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

June 2, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L197 - Mon 2 Jun 1997 / Lun 2 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

FIRES IN MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

HOUSE SITTINGS

CLEAN AIR MONTH

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

LABOUR DISPUTE

DONOVAN BAILEY

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REGULATION

GAMBLING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

RENT REGULATION

SKILLS TRAINING

ANTI-RACISM FUNDING

PAY EQUITY

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

DRINKING AND DRIVING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

RENT REGULATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

TAXATION

ABORTION

CHILD CARE

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

BEAR HUNTING

TAXATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE WATERLOO

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you ascertain whether or not there is a quorum, please.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Quorum call.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): You can judge a government best by what it does when it thinks nobody's looking.

The tenants of this province know that this Conservative-Reform government will be sneaking in the end of rent control legislation today. "What an opportune time," Mike Harris says. "Do it when they are busy with the federal election." Although they promised not to end rent control in their Common Sense Revolution, the Conservative-Reform government found a foot soldier who would do anything. Al Leach doesn't mind if seniors who are renting will be unable to afford escalating rents. Al Leach and Mike Harris do not mind if they demolish rental units to build condominiums.

Al Leach and his government do not mind if the people who can't afford it will be subjected to the so-called private sector. This Conservative-Reform government doesn't mind if they sell the homes of those who are living in non-profit housing.

Sneaky as you are, the people of this province will remember this Conservative-Reform government which, although not in the Common Sense Revolution, decided very much so to end rent control on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society. Shame on you. We hope that the people of this province, when the time comes, make sure that the Conservative-Reform government does not exist to have a second term around here.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today, June 2, is an important date not just because it's the date of a federal election here in Canada but because it also happens to be the Italian National Day. I want to pay tribute today to Italians in Italy and across the world, because we know that the presence of Italians is felt throughout the world and has been for years and years.

In the country itself, the Republic of Italy marks its 51st anniversary, but of course the culture which is Italian, the traditions which are Italian and particularly the people who are Italian go back generations. Here in Canada we are fortunate, I believe, to have among us so many Italian Canadians who have made this country their home, who continue to see the future being here in Canada and who continue to see that, working together, we can build a strong, united Canada.

I want to particularly note that in this year of 1997, we also mark another important holiday a little bit later this month. On June 24 we will mark the arrival of one John Cabot, or Giovanni Caboto, as he originally, and always, was known, to the shores of Newfoundland. He was the first Italian to have landed here in Canada, to be followed some years later by Father Bressani, who was actually the first Italian Canadian back in 1642 to have lived here in Canada.

To them and to all those who have come afterwards to help make this country strong, we applaud you today.

FIRES IN MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have two stories today that exemplify the community spirit that is so strong throughout my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Recently two terrible fires occurred in my riding. On April 17, Knechtel's grocery store and the local Home Hardware were destroyed in the village of MacTier, and just a week ago the Northern Planing Mills historic building in downtown Bracebridge was also destroyed.

From speaking to store owners and other constituents, there were great concerns about these small businesses and the effect the fires would have on the local communities. In the case of MacTier, there was great concern that the seniors and shut-ins would have no place to shop close by. Wasting no time, in both cases the local councils and business communities took swift action.

In the case of MacTier, the arena was closed down early, the ice was removed and both the grocery store and the hardware store set up there. I'm glad to inform the Legislature that both those businesses are now operating and the community is back on an even keel.

In the case of the Bracebridge fire, even some of the competitors of the building supply business pitched in to make sure that the business was able to open again just about three days following the fire. It is back operating; I visited the premises.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the Georgian Bay and Muskoka Lakes townships fire departments, as well as the Bracebridge fire department and the Ontario Fire College, who all worked together to limit the loss and the damage to the local economies.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Before the last provincial election, the government assured the public it would not make cuts to funding for seniors and the disabled. This has not proven to be the case.

Take the assistive devices program, upon which many have come to depend for expensive but necessary aids to daily living. Since the Conservatives came into office, this program has been slashed by $22 million and this year's estimates indicate that the program will be further cut by $89,300. This will considerably worsen the situation of individuals who already have to deal with unreasonable red tape to get the help they need.

The provincial government will pay three quarters of the cost of a wheelchair of a person who can prove they require it for six months or longer. But what about terminally ill cancer patients like Sue Kisslinger of Hamilton, who was given six months to live last December? She may live longer, but since this is impossible to prove, Sue has been denied assistance in purchasing her badly needed wheelchair.

I implore the government to reinstate funding to the assistive devices program and to reformulate its restrictive eligibility criteria. People like Sue deserve the chance to live the rest of their lives to the fullest.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): For the first time in 122 years, the Ontario Legislature is sitting on the day of a federal election. As you will remember from last week, our caucus and the Liberals agreed that we'd be willing to meet on a Friday to make up for the day that Tory House leader Dave Johnson said was badly needed because they're so far behind in their destructive legislative agenda. We all know what's going on here. To quote my esteemed colleague Floyd Laughren from Nickel Belt, "Mike Harris is so afraid of Preston Manning's troops, he's giving the entire Tory caucus an alibi."

It's interesting which ones chose to come here today: the ones who are afraid to be out there in the communities because they might have to go from one campaign to another. I'm glad to see that --

Interjections.

Ms Churley: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, for instance; we all know where he stands. He comes right out and tells the public that he's a Reformer. He's honest about it, anyway. We know he's out there today in his riding fighting for the Reformers, helping to get them elected in his riding.

The members here today I guess are too chicken, to coin a phrase that's been very recently used in the press -- as of yesterday, I believe -- to say who they're really voting for and standing up for and working for in this election.

So we know what's going on here today, and shame on you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The members for St Catharines, Brock, Nepean and Halton North, come to order. Statements are meant to be heard and I'm having difficulty hearing it.

Ms Churley: It was a good statement too.

The Speaker: The member for Riverdale, that's not helpful.

CLEAN AIR MONTH

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Clean Air Month is here. It's an opportunity for public and private sector employers and employees to improve the quality of air that we breathe. At the heart of Clean Air Month is the fifth annual clean air commute, in which thousands of people and dozens of organizations will engage in the fun and friendly competition to find a fresh way to get to work. In previous years, employees of participating organizations have left their cars at home to take transit, walk, cycle, roller skate and even canoe to work.

Those who must drive to work have helped clear the air by carpooling and improved auto maintenance. The result is that thousands of people are learning about the links between pollution and ill health. Each organization is free to choose which week in the month of June it will participate in the clean air commute.

I congratulate Pollution Probe, the organizer of Clean Air Month, and I'd like to point out that this creative effort to involve workers and employers in contributing to a healthy environment is due to the substantial sponsorship of 18 leading corporations. Last week, Minister Sterling himself was leading the pack during Bike to Work Week. I urge each member present to follow the minister's example some time this month by finding an alternative method of getting in to work and by encouraging their constituents to do the same.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You can judge a government best by what it does when it believes no one is looking. Today is such a day. When the attention of the news media and the public is clearly devoted to the federal election, the Conservative-Reform coalition government of Mike Harris is sneaking in a proposal for drastic changes to the rules of procedure of the Legislative Assembly, rule changes designed to muzzle the opposition and make it much easier and convenient for the Harris government to ram through any new measures it deems useful to its agenda.

Everyone will remember the infamous Bill 26, the massive omnibus budget bill that took powers away from elected members of the Legislature and concentrated them in the hands of the unelected political advisers of the Harris regime and a few select cabinet ministers, and that established the hospital restructuring commission which is slamming the doors shut on hospitals across Ontario.

Only extraordinary action on the part of the opposition forced the government to hold hearings across the province, hearings that resulted in the government bringing in over 150 amendments to its own legislation. Without this action on the part of the opposition, we would have had a virtual dictatorship in our province.

Now, with everyone's attention diverted to the federal election, the government is trying to slip in its demands for a rubber-stamp Legislature, disguising them as a set of proposals from a 27-year-old YPC trying to please the Premier for future considerations.

Make no mistake about it: These rule changes come right from the Premier's office, from the cabal of Newt Gingrich Republican Party worshippers who consider elected representatives, particularly the opposition --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for St Catharines.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I was proud to join workers on their picket line this weekend past at the Vincor factory, the old Brights winery on Dorchester Road in Niagara Falls. These workers have been called upon by their very profitable corporate boss to take concessions.

They've been working too hard for seniority terms of up to 25 years and beyond to begin now to take concessions in terms of vacation time and health care benefits that they've worked hard for, especially when you've got a company that has enjoyed the profits that flow from the hard work of these workers.

These members of the Teamsters union have been bravely picketing outside that plant as scabs have been running scab wine in and out of Vincor. I'll tell you what I told those workers this past weekend: There's no room in Ontario for scabs and there's no place on our dinner tables for scab wine.

I encourage those people who would contemplate purchasing a Vincor or Brights or Sawmill Creek product to abstain. Those wines have acquired a somewhat foul taste as long as they're being shipped by scabs. We can tell Vincor that they'll become far more palatable once Vincor gets down to the table and gets those workers back to work, where they want to be and where they belong. No scabs in Ontario; no scab wine in our dining rooms.

DONOVAN BAILEY

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Yesterday, along with Premier Mike Harris and 25,000 other people at the SkyDome in Toronto, I attended a superb international track meet. There a young man from Oakville who attended Queen Elizabeth Park High School and Sheridan College once again astounded the world.

Donovan Bailey, the pride of Oakville, has captured the hearts of all Canadians. Yesterday he brought us together for one brief moment to celebrate the great achievement of a fellow Canadian, and he didn't let us down.

Donovan's fierce belief in himself, along with his winning attitude, his drive and hard work are a valuable gift to us all. Donovan's accomplishments prove we can make it to the finish line and win with perseverance.

In the spirit of friendly competition and patriotic rivalry, I hereby send a message to our friends and neighbours in the United States: Donovan Bailey is unquestionably unrivalled and confirmed the fastest man on earth.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Later today we will be effectively terminating second reading debate on Bill 96, your so-called Tenant Protection Act, while the election is on.

I want to come back to an issue I raised with the minister some weeks ago in the House. That is the issue around the words "income information" in sections 36 and 200 of Bill 96. Those words deal with the landlord's right to effectively discriminate against people of lower income in choosing tenants for a rental property. Minister, could you address your view of that

section and tell us why the government included it in its bill?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What we were trying to do in our very balanced piece of legislation was to ensure that both landlords and tenants started off on an equal footing. I don't think you can purchase any sizeable commodity without going through a credit check or providing like information, to get a credit card, for example, to buy a car, to do anything.

What we were trying to do was to ensure that landlords had the opportunity to review information on potential tenants, to do credit checks, and I think it's only a reasonable thing to do. However, if the member feels quite strongly, when we finish and get this bill out into committee, I'd be glad to consider an amendment if he wanted to put one forward.

Mr Duncan: That's where the opposition differs from the government in its view of tenant protection. Housing is not a commodity that ought to be considered in the same breath as purchasing a car or other consumer-type goods. Housing is a right and ought to be treated as a right, and the minister clearly has lost sight of that.

If in fact we bring forward an amendment during committee hearings that would strike the offensive clauses from the bill and limit the government's ability with regulation to impact on this issue, am I to take by the minister's response that he would accept that amendment and strike the offensive clauses from the bill?

Hon Mr Leach: I'd certainly want to take that under consideration, but again I want to point out what we're attempting to do with this legislation, and that's to ensure that both the tenant and the landlord have adequate protection, to make sure they're both starting off on an even footing. We're providing the protection to tenants and we also would like to provide some protection to landlords. But as I said, as soon as we can get this bill through second reading and into committee, I'd be glad to consider any amendments the member wants to put forward.

Mr Duncan: It certainly will go through today. The government will jam it through second reading without adequate debate.

But I'd like to point out to the minister, as we have pointed out before, that it's not just the official opposition that's calling for amendments to these two offensive clauses of your bill. None other than Keith Norton, PC, a former cabinet minister, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has said to you and to the Premier in a letter dated March 10 that if given the opportunity to speak at committee, they will propose similar amendments. The opposition, your own Human Rights Commission, and a variety of interest groups throughout the province are saying that these particular clauses of your bill are offensive and will discriminate against low-income Ontarians.

Will you now agree to repeal the offensive sections of the bill and acknowledge finally that this has nothing to do with tenant protection but everything to do with enhancing the position of landlords in this province at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable tenants in Ontario?

Hon Mr Leach: Again to repeat myself, all the opposition has to do is to put the bill into second reading. We'll go into committee. There will be amendments proposed and we would be glad to consider any amendments they put forward.

Let's talk about the issue of "jamming" this through the House. I've never heard anything so silly in my life. We've had more debate on this bill than there was on the combined NDP and Liberal bills on rent control. On Bill 121, the NDP felt that one day of debate in the House was sufficient for an important bill.

Mr Duncan: You're just wrong.

Hon Mr Leach: Do you want to talk about your bills? Bill 11 and Bill 51 had a total of four hours' debate. Four hours' debate, and you want to talk about jamming a bill through the House? You'd better look back at your own records before you start throwing stones. We put this legislation out on the street a year ago.

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

Hon Mr Leach: Last June we put this out so that we could have a whole summer of consultation. Mr Speaker, this bill has had more debate than all of theirs put together.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Jurisdictions throughout North America have increasingly come to the conclusion that legalized gambling is essentially a tax on the poor and the desperate and the vulnerable in our society. In the United States over the last three years, over 30 state legislative ballots proposing the expansion of legalized gaming have been defeated. In Canada, jurisdictions in Alberta and the province of British Columbia have banned video slot machines, described by many as the crack cocaine of gambling.

During the last provincial election campaign, Mike Harris stated, "I don't want $1 million a day into the province of Ontario." Referring to the blood money from gambling, Mike Harris said, "I don't want the Ontario government to have it."

Based on the compelling evidence before you, based on the fact that so many jurisdictions today are having second thoughts about gambling and the effect it's having on the population, particularly the social fabric of various jurisdictions, based on that, Minister, will you give an undertaking that you will put a moratorium on any more expansion of gambling opportunities in this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): If I could remind the honourable member, we brought through Bill 75 with the intention of bringing a lot more integrity and accountability to the system. The majority of the provisions under Bill 75 deal with better enforcement tools to ensure that we don't have further expansion of illegal gambling, for example, but the government recognizes that there are certain difficulties within the sector.

We have looked, for example, at the problem gambling area and we have allocated around $9 million this year for research, training and education in this field. The additional funds have certainly been welcomed by proponents in the area.

I remind the member that when he brought in, with the Peterson government, the three-day Monte Carlos, there were no funds whatsoever allocated to problem gambling. When the NDP brought in the casinos, they at least allocated $1 million towards this.

The government is trying to do things in terms of integrity of the game, increasing the enforcement, and to really deal with problem gambling.

Mr Bradley: Minister, you have the opportunity to look into the future. You can point fingers at the past and point fingers at other jurisdictions, but I don't think that's really helpful. I don't think it represents the concern that even members of your own caucus must feel about this continued escalation of gambling opportunities and about the fact that the OPP had a confidential report on organized crime moving into it. Maryland, for instance, is abandoning charity casinos because of the fact that the underworld is getting into this particular jurisdiction.

I don't think this is a Liberal, NDP, Conservative or any other party's issue. It's of genuine concern among people, not just the churches, which have expressed it to a great extent, and social workers and so on, but the general population, that authorities and jurisdictions all over are moving too quickly and too drastically into new opportunities, expanded opportunities, escalating opportunities for gambling.

In light of this, will you at the very least give an undertaking to this House that you will not allow at any time VLTs, video lottery terminals, in restaurants and bars in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The honourable member touched on a couple of things: first, the aspect of illegal gambling to a certain extent, but he also mentioned the hospitality trade. I remind the member of what we actually said. We were looking at implementing video lottery terminals in the racetracks and also in the charity gaming clubs. We also said at that point in time that we'd monitor what happened and look to see what the facts were before we moved on, so the government has talked about having a pause in there to assess the situation. He directs me to a point we are certainly aware of and have heard from our members.

Second, dealing with illegal gambling, when the casino rules came in, the NDP government introduced screening rules to make sure that people were looked at in terms of their involvement with illegal activities, that they tried to screen the people involved with the process. We believe we've continued with that process as well, that we have allocated more resources towards the enforcement against illegal gambling, $7 million worth.

Mr Bradley: Once again, we can't roll back the clock to some of the things that have happened in the past. The minister knows that on a personal basis I don't even like casinos, but we've got casinos in the province.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Lottery tickets.

Mr Bradley: You mention lottery tickets. They're out there, and I guess people have grown accustomed to those. What I am looking at is the escalation that's taking place in the province. I associate it with your tax cut, because you need revenues to make up for that tax cut. Is it really worth the damage you're doing to the social fabric of this province, to vulnerable people, to desperate people in our society, to those who are addicted to gambling?

Is it really worth it to be able to give a tax break, an income tax cut that largely benefits the richest and most powerful people in our society, and then take the money away from those who are the most vulnerable in our society and wreak havoc in many communities, including the communities in the Kitchener area, where five mayors have asked that you have a referendum on casinos?

Minister, will you now institute a moratorium on a further escalation of gambling in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I know the honourable member would like to somehow equate the government's initiatives, which it has continued with, with a tax cut. But I remind the member that a strange thing happened on the way to Queen's Park the other day: The government produced a tax cut for the people of Ontario, and our revenues are up. Gee, I wonder who said that. I guess it was us.

To deal with the issue the honourable member is raising right now, one of the reasons we brought in Bill 75 was to increase accountability. We've certainly heard, and I'm sure the honourable member has heard this as well from charities within his own area, that after having a three-day Monte Carlo, quite often the charities do not benefit at all. That is not the idea behind these things. That's where Bill 75 comes in, to increase the accountability of government, to increase the accountability of people within this area, to make sure the charities benefit.

Currently the charities benefit about $10 million to $12 million a year, which will be increased to about $180 million under these new charity gaming clubs.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Could you tell us, aside from the Ontario Mining Association, who urged you to abolish the Occupational Disease Panel?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): The honourable member may know that we have had a very thorough review of the Workers' Compensation Board and are doing a thorough review of occupational health and safety in this province. We are attempting to coordinate and have one vision and one strategy. The stakeholder consultations were started by Minister Jackson and were completed by me. We feel that the Workers' Compensation Board is in the best position to take over the responsibility for the prevention of illness and injury.

Mr Silipo: It's no wonder the minister is only allowing 10 hours of hearings in Toronto on Bill 99. I think what I can take from the answer she gave was that nobody but herself and her Premier wants to abolish the Occupational Disease Panel. She is looking forward, I'm sure, to the fact that people will be so busy denouncing all the other draconian changes in the bills that the effects of occupational diseases will be overlooked.

She knows there has been an international outcry against her plan to scrap the Occupational Disease Panel. But, Minister, you're trying to make sure the committee won't even have a chance to change this part of the bill. What's the rationale for allowing, with the major changes you are making, only about half the hearing time for Bill 99 as you did for your so-called housekeeping bill to the Employment Standards Act?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I want to make it abundantly clear that we are changing the focus for health and safety in Ontario. We are not satisfied with the number of fatalities and illnesses in this province, so we have changed the purpose clause at the Workers' Compensation Board. They have now assumed responsibility for safe and healthy workplaces.

As a result, we've taken a look at the five agencies that support the board, and we have decided to consolidate some of those activities and to change some of the activities of those five agencies. One of the agencies we feel can be consolidated and integrated within the board is the Occupational Disease Panel, because we feel this is a priority the board must focus on. We are planning to reinvest the money we save as a result of this restructuring and invest an additional $7 million into research into why there's illness and injury in the workplace. The focus has changed. We're bringing everything together.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you're changing the focus all right. What you're saying to injured workers is that any claims they have with respect to compensation, they had better get used to the fact that you're going to put them even further back on the back burner.

No one is quibbling with you about efforts to improve rehabilitation efforts, but you can't do what you're doing. You can't claim, for example, that there's a crisis in the WCB finances when people see the facts. They see that the board has been operating at a surplus for three years in a row, which means a steady decrease in the unfunded liability, in addition to the actions we took as a government which brought down the unfunded liability. They see the current board chair wasting $70,000 on a new washroom -- and you talk about a crisis in funding.

They see you cutting employer assessments by 5%, taking $6 billion from injured workers and giving it to some of the wealthiest, most profitable corporations in this province.

You certainly are changing the focus, Minister, but that's exactly how you're doing it: You're taking benefits away from injured workers and putting money into the hands of employers. Now you're ramming this bill through without adequate public hearings. Why, Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's unfortunate that you and the members of your party are continuing to mislead injured workers as to the intent --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister, you can't accuse another member of misleading. You must withdraw that.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I withdraw.

What is happening is that we are not satisfied with the direction your party or previous governments took. We are going to focus on prevention. In fact, we have set a target of a 30% decrease in lost-time injuries. We are going to try to meet that target and we're going to make sure we don't have the huge number of injured workers in the future.

We're also going to focus on safe and timely return to work. If some of those people who are injured today had had the opportunity to be returned to work in a safe and timely manner, they wouldn't be in the position they find themselves in today.

I can assure you that we have had ample debate. There will be an opportunity for further debate in June and over the summer, and we will respect --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question, third party.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Chair of Management Board and government House leader. A funny thing happened in the Legislature this morning. At about 11 o'clock the government House leader's parliamentary assistant tabled proposals for changes to the legislative rules and held a media conference. He told the media: "I'm just a backbencher. I'm just an individual member who is interested in some change. I'm proposing these changes and I'm anxious to hear feedback from all the members, and hey, I'm not speaking for the government." That was at 11 o'clock.

At 11:30 the government House leader sent us a letter announcing that Mr Baird had been appointed as the government representative on a committee to review his proposals. It goes without saying that Mr Baird was telling the truth this morning. My question is this: What happened between 11 and 11:30 to change your mind?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): There's a lot of time there.

The member for Nepean has come forward with a report that I hope will be considered carefully. To the member for Beaches-Woodbine and my other colleagues in the House, I hope it will be considered by each and every member of this House. Certainly in terms of the procedures, which as I understand were last looked at about five years ago, there are changes to the procedures I suspect we would all like to see.

Mr Baird has come forward with a report. I've asked Mr Baird if he would be our representative on a tripartite committee. I hope the Liberals will appoint a member and I hope the NDP will appoint a member. We certainly want input from the clerks and other members of this House. I hope we can come forward with a set of standing orders that allow this House to represent the people and work for the people in a more superior fashion than it does today.

Ms Lankin: I can't quite believe that answer. You've already indicated to other House leaders that you were considering rule changes, and now to pawn this off on another member like you had nothing to do with it is quite astonishing.

To return to the press conference this morning, Mr Baird was repeatedly asked about the time lines for changes to the rules. Mr Baird insisted, and I'm quoting: "I haven't given the matter any thought. I'm just putting forward these proposals for discussion." However, you indicated in your letter today that you want the committee to be established today, to meet today and to respond by Thursday to the House leaders' meeting.

Of course it goes without saying that Mr Baird was telling the truth this morning. My supplementary question is this: When were you going to tell Mr Baird about these tight time lines, and does he agree with you that the rules should be changed by Thursday?

Hon David Johnson: There have been no definite time lines set out. I have suggested in my letter that we act on this as quickly as possible. I'd like to see the parties talking about it. Surely we can talk about it in some fashion today if there's something to report by the House leaders' meeting, yes; that's what the House leaders' meeting is all about, to discuss matters that pertain to the House, and I hope we would have discussion. Indeed I would say that in some fashion at a previous House leaders' meeting we've already had a little bit of discussion about the need to look at the standing orders.

This is all about making this House work more effectively and efficiently for the people of Ontario, and I hope we would all endorse that. As I understand it, there are opportunities in there to allow individual members more opportunity to speak, maybe not at such great length, but more opportunities for individual members to have their bills considered. So there are lots of opportunities for the members and for the people of Ontario, and yes, I hope we get on and consider this.

Ms Lankin: That's a crock -- the short bottom line. We know what your changes are about. Your changes are about --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Durham East, do you know what's out of order? You're out of order for being in the wrong seat and heckling. Order. I don't find "crock" out of order. "Crock" seems to be a perfectly in order statement. Order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): A crock of what?

The Speaker: It could be a crock of soup. It could be a crock of all kinds of stuff.

Ms Lankin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I said what it was a crock of, I would be out of order.

We know what these rule changes are about. You thought there was too much debate on the megacity. You thought there was too much debate on your overhaul of education. You thought there was too much debate on the creation of a hospital restructuring commission. You're tired of hearing from people who don't agree with you, and we're getting used to that from this government. Minister, I put it to you that in the past, government House leaders have either tabled rule changes in this House or proposed them at government or at House leaders' meetings or at both, and there's been a process of negotiation.

Why are you changing the process here? Why are you pawning it off, letting someone else do your dirty work and insisting that members respond within two days?

You know there are substantial items here which impact on the democratic rights of members of the opposition. Your government has a reputation for being anti-democratic, using bully tactics. That's what's behind these rule changes. Substantial negotiations are required. Will you commit to that process of negotiation?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, this government is proud of the kind of debate it's had. I would say this government has had more public hearings, more public debate than any other government in the history of Ontario.

Ms Lankin: In the history of the universe, that's another crock.

Hon David Johnson: Whatever a crock is. I'll tell you that through the recommendations I've seen from Mr Baird, he wants the government to work as hard in this House as we're working through the committees. It's not all that complicated. In something of this nature there is the need for members from each party to roll up their sleeves and to work hard on the detail -- I'm merely suggesting that Mr Baird is quite acquainted with the report -- each party represent an individual, sit down, work together, and yes, then I am suggesting to come to the House leaders' meeting. As you indicated in your own initial question, I'd like to see it come first of all to the House leaders' meeting this week.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Wilson Heights area is home to the largest concentration of seniors located in Metro Toronto. In fact, this community is home for 32,000 seniors, of which about 75% are over the age of 75, many of whom live on or near the poverty line.

The Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations last Thursday expressed their concern for these 32,000 seniors who live in the catchment area of North York Branson Hospital, which your Health Services Restructuring Commission has ordered shut down in its entirety without any provision for any community-based health care. North York Branson Hospital's emergency department treated over 400 heart attack victims last year. The majority of these victims didn't come by car or ambulance, but came in because they lived in the neighbourhood. If Branson is closed, seniors with heart attacks will have to go by car or ambulance to the next nearest hospital, eight or 10 kilometres away.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, now that you have established a health policy that totally disregards the needs of community health-based services, do you think --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Wilson Heights. Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I appreciate the concerns being expressed by the honourable member on behalf of the people who live around Branson Hospital, many within walking distance. I know that the hospital itself and many interested individuals, including the Canadian Jewish Congress, have made submissions in this regard to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I'm confident the commission will take into account the needs of all the people of Ontario, but in particular the needs of the people in Wilson Heights.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, as you so rightly mention, North York Branson Hospital is particularly sensitive to the specialized needs of the heavy concentration of Jewish seniors who live in the community. Many of these seniors are dependent on the provision of ethnoculturally sensitive services. The hospital has an onsite Jewish chapel, makes available Jewish holiday and ritual services, provides kosher meals and is accessible by foot, facilitating its use by observant Jews, patients, relatives and physicians. Do you think it's fair or reasonable to deprive a significant number of my constituents of this essential and specialized service?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, I'm very sensitive to the needs of the people in that area, but I would say that I wonder if it was fair to close 11,000 hospital beds, many of them closed at the time the honourable member was part of the Liberal government in this province, to leave all that administration in place, to allow our waiting lists for cardiac surgery and dialysis, where frankly there weren't services for many, many people throughout this province, including people in urban centres, to allow our waiting lists for a number of services to increase over the years, and at the same time not do anything to restructure the health care system and get rid of the duplication and waste that nurses and many others have been telling us about over the years.

We've set up an arm's-length commission. They will make decisions that are in the best interests of the patients and will make sure every dollar gets spent on patient services, including the people of Wilson Heights who clearly are making the case of special needs, and I'm confident the commission will take that into consideration.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This is a question for my good friend Monsieur Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This afternoon we will be debating your landlord protection act. As you know, all the members have heard stories in their ridings about problem tenants, tenants who have caused undue damage to the premises or who have interfered with the enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, who have seriously impaired the safety or other rights of another tenant, and who have knowingly misrepresented their income. Will your Tenant Protection Act make it easier for landlords to evict tenants who bring these types of problems with them?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In response to the member and my good friend in the third party, it will allow the landlord to get rid of tenants who cause problems for other tenants. I think everybody would agree that you can have a tenant who can cause great disruption to a whole building and that the landlord has to carry the responsibility for that tenant, so there should be ways and means to ensure the protection and the wellbeing of the majority of the tenants. The landlord should have the tools made available to him to get an unruly tenant out as quickly as he possibly can.

Mr Marchese: I agree with what the minister has said, and I believe your government has already been served with a notice of eviction from the premises of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on all of those grounds and others. In fact, you've been asked by the Ontario Coalition for Non-Violent Action to vacate the premises by June 16, 1997. The question is this: Is your government planning to obey the eviction notice and leave peaceably or are you going to force the landlords, the people of Ontario, to take more drastic action to get you out?

Hon Mr Leach: A very interesting proposal. I think our landlords, the citizens of Ontario, will have an opportunity to review the facts, in a couple of years, as to whether this government has performed well, and I'm sure they will. If they choose to exercise one option or the other, I am positive they will do that. I'm sure when we put on the record the things we've done for all tenants in Ontario, they will sign a new lease for this government for another four years.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. There has been discussion in this House in the past about the northern Ontario heritage fund. Specifically, I can recall some members questioning the time that was spent establishing a new mandate for the fund and whether any dollars would actually be committed to projects. Can the minister tell the House whether the heritage fund has actually made any commitments to northern projects?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): That's a good question. As the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and all the members in the House will know, the heritage fund deals with infrastructure programs to help improve the northern economy in this province. We spent some time establishing a new mandate because there had been some criticism about how the money had been spent in the past. I was pleased to announce these new guidelines, the criteria for the heritage fund, last October, along with the Premier and the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, up in Timmins.

Since that time, the board members, who have been acting for $1 a year --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The jackboots across the room.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for St Catharines, that's out of order.

Mr Bradley: What's out of order? The truth is out of order?

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, I'm cautioning you. You must withdraw that comment.

Mr Bradley: Which comment, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: The jackboots comment.

Mr Bradley: I will withdraw the jackboots comment.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Just in case anybody is watching this at home today, I want them to be fully aware that that withdrawal had nothing to do with the northern Ontario heritage fund.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think it's best that we not comment back and forth any more.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know there are a lot of people in Ontario who are interested in the northern Ontario heritage fund and its benefits for creating new wealth and new opportunity in northern Ontario. I'd like to let the members of this House know that we're committed to spending, over the four years of our mandate, $210 million in new money to be leveraged by the private sector and other partners for projects in the future. To date, the heritage fund has committed $18 million in projects and has leveraged another $25 million in partners' contributions.

Mr Grimmett: That certainly is good news for residents in northern Ontario. I've heard some rumours that some of the money that's going to be spent on this fund may even go towards health projects. I wonder if the minister can describe some of the projects that have been funded specifically in the north.

Hon Mr Hodgson: We've invested in a number of projects that are designed to help right across the north. We've announced $2.4 million to support cancer care programs in communities throughout the north. We've announced $240,000 to refurbish the Caribou Mountain fire tower in Temagami to enhance that important tourism component of their local economy. We've announced more than $1 million towards marketing programs by the six northern Ontario travel associations. Money has also been committed to improve the fibre optics and telecommunications in communities such as Atikokan and Kenora.

The heritage fund has approved money for about 30 projects throughout the north. These dollars will lead to real growth and real jobs, and we'll be continuing with this good news in future months.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the House leader. I'd like to ask a question on what I regard as a totally unacceptable and obscene package of rule changes your government tabled today. It is the ultimate bully tactic. You've tried to bully other people who disagree with you and the government, and now Mike Harris is putting in rules to try to bully and shut up the opposition. We find it completely unacceptable.

The question is to you, Minister -- I can see Mike Harris's handprint all over this -- because the member this morning said he had gone over these with you. He obviously went over these with you. Did you comment on them and are you in agreement with this obscene set of rule changes?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, the government has not tabled rule changes today. The member for Nepean has spent a good deal of time in terms of looking through standing order changes because of a number of situations that have come up; for example, because of his desire that more members of this House get involved in the debate. A number of situations have arisen. He's addressed them. Yes, I've gone through the changes with him, and yes, I've commented on them.

Some I'm certainly in favour of, and some I'm looking for comment on from the other parties. The process we've laid out involves comment from the Liberals and comment from the NDP. I hope that we can get together, that the three parties sit down, roll up our sleeves, have a look at this, discuss it in a House leaders' meeting and come up with standing order changes that allow for a more effective and efficient House.

Mr Phillips: The public watching this should recognize that it was a deliberate attempt to put it out today, with the federal election going on, because these rule changes are designed to gag the opposition. There's no other way to describe it. Frankly, I am ashamed of you, that you went over these rule changes and obviously are in agreement with them.

I want to ask you this final question: Will you withdraw this package that is designed simply to bully and silence the opposition? Will you do your job? Will you bring forward a set of rules that you want to propose and withdraw this set of unacceptable rule changes?

Hon David Johnson: We're a little high on the dramatics here today. I think the member for Nepean has done a very credible job of looking at the problems that are being faced.

The member for Nepean has issued his own report and I am suggesting that the three parties, along with the Clerk's department and other interested members and staff, should sit down and should have a look at that report. You may well have ideas. I know the former government had ideas. The former government twice tabled changes to the standing orders and made a review and an overhaul of the standing orders in 1992. This is not something that is uncommon for governments to do. We're taking initiative.

There's nothing before the House at this point in time. Let's take the opportunity to discuss it, get all our ideas into it and get something that allows this House to work in a better fashion for the people of Ontario.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): A question to the Minister of Housing: Your so-called Tenant Protection Act is the subject matter of your closure motion this afternoon, so your government's going to kill debate on the Tenant Protection Act. The timing is remarkable because tomorrow is the launch date of the 220-kilometre hike against hunger and homelessness. We all know that homelessness has become an ever-increasing problem in this province since the election of Harris and your Tories. Please tell us how your Tenant Protection Act is going to protect tenants against homelessness once rents are no longer controlled.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It seems obvious to me that the member couldn't have read the bill, because the bill maintains rent controls, it keeps rent controls. As a matter of fact, it keeps exactly the same formula that was put forward by the previous government. The formula is there; rent controls are there; tenants are protected. When they move into a new apartment and negotiate a rent with the landlord, rent controls come on and they stay on as long as that tenant is in the unit, so I don't know where the member gets that we're getting rid of rent controls.

Mr Kormos: It's a crock and the minister, quite frankly, is full of it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): "Crock" was in order, but you've extended it now with the other comment. I think everyone knows that there are certain connotations attached to that comment. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Kormos: I'm shocked. I didn't intend those connotations. I withdraw, Speaker.

Minister, the hike against hunger and homelessness that starts tomorrow is about the problems that are faced increasingly in this province by people who don't have a lot of choices; they don't have a whole lot of options. They don't have the money to pick and choose where they're going to live and under what conditions.

Your legislation is giving landlords the explicit right to discriminate on the basis of income. It's not just tenants and their advocacy groups. You've been told many times that among others, Keith Norton, head of your Ontario Humans Rights Commission, has condemned this

section of your legislation. Minister, why won't you remove that

section of the act to ensure that homelessness does not remain an ongoing problem here in the province?

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Norton, the head of the Human Rights Commission, wrote to us and asked us to reconsider the particular portion of the act that referred to incomes. I've responded to the Human Rights Commissioner and said that when we get this bill into committee and we have an opportunity to make amendments, we would certainly consider an amendment to that part of the bill. So I urge the members opposite to get on with second reading.

I certainly regret having to bring in a time allocation bill. If we had had cooperation from the parties opposite, we would have had this bill out to committee by now and the tenants and landlords in Ontario would have had an opportunity to put forth views and an opportunity to make changes such as this.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I read in the Toronto Star today that in the next six to 10 years the auto assembly and component sector will be facing a skills shortage due to the retirement of up to 56,000 skilled workers. Could you explain what the government is doing to address this shortage?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): One of the reasons we have initiated a reform of our apprenticeship programs is because we can see, clearly in the auto sector and in other sectors, a need to have a better apprenticeship program in Ontario, so we have undertaken to do that now. I think the timing of the federal withdrawal from funding apprenticeship programs is unfortunate and regrettable, but we in Ontario are moving forward in that.

In secondary school reform we have clearly said that one of our objectives is to expand the cooperative opportunities that some 60,000 students are now engaged in that help them develop the skills and knowledge they need to get involved in the auto sector and other sectors. We also have had a keen interest in developing skills and technologies inside of our secondary school programs and that's part of our initiative.

We are also working with the colleges. For instance, in the most recent budget we extended the tax credits for cooperative programs with colleges and industry, again an attempt to make sure that our needs, from industry's point of view, are matched by what's going on in our colleges and in our schools.

Mrs Munro: Minister, you spoke of the need to update our programs to address these changes in the future. It's my understanding that last week you visited the Durham side of my riding. Having visited Durham College, could you give us any indication of their efforts to provide innovative programs that could assist in this impending skills shortage?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I had an opportunity last week to go to the first class to graduate from Durham College in a program that was designed to work in cooperation with the local school boards, with the federal government and the provincial government; a program that allowed students enrolled in a secondary school to attend the college, to pick up credits for their apprenticeship and complete the requirements for their high school diploma. Those students are well on their way both with the accreditation of a high school diploma and with the skills for those trades. This is a program designed by Durham College that will help all those students.

I also can point to a cooperation between St Clair College, the University of Windsor and Chrysler, which has just recently got back into the apprenticeship business and is working with the university and with the college to develop programs that will meet their needs and meet the needs of the students in Ontario. There's a lot of great work being done in our colleges.

ANTI-RACISM FUNDING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Your government has worked hard to reverse all equal opportunity and anti-racism initiatives that have evolved in this province. You have eliminated employment equity and cut half the budget of the Ministry of Citizenship and all the anti-racism initiatives.

You have seen the vandalism that took place at the Munchy King restaurant in Scarborough. The culprits were motivated by racism. Tony McPherson opened a small West Indian restaurant only four months ago, and when he arrived to open it one morning he found the back door pried open, dishes smashed, furniture broken, tablecloths ripped and racist hate messages spray-painted across the walls.

The hate crime was a deliberate and malicious attack on a business owned by a person of colour. What has your ministry done to counter these types of actions?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I know there is a police investigation ongoing with respect to this particular incident, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any details of that particular incident.

However, I can tell you that discrimination is against the law in this province and certainly the Ontario Human Rights Commission is the appropriate body to deal with incidents of discrimination. We are ensuring that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is strengthened by protecting funding for the commission. I can tell you that this government is committed to eradicating all forms of discrimination from this province.

Mr Curling: Madam Minister, how can you stand in your place and say to us that you are committed when you have cut the budget for the anti-racism, wiped it out, as a matter of fact? How can you stand there and say to me and to the people of the province that we do not need employment equity, and then say, "We are committed"? Those are words; we want action. People out there see that this government does not protect the most vulnerable in society.

Your Attorney General whispered to you about, "It's under investigation, so therefore my hands are tied." Your hands seem to be tied when it comes to protecting those who need it most.

I would say to you that it's about time you started acting like a minister to protect the most vulnerable in our society, people who are being attacked in a racist attitude. You sit there and say, "We are now committed to human rights." You have cut the budget there.

Tell me, Minister, what you intend to do about this situation that is rampant in this province.

Hon Ms Mushinski: I can tell you that we won't raise taxes 33 times, as was done by that government, and we won't raise taxes 32 times, as was done by the other government, who denied Ontarians more opportunities because of their tax-and-spend policies of the last 10 years. That's the reason we have deficits, that's the reason we don't have opportunities, and that's the reason we're reforming the Ontario Human Rights Commission so we can deal with the backlog, because we know that justice delayed is justice denied, which is something you did for 10 years.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Labour. You have often said that you support the principle of pay equity. Your government has a very strange way of showing that. You've taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of the lowest-paid women; you've refused to pay money they are owed under the law, even; and you've attacked the pay equity law itself under Bill 26, abolishing the proxy method of pay equity that was established under the NDP government.

Minister, will you stop pretending that you support pay equity and tell us today what you are really up to? The women of this province are worried and want to know.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As the member opposite probably knows, we have conducted a review of the Pay Equity Act. Our objective is to ensure that we continue to have a pay equity system that is sustainable and will take us into the future. I would also indicate to you that this government has invested more money in pay equity than your government did.

Ms Churley: I wish we had more time to discuss that because -- how shall I put this? -- that is not my understanding of the amount of money this government has spent. I've asked the minister today to stop pretending on this issue --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for London North, that is not a proper statement to make. I ask you to withdraw.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I think you're stretching it, but I will withdraw it.

Ms Churley: The minister for women's issues should be sitting in her seat and supporting my question today, supporting me on pay equity for women, instead of sitting there, as always, defending this government taking away the rights of women in this province time after time. Shame on you, minister responsible for women's issues.

Minister of Labour, I'm asking you today to come right out and admit that you don't agree with laws guaranteeing fair pay for women. Instead of coming right out and repealing these laws, you're taking away women's rights bit by bit by bit as part of other initiatives.

Last year there was this comprehensive review of pay equity laws that you talked about. Many of the recommendations would be destructive and your government shouldn't act on them. Will you commit today that you will not take away pay equity rights --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Riverdale.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just again indicate to you that Mrs Read did a review, and we have personally indicated we are committed to the principles of pay equity. We have also committed to ensure that we continue with pay equity, that it is sustainable and that it is efficient. I would also indicate to you that this government invested $500 million into the broader public sector for pay equity. That is the largest amount that any government has ever contributed to fund pay equity.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Reader's Digest recently named the Trans-Canada Highway between Kenora and Vermilion Bay as one of Canada's five most dangerous highways. Minister, I wondered what your response was to this dubious distinction.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): It isn't one that I'm very proud of, but I want the member and all Ontarians to know that this

section of highway is a priority for our government and is scheduled for improvements.

The ministry will be reconstructing this entire

section of highway in three major projects. Last year we announced that a $6-million contract was awarded to improve the nine-kilometre

section near Longbow Corners that was contaminated by PCBs in the late 1980s. This project will also be completed this summer, I might add.

The design for this

section of road includes the realignment of the most difficult curbs, the widening of rock cuts and the construction of fully paved shoulders throughout. As well, a second contract to resurface 35 kilometres into the Vermilion Bay area is scheduled to be awarded later on this year.

As you can see, there is much work to be done and that is because of the neglect of the previous two governments, but we will commit to make sure that we spend the necessary dollars, even though --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Spina: In recent travels to northern Ontario as the parliamentary assistant to northern development, I noticed there were other northern highways in poor condition, but I also saw a number of construction vehicles, paving vehicles, going down the highway. Minister, I wondered if that's just sort of a blip on the radar screen, or can we look forward to these other highways being repaired as well?

Hon Mr Palladini: The improvement of northern Ontario highways is a priority for this government, as my colleague demonstrated a little while back. This year we have committed to spend $141 million, the largest sum of money ever allocated for highway improvements in the north. In the budget, this government increased spending on northern highways by $200 million over the next five years. That again shows our commitment. I want to say to the honourable member that other projects are also planned to improve this highway, and the increased funding accumulating in this year's budget over the next five years will certainly be spent on northern Ontario highways.

Again, I want to say that even though Ontarians contribute over $2 billion a year through gas and fuel taxes to the federal coffers, not one dollar is being reinvested by the federal government in Ontario, and in particular on northern Ontario highways. I challenge Mr Martin and Mr Chrétien to give Ontario its fair share of those funds.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, independent consultants have shown that the restructuring commission has seriously overestimated the savings to be made on hospital closures and has underestimated the impact these closures will have on the communities they serve.

The public protest against the closing of the Montfort in my riding has been joined by many experts who say even the public's interest is at stake. Languages commissioner Victor Goldbloom last week said that the closure or transfer of the only French-language hospital in Ontario would seriously jeopardize access to services for francophones in Ontario.

Minister, if the commission stands by its decision to close the Montfort, will you stand by your government's role as the protector of minority rights in this province? This is an easy question. All I need is a yes or a no.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member knows the answer, and that is, this government is fully supportive of the French Language Services Act and the protections it provides French-speaking people in this province, I think as good or better protections than we see throughout other parts of the country, and that's a real plus for Ontario.

The commission did make it clear and is making it as clear as it can in all of its public pronouncements I've heard that it very much respects and very much is keeping in mind the need to provide French-language services to the francophone community in Ottawa-Carleton.

I will make one correction to the honourable member's question, and that is, he talks about hospital closings as having something to do with saving money. From a government perspective, restructuring is not about saving money. I have never said that. None of my 82 colleagues have ever said that. It's about getting rid of waste and duplication in the system -- what nurses have told us for years -- reinvesting every penny and significantly more back into front-line services, more services for a growing and aging population. That's what it's about.

Mr Morin: Minister, I'm confused, as ever, whenever I ask a question to your minister for francophone affairs or when I ask a question to you. I still didn't get the answer that I really want to hear. It's really difficult to figure out where you stand on your own role in the restructuring exercise.

You claim an arm's-length relationship with the restructuring commission and yet your own deputy minister wrote to the commission to propose that the Montfort be absorbed into a new mega-hospital. It's hard to believe that her letter will not bear considerable weight, even when all the evidence suggests that her option is unworkable.

Your government has a responsibility to protect the interest of minorities. Minister, you have the power to reverse the decisions of the commission when the public interest is at stake. Will you admit that you do in fact have the ultimate say and will you promise to intervene, if necessary? Everybody counts on you.

Hon Mr Wilson: The answer to that is contained in the law of this province, and that is the Minister of Health cannot contravene or override a directive from the Health Services Restructuring Commission. That is clear in the law. You are free to take that law and share it with your constituents so that they understand the process.

Also part of the process: Every member in this House, every citizen of this province, including the Ministry of Health, which is a party to the process and an interested party to the process has the opportunity during that 30-day period between interim decisions of the commission and final directives of the commission to make a submission. I hope the honourable member took the opportunity during that period not to play politics but to come up with some data and facts to tell the commission what the right thing to do is in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Again I say to the honourable member, the process is sealed in law and the honourable member should make himself aware of that law.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I am pleased to present hundreds of more names to add to signatures of concerned citizens in Ontario about drunk driving from Nepean, Manotick and Ottawa, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to add my name to Ann Soucy, who collected these petitions, because I'm in complete agreement.

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : J'ai une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit à l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance de toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord de l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

«Attendu que la fermeture de Montfort éloigne et diminue grandement l'accessibilité à une salle d'urgences pour plus de 150 000 personnes ;

«Attendu que l'on fait disparaître l'hôpital qui a un des meilleurs rendements de la province et qui, pour fins de comparaison, constitue l'exemple de choix du ministère de la Santé ;

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

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé de l'Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de sa communauté.»

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 480 people to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, support our OPP, especially Sergeant Deane, in their testimony and actions taken at Ipperwash park;

"We believe all of the OPP acted properly in their line of duty."

RENT REGULATION

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

"To the government of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative 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 this Conservative 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, 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 agreement.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 3,000 people, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, support our OPP, and especially Sergeant Deane, in their testimony and action taken at Ipperwash park;

"We believe all of the OPP acted properly in their line of duty."

TAXATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition. It reads like this:

"Whereas the Conservative Party has broken its promise that it would not close hospitals in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party said it would not introduce user fees and proceeded to introduce $225 million in new user fees for seniors through the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that aid for the disabled would not be cut and proceeded to level millions of dollars in new user fees on the backs of the disabled; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised there would be no cuts to education and then proceeded to impose cuts which caused the cancellation of JK classes, the cancellation of special education programs and created larger classroom sizes; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party stated that there would be no cuts to law enforcement and then cut the budgets of Ontario police and courts by more than $100 million; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that there would be no cuts to the environment and has broken the promise by firing environmental inspectors and cutting the budget which protects the environment by over $100 million;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative Party to cancel the last stage of the tax scheme which benefits the wealthiest people in Ontario the most and restore funding for programs which protect health care, education, seniors and the environment."

I have affixed my signature to this in full agreement.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is my pleasure to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness;

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic;

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require `elective procedures' to be funded;

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion;

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is hazardous to women's health;

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control;

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

I affix my name to this petition.

CHILD CARE

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

"We are requesting that the Harris government not proceed with the proposed cuts to the child care system. These cuts will hurt children, parents, child care staff and local communities.

"Without standards, children will get lower-quality care. Without provincial funding for child care, regulated, non-profit child care services will collapse. Parents who want regulated care won't be able to access it. Parents on social assistance will be forced to enrol in workfare/learnfare programs or lose all their benefits. They will be left with no alternatives but to place their children in unsafe care. Communities also lose when jobs are lost and community investment disappears.

"The following voters are opposed to any cuts in licensed child care."

I affix my signature to this petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to it.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition is to the government of Ontario:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

BEAR HUNTING

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

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas bear hunting replaces natural mortality and reduces cannibalism among bears; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign to ban bear hunting and end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

TAXATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition is to the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the Conservative Party has broken its promise that it would not close hospitals in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party said it would not introduce user fees and proceeded to introduce $225 million in new user fees for seniors through the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that aid for the disabled would not be cut and proceeded to level millions of dollars in new user fees on to the backs of the disabled; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that there would be no cuts to education and then proceeded to impose cuts which caused the cancellation of junior kindergarten classes, the cancellation of special education programs, and created larger classroom sizes; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party stated that there would be no cuts to law enforcement and then cut the budgets of Ontario's police and courts by more than $100 million; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that there would not be cuts to the environment and has broken this promise by firing environmental inspectors and cutting the budget which protects the environment by over $100 million;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative Party to cancel the last stage of its tax scheme, which benefits the wealthiest people in Ontario the most, and to restore funding for programs which protect health care, education, seniors and the environment."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE WATERLOO

Mr Leach moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act and to make consequential amendments / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Waterloo et apportant des modifications corrélatives.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing or special order of the House relating to Bill 96,

An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies, when Bill 96 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on general government;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill at its regularly scheduled meeting times during the weeks of June 9, 16 and 23;

That the standing committee further be authorized to meet to consider the bill for eight days during the summer recess;

That all amendments be tabled with the clerk of the committee by 5 pm seven calendar days following the final day of consideration during the summer recess;

That the committee be authorized to meet to consider the bill for two days of clause-by-clause during its regularly scheduled sessional meeting times; and that the committee be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on the second day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

At 5 pm on the second day of clause-by-clause deliberations, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the commencement of the second day of clause-by-clause consideration or no later than the first sessional day in November, whichever is earliest. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

I'm pleased to address the House on the importance of this time allocation motion, which lets us start extensive public hearings on Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act. This proposed legislation takes a seriously flawed system of rent regulation and improves it for the benefit of all tenants, property owners and taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

We've identified the problems. We know that more than $10 billion in repair is needed to rental buildings. We know there are apartment buildings across this province that are poorly maintained. We know there is little or no investment in rental housing. We know that vacancy rates in many cities are low, leaving tenants with few choices about where to live.

We consulted extensively and we heard tenants suggest imposing the strictest rent controls imaginable, leaving property owners with no chance to break even, let alone make a profit. We heard property owners suggest eliminating the entire rent control system and all the regulations that go with it, leaving tenants totally unprotected. We left the extremes of both of these positions behind and introduced legislation that found a balanced middle ground, a balanced, fair and equitable act.

We had several objectives: We wanted to protect tenants from unfair rent increases; we wanted to improve maintenance and get tough on landlords who fail to take care of their buildings; we wanted to create a climate where people would invest in rental real estate; and we wanted to streamline the administration and create a faster, fairer system. We introduced legislation to address these objectives and we can't afford to wait any longer.

This time allocation motion is needed to move us through the legislative process. Our consultation has been extensive. We listened and we met with the tenant and landlord organizations as well as many other groups, including home builders, developers, social housing agencies and care home providers. We listened to their ideas and suggestions, and created a paper called Tenant Protection Legislation: New Directions for Discussion, which was released in June of last year. It outlined our proposed policy direction and asked for suggestions and comments.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Would you ascertain whether there is a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, is there a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: To help gain the widest possible input, last summer we held extensive public hearings across the province. We travelled to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton, Peterborough, Kitchener and London as well as the hearings we held right here in Toronto. In total, we heard from more than 100 groups and individuals on rental issues and we received more than 200 carefully thought-out written submissions.

All this information, all this input was taken into account when we crafted Bill 96. It is now time to consult further. We believe it is important to move on to the committee stage and receive even more public comment on our proposed reforms. This time allocation motion would let us do exactly that. However, I would like to forestall any comment from the opposition parties that it indicates that we are trying to rush through debate on Bill 96. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I have said, we have already held weeks of public hearings on our discussion paper and we have already held three full days of second reading debate. I'm sure the members opposite would agree that public input is extremely important to producing the best bill possible.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): But you didn't listen before, or maybe Mr Turnbull is going to listen now.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Fort York, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: We are eager once again to consult, to listen and to hear that public viewpoint.

We have already given this very important issue more debate than either of the two opposition parties gave their own rental legislation. The NDP, when debating Bill 121, felt only one day of debate in the House was sufficient. The two pieces of rental legislation introduced by the former Liberal government, Bill 11 and Bill 51, had a total of four hours of debate at second reading.

Ms Lankin: Al, don't you realize you can only do that if the opposition doesn't want to speak?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: This government has had double the number of hours for second reading than the opposition bills combined.

This time allocation motion allows the opposition one day for third reading. This is the same amount of time that was spent on the Liberals' Bill 51 and the same number of hours spent by the NDP on their Bill 121.

It is important to remember that the former governments of both my Liberal and NDP colleagues used time allocation motions on a regular basis. The NDP government used time allocation 23 times in its term, a high number when you consider that they didn't sit at all in the last year of their mandate. As a matter of fact, it was the NDP that created the time allocation standing order that we're using today.

The members of the third party have no credibility whatsoever when they say they do not want to try and delay the process. Indeed, they wasted millions of dollars and about 10 days of House time during their ill-conceived filibuster of Bill 103.

This House is very aware of the opposition's position on Bill 96. What is important now is to have the opportunity to go out and talk to tenants, talk to property owners and get their input, because this proposed legislation is for them.

Some economists believe that rent controls do not protect tenants. The Todd report, which I know you're very familiar with, Madam Speaker, found that most rent control units are close to market levels at the present time. Keeping rents artificially controlled protects the unit; it does not protect the tenants. We believe it should be the other way around. Our legislation will protect the individual, not the unit.

All tenants will be covered by the annual guideline increase and many other protections that they currently enjoy, but when they vacate the unit, the landlord and the new tenant will negotiate a new rent. That rent will also be capped by the annual guideline increase. In this way we will protect the tenants while allowing the market to maintain a fair rental level. This, along with all the other measures, will encourage better-maintained buildings, new supply and more jobs.

During the second reading debate, I know that my friends in opposition mentioned the Russell report. They stated that landlords have received an average of 10% return on their investment over the past number of years. I want to take the opportunity to clarify the record.

My colleagues opposite failed to mention that the Russell report is statistically invalid due to the small sample size: Only six buildings were examined. As a matter of fact, the authors of the Russell report wrote to us in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to inform us that it would be totally inaccurate to use their report to predict any type of financial return, and they were shocked that the members of the opposition would even think to do so.

In conclusion, the government has brought forth this time allocation motion in order to be very clear about our intentions with this piece of legislation. We are clear about the need for extensive public hearings. We are clear about the need for discussions with all interested parties. And we are clear about the need to improve the rental housing legislation in Ontario for the benefit of the tenant, the property owner and the Ontario taxpayer.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Madam Speaker, I ask for permission to share my time with the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Scarborough North.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Bradley: I find interesting, first of all, the particular day that we are dealing with this piece of legislation, with the time allocation which rams through the end of rent control in Ontario. I suspect that there are a lot of people out there who don't know that this government is ending rent control. I suspect the developers know. I suspect those who own the huge apartment complexes in Toronto and other places know, and that they were there at the Tory fund-raiser to applaud this legislation.

But I suspect that there are a number of senior citizens, a number of students, a number of vulnerable people and a number of people who don't fit any of those categories who are not aware that in fact the government today is bringing an end to rent control in this province. That is unfortunate.

If the government were upfront, if the government said in its platform, "We're here to end rent control; this is what we are going to do," and they spelled it out at the beginning, we could still oppose it in opposition with some considerable virtue, but it would at least be a situation where the government was not trying to sneak something through. Here the government is on election day, when the Legislative Assembly has normally not been in session and members have been in their constituency offices or being able to vote in their constituencies -- of course, the government portrays it somewhat differently.

I read an account where the government House leader -- they like to use this, and it is a misinterpretation. I thought of another word, but you can't use it in the House. It's a misinterpretation of the rules of this House or of what is really going on. The government House leader says, of course, "We're going to make members work like everybody else." Funny thing, though.

Last Thursday and the Thursday before, in the House leaders' meeting, they said, "If only you people in the opposition will simply let this bill go through without any further debate, then we will not be sitting next Monday." So much for the nonsense of the government House leader pretending that this had anything to do with so-called working on election day. It had everything to do with the fact that the government wanted to get this bill through as quickly as possible so people didn't see the ramifications of it.

Here the government is, ending rent control. You know, I can remember that a lot of senior citizens in this province were attracted by certain portions of the Conservative program.

When they were out putting the boots to the people on welfare or people receiving social assistance, when they were misconstruing legislation passed by a previous government and saying, "No quotas," and trying to set that out to inflame people -- by the way, those little signs were there in the last week of the election campaign, if anyone is wondering where the Reform Party got the idea for those little inflammatory messages that appear on signs. The Conservative Party did that. The Mike Harris party did that in the last provincial election.

Some of those seniors might have been attracted by some of the policies and pronouncements of the Conservative Party, but little did they know that they would be paying part of the cost of their prescriptions, for instance, and that in fact the government would be interpreting one year when only nine months had gone by and requiring them to pay once again. I'm sure most of those seniors didn't know that rent control is going to end for any senior citizens or others who move from one apartment to another in this province. So people will in effect, if they want to avoid those kinds of increases, be prisoners in their own home.

If this bill were dealing with some genuine problems out there for landlords, then one would say the Legislature would consider it perhaps with some sympathy. I can't think of anybody who doesn't feel sorry for a landlord who owns a fourplex or a sixplex who has a tenant who refuses to pay; who has a tenant who destroys the property that is there; who has a tenant who is disruptive to others. Everybody in the Legislature wants to see that the good tenants are treated appropriately and that those who are not good tenants are subject to the recourse of the law.

But that's not what this bill is about. That's not what this bill is about at all. This bill is about caving in to the big developers in this province. There are a lot of small landlords who own small properties in this province who have encountered some problems, and I think people are sympathetic to trying to rectify those problems. What they're not sympathetic to is simply caving in to the huge developers who put pressure on this government, and that's what they've done. Seniors in this province who may be watching this afternoon will be alarmed to know that this Conservative-Reform government that we have in Ontario is in fact going to end rent control for them.

Second, and as insidious, is the provision that there is going to be much easier conversion from what we call rental properties, the huge rental properties, to condominium properties. That's most unfortunate, because that's going to reduce the amount of rental stock in the province. The theory that the minister puts forward that somehow rental stock will increase because everybody is now going to go out and build apartment buildings is simply not going to hold water.

The second reason it won't is that people really don't believe that subsequent governments won't possibly reimpose rent control. If that's the reason they're talking about, if they think they're going to generate more rental housing in this province, they are not. In fact, we are going to have fewer rental units in this province for people who require them than we had before.

Seniors, many of whom are on a fixed income, are going to be stuck with huge increases in rents as the market tightens.

Students, who must move almost yearly because of their educational requirements, often cannot afford to keep the apartment for the summer months, three or four months in the summer, they too are going to be hit by this and they are going to see their costs increase at the very time that this government has drastically increased tuition fees for people in this province, again bringing about a situation where the rich and the privileged will be fine, thank you, but people of modest income will not enjoy the same privileges and the same rights as others. I consider that to be most unfortunate.

So when I look at this bill, I see this bill as a deception. The bill itself is a deception. I can't say anything about the people who are doing it because, as I say, the rules do not permit that, and I don't want to do that in any event.

Lauren, from St Catharines-Brock, has just provided me with a drink of water -- thank you, Lauren -- to allow for a little more discussion of this.

So it's most unfortunate, but I think it is instructive to note that it's on election day when they are hiding behind this. You see, if you want to judge a government, you judge a government based on what it does when nobody is looking, or when it thinks nobody is looking, and today, naturally, attention in the political field is diverted to the federal field because there is a federal election on today. So members of the news media are not here in great numbers and the public is probably preoccupied with other items, justifiably so, today.

And when it feels it has no attention, the government sneaks through an end to rent control, killing rent control in this province. On the same day, it tries to slip in some rule changes to the Legislative Assembly.

Now the extreme right-wingers, such as my friend the member for Scarborough East, who would like to change the rules of this House so you run it like a virtual dictatorship, are going to be pleased with this. He's going to say, "Aren't we smart. Aren't we clever. If we put this through today, we can have a smirk as wide as our faces on it." But you know, some of the people on the government benches who have served in opposition, or some who simply have a high regard for the democratic system, are going to be very disturbed with the proposals that you see before us today.

The member should know that when this happens we should have as many members in the House as possible, and that's why I'm wondering if we have a quorum at this time. Would you check?

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay appropriately notes that the Reform Party is in some trouble in Muskoka-Georgian Bay without him there to run the campaign, as he did in the last federal election. I know he was very instrumental in that regard. The people in Muskoka-Georgian Bay who are Reformers should know that the member is here today. I don't know if there's some wavering in support and he's going over to the Tories now, but something is happening there. My friend the member for Scarborough East will be helpful in letting me know what happens.

What we're seeing happening today, by the way, in terms of the rules, and this is part of the rules we have today, we're dealing with a time allocation motion. The government doesn't want any more debate on the rent control abolishment legislation, so it has decided it's going to pass a motion this afternoon, which by virtue of its majority it can always carry, to terminate that debate. The purpose of the debate is to allow the public to know what the issues are surrounding a piece of legislation. It is a very valuable tool for the opposition to use to make certain the public is aware of the ramifications of all the provisions of a piece of legislation.

I know there are members in the government benches who have sat in opposition who must be very concerned in their heart of hearts about the proposals we've seen through the auspices of the member for Nepean. I don't for a moment believe that the member for Nepean drew up these proposed rule changes. The member for Nepean was in fact used by the Premier's office and apparently is prepared to comply, because he has put his name to this.

But make no mistake about it: The rule changes in procedure in this House that this government wishes to implement came from the Premier's office; they came from those very clever people who are not elected, who didn't have to go to the polls, who are so very clever, because they go down to meet with Newt Gingrich and the Republican guard down in the States and they all exchange stories about how clever they are and how clever they can be in dealing with the Legislature.

It seems to me that if you begin to roll the tanks over the rights of the opposition in this Legislature, then democracy is the loser. You can pass a lot of bills, you can pass a lot of motions, you can change a lot of policies, but what has ramifications for the long term are changes to the rules of this House. One of the unfortunate aspects of rule changes, one aspect that I think is important, is that you must know that future governments will not change the rules back.

I would like to be able to stand in this House and say that if one of the opposition parties were elected in the next election, these rules would be changed back to the way they are or made more accommodating to the opposition. I've never seen that happen yet. That simply does not happen. That's why members of the government who really care about the democratic process should be very wary of these kinds of rule changes.

The last government that was in power made some significant changes to the rules. It now has to live with those. It means that those of us in opposition even today have fewer opportunities and rights than was the case previous to those rule changes. I remember that those of us who were opposed to those rule changes warned the government members of the day that they would rue the day they allowed those changes to take place.

Another clever thought in the minds of the people who advise the Premier is, "Well, don't worry, Premier, because the news media won't be interested in these," because the reporters will go to their editors and say: "Well, what does this mean to the people outside of this House? Why should people outside of the Legislative Assembly care about the rule changes anyway?"

Well, they are extremely important. They're important to the process. I go back to Bill 26, a mammoth, massive government bill that some referred to as a bully bill. The reason they called it a bully bill was because it concentrated so much power in the hands of unelected officials and in the hands of a very few cabinet ministers. The government was prepared to ram that bill through before Christmas, and certainly had the majority to do so, and even under the existing rules was able to do so.

The opposition had to take extraordinary action to prevent the government from doing so, had to in effect bring the Legislature, for a temporary period of time, to a halt so there could be appropriate discussions and a way found to process the bill with the necessary input from the public.

The question wasn't whether the government had the right to pass the bill; it did. The question wasn't whether the government had the majority to pass the bill; it clearly had a massive majority to pass the bill. The question was about a bill which dealt with about 48 different acts of the Legislature, a massive, as we called it, omnibus -- and some people called it ominous -- bill that was going to take away from elected members of the Legislature, the only people the public can get at, and give massive powers to unelected members of the Premier's staff. That's why we in the opposition saw this as being a very important piece of legislation to receive further consideration.

I wonder how many government members like the fact that the bill created a so-called hospital restructuring commission, a commission that is now going from municipality to municipality in the province closing hospitals despite the fact that Premier Harris, as Conservative leader in May 1995, during the leaders' debate said, "Certainly I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." Then we see the government elected and they bring in Bill 26, a massive bill which gives to the hospital restructuring commission the power to walk in and close hospitals in every community in Ontario, clearly a provincial responsibility and clearly one which was created by this bill.

The bill was going to pass before Christmas, and again, this government has a knack of being able to find times when they think the public is not really listening to try to put through controversial legislation. But the opposition prevented that and caused hearings to be held in various municipalities across Ontario as well as here at the Legislature, extensive hearings which resulted in the government itself making 150 amendments to its own bill. There's a bill that would have gone through virtually unamended if it were not for the action of the opposition, extraordinary as it was, to prevent the Legislature from proceeding with that legislation.

I know we've got some people in here from the business sector, where they simply snap their fingers in their small business and they're able to get what they want. Maybe that's the way it should be in their business. I don't object to that. That's a different venue; it's a different circumstance. I think things always work best when you consult the people with whom you work and when you look at the ramifications of what you're doing. But it's a different circumstance to be dealing with the private sector and private business than it is with public business before this House.

I think truly thoughtful members of the government caucus will look at the proposed changes and think about the fact that some day they might be in opposition, or not even think about that but think: "Is this wise for the democratic process? Can we not wait a few more days?

Can we not sustain perhaps what we don't like as inconvenient actions by the opposition just a little longer to get the legislation through, to allow it to be subjected to more scrutiny?" If it requires changes, perhaps some of the government members will quietly make those recommendations to the government and say, "You know, the opposition has a point here; I'm not going to get up in the House as a government member and embarrass the government, but I think they've got a point," and go to the Conservative caucus meeting and say, "We think these changes should be made."

Without that kind of opportunity for the opposition, this will not happen. Will the House be more efficient for the Premier's staff? It will. Will Guy Giorno be happier? He will. Will Tom Long be delighted? Most certainly. Will all the people who advise the Premier think this is good? Yes, they will. But it's not good for the democratic process.

That's what we're elected to do, to deal with things democratically. It's sometimes cumbersome. I don't want to be so profound or historical as to quote extensively Winston Churchill, but we all recall what Winston Churchill said in criticizing the democratic system, that it was cumbersome and far from perfect, but it was the best system we had.

There are many countries in the world that have much more efficient parliaments than we have; there are many jurisdictions that have more efficient parliaments. But I don't think they provide better government to the people they represent as a result of the --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat for a moment. Order, please. Could I ask the members of the House to come to order, please. It's just far too noisy. The noise level has gone right up.

Mr Bradley: When these matters of changing the democratic system, these matters of bringing in rent control termination are not discussed during an election campaign, one becomes worried. The public may react to some inflammatory statements that are made, some easy slogans, some so-called hot button issues that make us immediately angry. But they must always look, when voting -- whether it's a provincial, federal or local election, but it applies most particularly federally and provincially -- at the entire package. You can't simply cherry-pick.

You can't simply say, "I like this one because it's going to get those criminals" or "I like that one because it'll teach those French people in Quebec something." You can't do that.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Be careful.

Mr Bradley: You have to be careful, as the member for Lake Nipigon says.

Mr Pouliot: And a former Quebecker.

Mr Bradley: And a former Quebecker, as he notes.

You've got to watch that because you've got to look at what else is in the package. While you may be angry on a particular day, as I think many people were in June 1995, angry enough to elect a government which pushed some hot buttons for them -- one of the hot buttons was not rent control.

Nobody mentioned to the people I know, the seniors I know, that the government would be ending rent control for anybody who had to move or chose to move from one rental accommodation to another, or make it easier for developers to convert their massive buildings from rental accommodation which was approved by the municipality to what we call condominiums, which of course is a different circumstance that some who live in those rental buildings could not afford.

This government is essentially in so many instances catering to the rich and the privileged in the province, and dividing the province so those at the very top economically are going to be much better off than those at the bottom.

We cannot guarantee as a Legislature, we cannot guarantee as parliamentarians that everyone is going to be able to drive a Cadillac, that everyone's going to live in a $5-million home, that everyone's going to be able to take a vacation in Aruba or Switzerland, but one thing we can do is guarantee that there's a reasonable social safety net, that the most vulnerable people in our society are protected by legislation and regulations passed by this House and by the cabinet. That is our role; that is our responsibility.

The rich and the privileged can look after themselves. They have the wherewithal; they have the money; they have the position; they have the power. This is not to say that one should ignore what any segment of society has to say or the needs of any segment of society, but the people in the category I've described are by and large able to look after themselves. This government is increasing the gap between the richest people in the province and the poorest people in the province.

We will all pay that consequence -- not just a few people; everyone will pay that consequence -- because as the people on the bottom economic rung become more desperate, as they see that they are unable to cope with the circumstances they face, as they see some people getting richer and richer and richer while their lot is not increased measurably or may decrease, they are going to increasingly be desperate enough to turn to other ways of advancing themselves.

Some of those ways may not be legal and some of those ways may not be ethical, but while one will never be able to condone those circumstances where people take the law into their own hands or break the law, one would certainly then understand, as this government increases the gap between the rich and the poor, what is happening.

It is important. Today is another day that we are voting, but in thinking of 1995, it's important that one look at all of the package when you have people out there proposing things to you that sound very attractive. We saw an example of that the other day when a bill was introduced by a Conservative member of the Legislature which would in effect remove the Rand formula. In other words, it was a piece of legislation, the Rand formula provisions, brought in by a Conservative government, a pretty moderate, middle-of-the-road, slightly-right-of-centre Conservative government.

A newly elected Conservative member of the Legislature was bringing in a law that would have drastically changed labour laws in this province to the detriment of unionized workers in Ontario.

Probably many of those unionized workers voted for the candidates for this government because they liked some of the issues they talked about