libraries. These collections did not appear overnight; they had been painstakingly preserved and treasured for hundreds of years. Libraries are a long-term commitment to the future of any culture and civilization. The province of Ontario has an obligation to preserve libraries and library services. Ongoing funding is still needed to allow libraries to continue to introduce and provide information technologies to the public. The future and the past are embraced and nurtured in a public library system. This is an asset that has been well established in this province. To withdraw support at this critical moment in the information revolution is shortsighted and will be considered a tragedy by historians in the future.

"In an effort to save tax dollars, we are destroying our libraries. Highly trained and experienced staff are undervalued. Collections are and will be dispersed, dismantled and withdrawn from public use. Libraries have been closed, libraries that house special collections are being withdrawn and since they are undervalued, are being trashed or sold for a pittance. As a public servant and a keeper of the public trust, I implore you to request the government of the province of Ontario to reconsider the passage of Bill 109. It is not too late to revalue and reinvest in our library collections.

"Citizen library boards and free access to information are the very cornerstone of our civilization. To reduce funding of libraries, to reduce freedom of access, to reduce citizen involvement in these institutions is a grave mistake that will have implications on the future of our culture and civilization and its economic prosperity."

It's hard to imagine a more impassioned letter and more concern being expressed. I feel absolutely touched by it because I think that was the expression we saw and heard across the province continually.

If I may, I want to read a few others. Again, we're so limited in time, but some comments from Rick Goldsmith, the chair of the Toronto Public Library board:

"Volunteers and citizen participation are invaluable assets of current library boards. Bill 109 should enshrine citizen involvement on boards. Without such a guarantee, intellectual freedom, local responsiveness and grass-roots empowerment will be compromised.

"Bill 109 also threatens free access to information by those citizens who need it the most, and as such, places our entire free public library system at risk. We were very disappointed that the current government would not amend Bill 109 to reflect our concerns."

It's just extraordinary when one hears the concerns that are being expressed consistently by all the people who wrote, who spoke, who came forward to the committee hearings. It is astonishing to continue to see this government try and paint this as being a piece of legislation that will ultimately improve the library system in this province when it is so very clear that those people who understand how the library system works, those people who care about how it ties into our educational system, recognize that what will happen ultimately is going to, if not destroy the system, certainly put it at great peril. When you combine it with all the other downloading functions, it's really quite frightening.

May I read on? The Writers' Union of Canada passed a motion condemning the Ontario government's Bill 109, and I'm going to read it:

"Whereas the libraries have been fundamental in bringing books to the public; and

"Whereas the libraries have been among our staunchest allies in the fight against censorship; and

"Whereas the libraries have provided economic benefit to writers through public lending rights, Writers in the Libraries program and by hosting readings; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has introduced legislation which threatens these services, and similar threats have arisen in other jurisdictions such as Alberta and Manitoba" -- and may I say, in Alberta they are looking at it very carefully because they recognize the loss of citizen-majority boards has caused enormous problems;

"Be it therefore resolved that the Writers' Union of Canada convey to the Ontario government its strong opposition to this legislation, and to threats in other jurisdictions; and

"Be it further resolved that the Writers' Union of Canada communicate these concerns to the public."

They have done so very strongly and very, very well.

1700

My colleague spoke earlier of the speech that Heather Menzies, an acclaimed writer in Canada, gave to the Canadian Library Association a couple of months ago. She did make reference to Bill 109. I'm glad that he had an opportunity to speak on some of her comments because she expressed great concern about Bill 109 and made it very, very clear that Bill 109 was truly threatening access to free public libraries in our province and that we are setting up a situation where we are going to have nothing but a patchwork of library services in this province.

These individuals, and dozens and hundreds more, have offered near-unanimous opposition to Bill 109. They have spoken and they have written about the dangers of losing citizen-majority boards. They've spoken about the loss of the per household grant. Regardless of whether or not the government members think that's a significant amount or not, it's absolutely crucial to maintaining the standards we need in our library system. They talk about the loss of the universality of access to public libraries.

One recognizes that when the government says, "Yes, we will provide free access to core services," they mean books, they mean some print material, they don't mean the realities that we are into now and in the future. For example, Hansard, the document that we basically live by in the sense of where our words are spoken is no longer available in print at the library; it's only on the Internet system. It really is no longer going into print form. You're looking at a reality where the Ontario government itself is reducing access to Hansard, the document that is supposed to be our Bible.

It's important to state also that thousands and thousands of individuals signed petitions on behalf of Ontario's four million library users. They were supported by many editorials written by a variety of papers across this province. I want to mention some of the editorials that were written and talk about them because I think they were significant. I think it's important to note them.

The Peterborough Examiner said, "Without public participation on library boards, it's not a large leap from financial control to political control and finally to censorship." Words to be careful about.

It's very clear that indeed the citizen-majority boards are ones that municipalities may want to maintain. Again, I want to make it clear that I don't believe that all municipalities will now simply get rid of the citizen-majority boards. I know some will. It's the pressures they are going to be under to manage the funding of all the downloading realities that are coming upon them that are going to have libraries competing ultimately with services they shouldn't be competing with.

It's a question of how important are libraries to us. They're pretty important. I'd like to think everybody in this House thinks libraries are pretty important, which is why it was so offensive to have the minister and this government consider eliminating debate completely at third reading level by forcing a time allocation motion. I'm grateful that the pressure got to them and they retreated on that. The fact is this is an important piece of legislation, one that perhaps hasn't received enough attention, but when one watches everything this government has done, it's very difficult to have enough attention -- and with the rule changes being in effect.

Let me tell you about the Toronto Star. They dedicated two editorials to the subject of public libraries this year alone. The second editorial spoke on the recent 10-day closure of the Metro Toronto Reference Library, which is an issue that I'm sure my colleague from Dovercourt will speak about. Before I read the editorial, the fact is that the Metro Toronto Reference Library is a library for all Ontarians. It's a library that needs to maintain its own governance. It's a library system, a reference system that's incredibly important.

During clause-by-clause my colleague and I actually felt that the government was being sensitive to us. To be fair to the member for High Park-Swansea, indeed we agreed that a recommendation should go to the transition team for the new megacity that this should be considered very seriously. But we've not seen anything happen. We're not sure what's gone forward. The fact is that the Metro Toronto Reference Library is an incredibly important resource in this province and needs to be maintained and needs to have a separate governance model. That needs to be said.

Let me read to you the editorial that was in the Toronto Star, I think it was May 13, just around when we were doing clause-by-clause on this bill.

Mr Patten: My birthday.

Mr Gravelle: The birthday of the member for Ottawa Centre and a day when the Toronto Star was concerned about this. The title is "Saving Libraries" and it says:

"The public library system is one of our unifying institutions that is so universally supported that it's taken for granted. Yet under legislation now in its final stages at Queen's Park, the Mike Harris Tories would turn libraries over to municipalities and scrap the last $18-provincial subsidy." The truth is, it's actually more like $24 million. "Worse, cities won't be compelled to keep libraries open. If they do, they will be allowed to charge fees for virtually everything except the lending of books.

"In some places, this will have little impact. Wise municipal officials will ensure that no citizen should be charged for using the library. Other cash-strapped municipalities, however, will shut the local library down. Or they will charge user fees.

"Patrons may face new charges to look at a list of vacant affordable apartments, to enrol their children in early-reading programs, to check out a tape or CD; or even to look up where a book is kept on the library shelf. But the biggest and most dangerous potential area for fees is in the area of computerized information. More and more information these days is available only on computer," as the member for Northumberland pointed out.

"In many libraries, the only way to monitor government is through a computer. Most libraries don't get a printed version of the proceedings of the Legislature. In the recent battle over Metro amalgamation, both sides kept track of the debate by computer, figuring out where Bill 103 was in the House, what people said in testimony, and how MPPs voted. Under Bill 109, Ontarians may have to pay to get such information. That's clearly wrong.

"Only about 7.5% of Canadians have access to the Internet at home. The well-to-do will not suffer, but the poor will.

"Libraries help bind our fractious and diverse society, a place where citizens of all incomes and backgrounds have come together for generations. That unifying factor is what we're about to lose."

It's more and more clear that the concerns about what this bill will mean have been felt across this province. No matter what corner of the province you go to -- and in our hearings we went to all corners of the province and we heard the same reactions -- there's no question that in some of the smaller communities, in northern and rural communities, there is perhaps even a greater level of concern because I think some of the pressures that are being put on them may come forward earlier than the pressures on some of the larger municipalities.

I cannot stress strongly enough how I believe that all municipalities which have supported their libraries in the past will continue to do everything they can to support them in the future. But the fact is, the realities of these smaller municipalities will make it very, very difficult.

It's also important to note that the percentage of the support that was received from the province is significantly higher in a lot of the smaller communities. In some cases, 50% of the funding comes from provincial support which is being done away with.

As a northern member, as the member for Port Arthur, and proud to be one, I've spoken to a number of people and dealt with many, many thousands of people in terms of this from a northern Ontario perspective. I want to draw reference to many of the letters I've received talking about this threat to library services. I want to quote some of the people who made presentations. Because of time I will have to whip through this but I will do it.

Alan Pepper from the Northern Ontario Library Service, who spoke in Thunder Bay, said, "Overarching those problems which are common to all the public libraries comes the recognition that northern communities are less capable of funding services and that a government mitigation strategy is required."

Angela Meady, a worker in the Thunder Bay Public Library told me: "The library has traditionally worked in tandem with the school system. Public libraries have played an important role in equalizing the educational playing field by providing resources for students of all ages.... As library funding gravitates to mere subsistence level, the library will not be able to maintain the level of service and materials its users require.... The lack of access to information is an obvious impediment to educational and social success."

1710

Marlene Davidson, from the Atikokan Public Library, told me that "eliminating direct operating grants for libraries indicates that the provincial government does not support the economic, social and cultural growth of Ontario. The Atikokan Public Library board is very concerned that this library will no longer be able to be part of the whole networking system and will be unable to partake in the sharing of resources."

That refers specifically to the interlibrary loan system that the minister talked about so proudly, which people will not be able to access as a result of the shrinking resources. Of course, Atikokan I believe was also the community that had to close down their library for 11 weeks this summer because of the pressures they were under.

Libraries in Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Nakina are also now somewhat worried -- with reference to my colleague from Lake Nipigon -- about what will become of library services in their communities with the recently imposed decision by this government's municipal restructuring commission to create one single municipality called Greenstone, covering an area of hundreds of square miles.

Elizabeth Russell, from the Atikokan Public Library again, told me: "Please do not think that libraries will be treated fairly in the downloading of costs to municipal councils. In our community, we know what our council will try to do if Bill 109 is passed as it has been proposed. We've already had to fight to keep our library services."

Moe Sheppard of the Steelworkers in Thunder Bay wrote to me recently, talking about how one municipality in this province has already had to make a difficult decision to dedicate scarce resources; in this case it's the purchase of flags I believe, over that of the needs of the public library.

We're already seeing the challenges that are coming forward, and this is before this bill goes through and before the per household grant is absolutely gone.

Joseph Gold, the chair of the Haileybury Public Library in northeastern Ontario, said:

"The removal of provincial funding leaves no such guarantees for the survival of library resources in any community, let alone small municipalities struggling to juggle the merits of snow removal, sanitation, hockey arenas and public libraries. The withdrawal of all provincial responsibility for funding libraries is not only a crippling financial blow, it is a symbolic abdication of leadership and support; a balkanization of services and standards; and an announcement of provincial indifference to the role of literacy, reading, information services and cultural enhancement."

Strong words, but again expressed because of the great concern that the government is not -- well, the government does know what this bill is going to do. What's frustrating is that they feel they just can slip this by us. We're not going to let them do that.

Laurie Wright, from the Red Rock Public Library, outlined for me some disturbing trends in library services across northwestern Ontario. I'm going to try to quote her, being very conscious of the time available to me on the clock:

"Libraries are opening for fewer hours each week. This has a serious effect on the quality of library service that is offered. In most cases library usage has greatly increased but the time available to serve the patrons has been decreased. Staff hours have also been reduced. In some cases, cuts have had to be made in the staff numbers. Building maintenance is suffering. Book and general materials budgets have been cut. Longlac Public Library had book budgets as high as $20,000 in previous years, but now they only have $7,900 available to spend. Equipment and capital expense purchases are no longer possible. The services we receive from Ontario Library Services North have decreased in proportion with the reductions in the funding. Funding for professional development has been drastically diminished."

I wish I could read her entire letter, because it was so useful, a strong part of her presentation. In closing, she says:

"I would like to stress that we are resourceful people in northern Ontario. Our concerns are basic and we strive to provide the best service possible with whatever we have. Over the past several years we have trimmed the fat from our operations and now we are very worried that more cutbacks will prohibit our ability to provide even the basic library services."

That's a point that must be made. Libraries, like municipalities, like many other institutions, have been cutting back and trimming the fat for quite some time now, and to have this government simply throw it all away by bringing forward this bill and pretending this bill is going to improve library service is truly astonishing and so, so wrong.

There are some hard facts that need to be known. I'm sorry for my weary sigh, Speaker. It's not over the time; it's just my intensity about this bill, which upsets me so much. There are some issues that need to be known, certainly in terms of the whole question of accountability and governance. Municipal councils already do have line-by-line budget control over the library budgets. Municipalities will have no choice but to make those hard decisions when forced to swallow this government's hard-line dumping of new financial priorities

The choices might be to streamline operations and remove the participation of library boards. They might hang on for a while and not do it, but they might. It won't happen overnight; we know that. It will not be like a wholesale firing of the library boards or library staff. It may happen in two communities this year, eight communities the next year, and maybe 12 the year after. The point is that the municipalities are going to be put in a position where they are going to have absolutely no choice but to make those decisions.

You could just ask people in the city of Winnipeg or the province of Quebec what library services are like in their city or their province without the participation of duly elected volunteer-majority library boards. The prognosis is not good, and we're reading about these stories constantly. It's important to state the value of the citizen-majority library boards. They are incredible people who dedicate an extraordinary amount of time and energy for their community libraries.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I don't believe there is a quorum here to hear the member for Port Arthur.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr Gravelle: I'm glad that more government members have shown up to listen to this, because I think it's very important that they hear this. I'm glad the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has shown up to hear some of the concerns I have been expressing, because I think they are very legitimate concerns.

We know that there are some major issues and some major concerns that I want to express, and I also want to give my colleague from Dovercourt some more time. As we said earlier, we expect this may be the only sessional day devoted to this, so I may wrap up a little early as a courtesy to him.

We cannot deny the importance of some of the realities in this bill, such as the user fees and the funding issue. We know about the governance issue. We recognize how important it is to maintain citizen-majority boards. We heard from an extraordinary number of people about how important that is. We recognize that the government has changed this so there will be library boards, yes, but they won't be majority boards, because the municipalities may need to make some harsh decisions and they won't necessarily be able to make them if they have citizen-majority boards.

The user fee issue is another one. As I mentioned earlier, the member for Northumberland talked about the new reality without recognizing that part of the new reality is that the government will allow libraries to charge user fees for these services, and the only core service that is protected is for books and printed material to some degree.

The fact is that the user fees will not make up for the loss of provincial funding, that's for sure. Regardless of the fact that there seems to be one library board out there that said they could do that, the overwhelming evidence is that this cannot be done. The fact is that all libraries, regardless of size, will be faced with the reality that most municipal councils will not be able to replace that lost provincial funding, and they won't be able to do it because of the other horrific realities they are facing as a result of downloading.

Libraries like the library in Oliver township will no longer be able to receive funding from the area municipalities to serve the local population. What will happen to small libraries? Some of them will have to close their doors. What will happen to medium-sized libraries? There will be less service, there's no question about that, and some of them may be forced to close their doors. They will close some branches potentially. I think that's simply a reality. There will be less staff and fewer library resources by way of books and materials. They just won't be able to buy as much material. All these things are absolutely going to happen. Large libraries? Again, the support is there but all these things will start happening to them as well.

1720

The truth is that we made an extraordinary effort, particularly during clause-by-clause, to bring provincial accountability into this bill. I'm going to quote the Minister of Culture. This is what she said at the start of the public hearings on April 7. She said, "Certainly we are open to suggestions and, based upon what those submissions will be, I most certainly will review those with a view to making the draft legislation better." This is the opening of public hearings. "Yes, I think you can take that as being a commitment. We are very fair and we are very reasonable and we will consider the suggestions that are received." The minister went on to say that "there will not be any libraries within Ontario that will suffer" as a result of this bill.

Despite this promise and the assurances, we don't believe the minister. We saw what happened at clause-by-clause. The amendments were not put in place. We put through those amendments one after the other, but one after the other they were defeated by the government majority on the committee.

The fact is that the minister, no matter what happens here, is going to be held responsible. This government will be held responsible, but the minister will be certain to be held responsible. Despite what they want you to believe, they know this is being set up to put the municipalities in a position where they are not going to be able to find the level of support they want. Despite everything else, universal accessibility to libraries, which they actually say is there within their preamble, is not there. It will not be there.

The disappointment and the anger that all of us feel who fought so hard in terms of this piece of legislation cannot be overstated. We are disappointed and we are angry because we truly believe this bill is one that will deny access to a large number of the people in our province to the library system. We also believe it will end up in closing branches, closing libraries. It will make things very difficult. We also believe that by getting rid of the citizen-majority boards, we are going into a situation that a future government will be forced to look at and change.

This is part of a downloading package. There is no question about that. It's very, very important that the members of this Legislature and the people in this province understand that. The fact is, the government wanted to push this bill through quickly.

Mr Patten: It's a bully bill.

Mr Gravelle: The fact is, it is another one of the bully bills. My colleague from Ottawa Centre called it a bully bill, and it is, because it's one of those bills that literally put the municipalities in a position -- the government members are saying, "They want this." They don't want this. They are forced to take it because the government is literally forcing so much on the municipalities they can't afford.

It's hard to overstate the importance and value of libraries in our system, in our province, in our lives. It's probably impossible to overstate the spiritual value of libraries, what libraries mean to people, what they mean to seniors and what they mean to children, how they are the truly democratic place in our communities and how they are literally the community centres in many of our communities across the province. To see a bill like this go forward where the government simply is withdrawing support for the library community and yet is still saying everything's going to stay in place when they know full well this is not the case is appalling.

It's something that will stay with me, and I want to make a commitment too on behalf of the Liberal Party. We're not going to let this go. Even though we definitely know that this is going to cause extraordinary problems, we're not going to let this go. When provincial responsibility is essentially eliminated, our caucus and myself will be staying with this and watching this. Despite the fact that the minister doesn't want to set up a monitoring process that will actually at least make us understand or see what's happening in the system, we'll do that monitoring process, and we're going to stay in touch with the library community.

We believe extraordinarily in the importance of the public library system. We believe this bill has dramatically and irrevocably hurt the system and will hurt the system in a terrible way. We are grateful for all the support that's been received out there in the province, all across the province, and for the extraordinary fight that's been put up.

No matter what any of those government members say, the facts are there. The facts are that this government is removing itself from accountability for the provincial library system and they absolutely should be ashamed of themselves. I would call on the government to at least not make this the only sessional day, although that's the word we're getting, and to at least recognize that this is a debate that needs to continue, that needs to be heard. More people need to be heard on this issue. I know a lot of my colleagues do. I ask the government, I guess for the last time in the Legislature, to withdraw the bill. Withdraw the bill because this bill is going to hurt an awful lot of people in this province, is going to hurt the library system and ultimately is going to hurt you. The people are not going to forgive you, they are not going to forget what has happened and they're going to know how it came about.

If you want to use the opportunity to withdraw it, I would recommend you do it. We will be here standing in strong opposition to this bill until that opportunity is gone. I hope that all of you on the government side will at least listen to the people in your own communities and have the honesty and the guts to report back when things start going wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Wildman: I wanted to congratulate my friend from Port Arthur for his remarks. I'm surprised he quit with six minutes to go; there was so much more to say.

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: Oh, he wanted to share some time with us. That's very nice.

I did want to comment about his remarks, particularly where he talked about the difficulties libraries in northern Ontario are going to face as a result of this change, the fact that they will lose the grants that are very important to make it possible for them to obtain the materials that so many in the community use for recreation and research.

I really regret the fact that the members of the government party seem, in dealing with these issues, to do two things: first, they continually refer, in talking about northern Ontario, to the librarian from the township of Michipicoten, that is, Wawa, which is in my constituency. I think it's interesting that this individual was the only librarian from northern Ontario who, before the committee, supported your change. Every other librarian opposed it. Why is it, then, that this government only refers to her comments?

The other thing the government members do is that they say: "The members of the opposition and those people who are raising objections don't believe in local autonomy. They don't believe in local municipalities being able to make these decisions properly on behalf of their residents." The member for Port Arthur made it very clear that we are not denigrating the role of local councillors, but we understand the importance of libraries and understand the difficulty they will have in being able to fund those libraries because of the government's downloading.

Mr Shea: I appreciated listening to the words from the member for Port Arthur, as he gave his Chicken Little speech. Let me just match his quotations with some other quotations. He may know a person by the name of Councillor Rick Chiarelli. Certainly the member for Ottawa South knows him. I'm sure he'd want to hear this quote from that councillor:

"Then came the new Public Libraries Act of 1984, which gave councils more control over public libraries. Nepean immediately took advantage of the opportunity. The mayor and three senior councillors were added to the library board, which also had five citizen representatives.

"When this happened, there were dire predictions: Library service was going to suffer; control of the library would be wrested from citizens and so on. But what actually happened? The library was revitalized. We do not wish to change the fundamental principle of free public library service acceptable to all, but this need apply only to core services. What are these core services? `Core' will mean something entirely different for Carleton Place, Goulbourn, Nepean, Vanier and Ottawa."

I refer you also to comments from the London Free Press, part of an editorial: "What will be different and hopefully better under municipal control will be the greater ability of local library boards to make decisions about the course and future of local libraries based on community needs and not provincial dictums."

From CUPE: "This act allows free access to libraries, free in-house use of library resources, free borrowing of printed items and free use of specially formatted materials for disabled patrons." CUPE says, "We are extremely supportive of these four changes."

I can go on with quote after quote. The fact is, this is a bill worth pursuing.

1730

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I want to commend my colleague the member for Port Arthur, not only for his remarks today but for the incredible amount of work he has done in making sure that people who are concerned about the future of our public libraries would have a voice and would have an opportunity to express their concerns about this government's legislation.

The member for High Park-Swansea and all the members of the government caucus would love to be able to cite examples of municipal library relationships that took place in a totally different financial context, before the horrendous offloading that's going to take place on to municipalities with a series of legislation this government is bringing in.

The whole issue here is what is going to happen to libraries in the context of the horrendous offload on to municipalities. I believe the government hoped it could quietly slip this one through as just a small part of that offload. My colleague from Port Arthur has made sure that the government couldn't just let this pass by without it being noticed.

There have been concerns raised across the province about what will happen to the future of our public libraries. My colleague has made sure that people who are concerned about how municipalities were going to cope with the needs and the preservation of public libraries when they're up against roads and sewers and police and fire and child care and social assistance and social housing in communities -- how those concerns were going to be addressed -- he's made sure that those people in small rural communities, particularly, as my colleague the member for Algoma says, the small northern communities and the fears they have about the survival of their library system and how important it is to those small communities to keep a library, even though it's going to be virtually impossible for them given all the other financial pressures those communities face.

My colleague has also made it very clear that the people who would be affected by the loss of our libraries are those who are the most disadvantaged, not those of us who can buy books to read, buy books for our kids, provide stimulation for our kids, but those from economically disadvantaged homes who need the support of that public library system. This week, we saw that Ontario's students are low in literacy, particularly those students from socioeconomic backgrounds. We need to reinvest in libraries and in --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wanted to congratulate the honourable member. He is one of the few speakers who has taken the time to speak for 15 minutes, and actually, I think he stuck to the substance of the bill for the entire 15 minutes. I do congratulate him for that, because he's one of the rare members, and I would echo the member for Fort William's comments that he certainly has done his homework on this issue.

But the whole thought that "Thank goodness there's a provincial government here; thank goodness there's someone in Toronto to come down on Nepean or Scarborough or Thunder Bay or Pickle Lake and tell them what to do; thank goodness there's someone there who will give that wisdom from Toronto" -- I can tell you, in my community, in Nepean, as the member for High Park-Swansea has noted, they put councillors on the board a number of years ago, and if anything, our great library system has got even better. We saw very solid representation from elected councillors bringing their views, and they're accountable to the taxpayers, accountable to the folks who pay the freight. That's been a very positive influence in our community.

The member for High Park-Swansea also noted that Rick Chiarelli, a very prominent councillor in Nepean who even served in a leadership position with that library board, indicated some very positive comments with respect to the bill we're debating today. The Nepean library board was certainly supportive when they appeared before the committee.

The honourable member for High Park-Swansea mentioned that Mr Chiarelli is a Liberal. He's a very prominent Liberal. He's a big supporter of the member for Fort William and a big supporter of the member for Ottawa South and of course is the cousin of Bob Chiarelli, a very good candidate for regional chair in Ottawa-Carleton.

These folks have had a very positive reaction to having elected councillors on the library boards. It brings more accountability, and the jewel of the Nepean public library has been very well served by those people.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Port Arthur has two minutes to respond.

Mr Gravelle: I want to thank the member for Algoma and the member for Fort William for their kind comments and support. I want to comment on the remarks made by the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Nepean. Actually, they have given me an opportunity to make another point that I didn't have time to make.

We talked to a number of groups that had made some remarkable changes in the public library system and did some things that actually were difficult. The member for High Park-Swansea talks about a library board makeup that was shifting. The point is that under the Public Libraries Act of 1984 they were able to do that. The point that was made frequently throughout the hearings was that this act did not need to be changed, that the Public Libraries Act was fine.

The only reason Bill 109 has been brought in is because it's part of the downloading process. There's no question about that. The fact is that the Public Libraries Act of 1984 did not need to be updated. The member for High Park-Swansea will recall this. People came forward and told us how they could make some changes under that particular act, and that is the truth. This bill has come forward because of a need and a necessity, in this government's mind, to shift responsibility, to download it, to dump it on the municipalities. I will go to my grave knowing that's the case.

No matter how you look at it, the fact is that this government is removing support for the library system in this province in every real way. They're removing it by denying universal accessibility, because there's no question about that. The user fees will make sure of that. They're denying it by away the per household grant, which we tried very much to maintain in some fashion because municipalities will not be able to afford it.

This is a piece of legislation that people across the province are going to look back on and say, "This was a huge mistake. You know why? It's hurt our libraries. It's killed some of our libraries." It's a bad, bad bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Silipo: I'm glad to have the opportunity to get up even for a short while. I want to thank the member for Port Arthur for leaving a few minutes off his speech, although I had the sense as he was winding up again that he could have used those six minutes he left on the clock.

I want to say a few things from our perspective and mine as a critic for the New Democratic Party on this. I note that this will likely be -- of course we don't know for sure, but I think our sense is probably accurate on this -- the only day we will have for third reading of this bill. We know the government has tabled the time allocation motion which we understood earlier they were going to call even before having a third reading debate at all on this bill. I think they've since seen the error of their ways, at least to the point of allowing one day of third reading debate, and we will see what happens in terms of whether they will allow more time.

I want to thank, first of all, a couple of my colleagues who have shared some of the responsibilities with me on this: my colleague from Sault Ste Marie, who did a number of the hearings. During the time this bill was in committee, we also had one of the other download bills; the megacity bill was also in process and I was doing my duty on that bill. My colleague from Fort York, with whom I will be happy to share this time, not only cares a lot about this issue but also comes at this from the perspective of having served for some time as a member of a library board.

I want to talk about a couple of the basic principles and issues in this bill on which we have seen no change whatsoever by the government as this bill has gone through second reading and committee and then come back here for third reading, despite the fact that overwhelmingly the people who appeared in front of the committee spoke to the need for those changes to be made.

We heard earlier, when this third reading debate was started, both the minister and the parliamentary assistant talk about the virtues of local control, that this bill, in their view, gives municipalities a great deal of control over what should happen. To some extent, one could not just understand but even have some support for that notion. But when they talk about local control, we know that the only reason this bill is in front of us is because this was part of the machinations they have brought about and part of the deal-making that has gone on with respect to trading off some responsibilities between the province and the municipalities.

We know that many municipalities have been looking for the kind of control over the public library system that this bill gives them. On that sphere, they're quite right. They are giving municipalities those kinds of controls. What they of course won't say is that in doing so, they are doing it in a way that sacrifices some equally and I would say even more important principles that have guided the governance and the running of our library system, not just for the last 10 or 20 years but in effect for over 100 years.

I want to start with a quote from one of the presentations that was made from the Toronto Public Library board, who put it so succinctly. Mr Rick Goldsmith, the chair of that board, said, "Since the Free Libraries Act of 1882, provincial legislation has guaranteed our proud tradition of citizen involvement in libraries, with citizen volunteers being the majority members on library boards." Since 1882. That's the kind of change that we are seeing from a party that I thought had some respect for tradition, had some respect for the sense of evolution that we've gone through.

1740

I haven't seen, in the process that we've gone through to date, a case being made for the need to remove something that has been working well, and that is the majority of members of library boards being citizens, not politicians. Am I saying that politicians shouldn't be on library boards? Of course not; they should. They are there now and they play a very viable role, but so do the citizen members. Is it a question of trust or mistrusting? I suppose some can put it that way, but I don't come at it that way. I see that we're talking about basic principles here.

If you believe, as the government does, in local control -- that is, giving municipalities more say over the running of the library system -- fair enough. I may not agree wholeheartedly with that approach and that principle, but I can understand that. But that does not and should not also mean that you throw away an equally important principle, which has been, first of all, to have library boards -- and we're glad that's going to stay in the bill -- but secondly that on those library boards you have a majority of citizen members. That's something that has existed, as has been noted, not just for 10 or 20 years, but for over 100 years.

That is something that has worked, it's something that should continue to be present, and it's something that I have yet to hear a good, sound reason from the government members, from the minister, the parliamentary assistant or anybody else, as to why in effect that change is being made, why citizen control is being swept away.

Yes, it may very well be that municipalities will still have, under this legislation, the right to have and the ability to have boards with citizen majority if they choose to. But what if they don't? It's not a case of Big Brother or Big Sister from the province looking down on them. It's saying, as we do in many other pieces of legislation, that if we have some basic principles that we believe are important, then those are worthwhile maintaining in legislation and not simply leaving to local fights and local disputes in terms of municipalities and municipal councils deciding what to do on those basic points.

When the minister says that through the hearings there was a consensus that the library boards be retained, she's absolutely right. But she would be more correct, and I think she would be stating the overall summary of the presentations that came before the committee more accurately, if she were also to have added that there was a consensus that library boards be retained with citizen majority on those library boards. That's one of the basic reasons why we find this bill unacceptable, because it destroys something that doesn't need to be destroyed; it changes something that doesn't need to be changed; it takes away something that has existed for years in this province and has worked well.

For a government that comes from a perspective of saying, "You don't fix something until it's broken," I don't understand why this is something they have to break rather than fix. That's what they're doing, except that it was part of the arrangements, the deals that were made with the municipalities, that this would be one of the trades. I can even understand that. I don't agree with it, but I can understand that trade with respect to the dollars in terms of the removal, as the government is doing -- which is another reason why we are opposed to this bill, the removal of the provincial interest not in the overall coordination -- that will still be there -- but the provincial interest by virtue of grants, because grants from the province will no longer flow.

The government justifies that by saying this is part of the trade up and down in terms of the changes in responsibilities, fiscally and otherwise, between the province and the municipalities. Again, I disagree with that. We disagree with that. But that part of it one can at least see the logic of from the government's perspective. But how that comes back to also getting rid of the citizen membership and the citizen majority on the board is not something that's understandable or acceptable to us.

Equally, there is another basic problem that we had with the legislation, and we continue to have it in spades, because what we've seen from the government through the process of committee is an attitude that says, "Yes, we agree," but then when it came right down to having to make the changes, a refusal to take any serious amendments that were put forward by us, or the Liberal caucus for that matter, a refusal to take any of those. That has to do with the notion of the other basic principle that has been at the heart of our public library system, and that is the notion of universal free access to all circulating materials in the library.

The government, I know, will make a lot out of the fact that they are maintaining in regulations the freedom to borrow written materials free of charge. But I want to say again, as I've said throughout and as many presenters have said throughout, that what you are doing here is wrong, for two basic reasons.

First of all, there is now in the Public Libraries Act a basic protection in law, in the legislation -- not in the regulations -- that gives people, citizens, residents of Ontario, free access to circulating materials. Even when you listen to the minister, there is no reason that has been given as to why that protection that now exists in the law of the province of Ontario is being taken out, because taken out is exactly what is being done.

You know better than I the difference between a piece of legislation and a regulation. What the government is doing is taking that basic protection, diluting it, and then putting it into regulations. In regulations it can be changed by a simple decision of cabinet, without any notice having to be given to anybody in the public library system, as opposed to the basic protection that exists now in the law of the province of Ontario under the Public Libraries Act that says materials can be borrowed free of charge.

Then of course the second problem is that even in that redefinition, while the minister continues to say, "We recognize that materials today are not just print materials but are also non-print materials through the evolution of technology," we see a refusal to put, even in regulation, let alone in legislation, the basic protection to borrow those materials free of charge also apply to non-print materials.

That leaves us with not only some questions but with some clear sense that what the government is doing is wanting to facilitate the increase of user fees, and there's no two ways about it. I think we could all make the case that there may be some services and some things for which it might be appropriate for libraries to charge a fee, things that are completely outside of the normal sphere of services that every citizen ought to be able to have. But what you've got here is still a refusal to put those basic protections in the legislation. What you've got is still a refusal to recognize in the law that we are being asked to approve today and over the next few days and to put into that piece of legislation the basic protection that says that those materials would continue to be there free of charge and that those materials today have to include not just print materials but also non-print materials.

That is another one of the reasons why we find this bill unacceptable, why we find that the government, as we have gone through the process, while they've tried to pay lip-service, while they've tried to take quotes -- I couldn't believe just a few minutes ago hearing my colleague from High Park-Swansea quote, from all places, a CUPE presentation when he knows very well that had he read another couple of lines down in that same presentation he would have heard all of the things that group and many other organizations -- whether they represent people who work in the system, people who use the system or people who now are involved in overseeing the system, all of those groups were of one voice in saying to the government: "What you are doing is wrong. What you are doing is breaking something that now is working generally well. What you are doing is putting in jeopardy the future of the public library system."

1750

Will it crumble? Will it disappear completely? No, I don't believe so. I'm not going to stand here and say that if this bill passes the whole library system is going to come to a crashing halt, no, but this legislation will severely hurt the public library system as we know it today. It will mean that if you don't have municipalities that are sensitive to that very important role the public has played -- and we're talking here about people volunteering their time; we're not talking about paid positions as members of library boards -- unless you have municipalities that are willing to continue that openness and that attitude, we will see a very good and strong tradition in this province disappear at the hands of a party that supposedly is supportive of tradition. Isn't that interesting?

We will see over a period of time that more and more user fees will be charged, either because public library boards will be under the pressure of less and less funding that they will get from their local councils, which will now be responsible for taking on the full, 100% realm of funding, or because the government itself will be pressured or will give in to pressure or to requests to expand the regulation, which will no longer have to come here in front of the Legislature for further discussion, that regulation which allows for some fees to be charged as of the passage of this bill and which I suspect will allow for more and more fees to be charged for more and more services over the course of time.

Those are some pretty basic changes that we need to care about and reflect on. Quite frankly the government, in its thinking, has shown not one iota of movement in terms of where they've gone on this.

The third issue I want to address is one I am still holding out some hope that the government will come to its senses on, and that has to do with the whole notion of what happens to the one library, and hence the library board that's attached to it, that is really unique in this province. I'm referring to the Metro Toronto Reference Library. As people I'm sure know, while it's situated here in Metropolitan Toronto, that is a library that clearly serves people from across the greater Toronto area and indeed throughout the province. It provides a really useful point of reference.

It's a library that's different from the others. It's a library that has particular needs. It's a library for which a strong case has been made, even as the government moves to amalgamate the other library boards within Metropolitan Toronto in creating the new megacity, as they are intent on doing, for taking the Metro reference library out of that equation and maintaining the existing structure, that is, a separate library board, a distinct library board for that body.

I have to say I was pleased when at the committee, since the government members were not able to support the amendment I had put on behalf of the NDP caucus and a similar amendment that my colleague from Port Arthur had put on behalf of the Liberal caucus that would have retained the Metro Toronto library board as a special library service, distinct from other library boards -- the government members, as I say, did not see fit -- I could understand. They work, as we know, under particular direction. They did not have the latitude necessary to be able to agree to that, but they did agree to something which I thought was quite significant in the context of how things work around here. That was to send the two amendments that we had put to the transition team that's now looking at the evolution of the megacity, for them to be able to consider this as they prepare recommendations relating to the whole area of transition to the megacity.

I'm going to continue to raise this. I believe there is still some openness; I hope there still is some openness on the part of the government. I was listening to see if the minister addressed that issue today. I was sorry she did not. I hope, as I say, that she and the parliamentary assistant, who both, not just because they're from Metropolitan Toronto but because they both have an understanding of what they're doing in this bill, regardless of what they choose to say or not say around the myriad of issues that are here -- I hope there will still be some room by the minister and the government to move on this.

I don't expect that will be done through Bill 109 because, as I said, I don't expect we will see any more debate on this other than perhaps on the closure motion, whenever the government chooses to call it, but certainly Bill 148 -- which is also going through the House and is going to committee now by virtue of the government having decided yesterday that they are also intent on moving rapidly with it -- will get to committee, and that's an appropriate place for us to make this amendment and this change.

I hope when we get to that, there is still a willingness there and that translates into something we haven't seen yet on these other important issues that are affected by this bill, which is not just words, but a willingness on the part of the government to actually adopt an amendment. Whether it's taking one of ours or whether they bring their own I don't care. I'm quite prepared to give credit to whoever wants to take it on this, as long as at the end of the day we at the very least have the Metro reference library continue to be governed separately from the rest of the library system.

I want to just say to people who may wonder, "What's the big deal?" you're going to have inside the new megacity, if you proceed with what you are doing now -- and again I expect you will with respect to the library system -- a new library board for all of the new megacity that will have 108 branches, 108 different public libraries, with a collection totalling 9.5 million items and about 1,900 staff positions that run those various libraries. That's a pretty sizeable entity.

The concerns those libraries have are obviously different than the concerns the Metro reference library has. We saw what happened just last week when as a result of the cuts that the Metro reference library has already had to bear, the library had to shut its doors for part of the year as a way to deal with living within the budget it had been allocated.

That brings me to the last point I want to cover in the few minutes that are left today. That is, what is going to happen on the funding level to the public library system across the province? As I said earlier, am I going to try to paint a doom and gloom scenario? No, I don't want to be unreasonable about this.

The reality is this: When you put what's happening here in the context of the rest of the package this is part of, that is, that as the government is trading up and down -- we all know the trade is not an even one -- at the end of the day municipalities are going to be squeezed, they're going to have to make some choices about whether they increase property taxes in order to maintain the same level of services they are providing now or whether they cut some services.

I suspect one of the areas they will look to cut will be in library services. At the end of the day, the fear that people who now work and provide services in libraries have and people who use libraries have is that there will be less in the way of services provided in libraries or there will be more in the way of fees. I think is a very basic, sound fear. It's not unreasonable, in fact it's realistic for them to see that this is what the world of Mike Harris is going to lead to. That's what the Mike Harris revolution is going to mean with respect to the public library system. It's going to mean that people are going to have less access than they have now, by virtue of things like the Metro reference library had to do, which was to shut its doors for a few days at a time, or they're going to see less in the way of a whole array of other services, or we're going to see more in the way of user fees.

Speaker, I know the time is getting to 6 o'clock. I'll be happy to yield the floor.

The Deputy Speaker: It's 6 of the clock and the House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

9 septembre 1997