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

June 25, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L094 - Tue 25 Jun 1996 / Mar 25 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX REFORM

FOODSERVICES STAFF

HIGHLAND GAMES

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

ART PROJECT

GROWTH IN PORT COLBORNE

PROVINCIAL PARKS

GREAT LAKE RACE FOR CHARITY

LABOUR PROTEST

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RENT REGULATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUY PAUL MORIN

RENT REGULATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

COURT DOCUMENTS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

YOUNG OFFENDERS

RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

WATER QUALITY

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

EDUCATION OF INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILDREN

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

VISITOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

MOOSE TAGS

SERVICES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

PERTH AND SMITHS FALLS DISTRICT HOSPITAL

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SCHOOL BOARD AMALGAMATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 52

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD ABUSE -- AN APOLOGY

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1996 AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX REFORM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The city of North York, of which my riding is part, has endured a crisis. In the past 18 months, 18 major businesses have fled North York, at a cost of millions of dollars in lost property tax revenues. What is worse is that many other businesses are packing it up just as quickly.

Unfortunately, as businesses shut their doors, jobs are lost, and in many instances, these jobs and businesses not only leave North York; in ever-increasing numbers they leave the province as well. But North York is only a symptom of the problem. In Metro, 27 major businesses have shut their doors, costing the city tens of millions of dollars in lost property tax revenue and thousands of jobs.

We don't need another study to tell the business community and the people of Metro Toronto what they already know. The people and business community of Metro deserve action on tax reform.

A while back we were promised that we would see legislation in April. We didn't. Now, almost three months after the fact, the minister has deferred legislation by another six weeks.

The longer the government delays a decision, the more businesses will opt to leave Metro, costing jobs and millions of lost property tax revenues.

FOODSERVICES STAFF

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): More victims. This Friday, 20-plus staff from downstairs in the legislative cafeteria are gone, out, victims of this so-called revolution.

Let me say to these Tory backbenchers as they line up down there with their $78,000-plus-a-year incomes to be served by any number of those hardworking women and men down in that cafeteria and foodservices, when they look into the faces of those people, what do these Tory hacks have to say to people like Anna Aurilia, two and a half years away from retirement, 18 years of working in this assembly, thrown out on the street?

It ain't much of a revolution; it ain't very much common sense. We've got victims downstairs in this assembly today. We've got fat, blue-suited Tories smiling and twiddling their thumbs as lives are being destroyed.

Oh, the prospect of being hired by the new contract services, Marriott, at a rate of pay starting at $7 or $7.50 an hour. That's big. That's real big.

I tell you, Speaker, that this government has created yet another group of victims in as ruthless and cold-hearted and brutal a way as could ever be imagined. I tell you that those cooks and cashiers and waiters and waitresses downstairs have been brutally attacked by a thuggish, despicable, swinish government.

HIGHLAND GAMES

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I would like to take this opportunity to invite the people of Ontario to an exciting event taking place July 1 in Oxford, the Zorra Highland Games.

This year marks the 59th annual Highland Games in Embro, and I would like to point out that this event has only increased in popularity throughout those 59 years.

This year not only thousands from my riding but many people from across southwestern Ontario, the United States, Switzerland and Scotland will take

part in the numerous events featured.

One of the biggest and most exciting events is the Lafarge Canada Inc memorial tug of war. This event started in 1993 in honour of the Zorra team that captured the tug of war championship at the 1893 Chicago World's Fair.

Teams from across Ontario will compete against two teams from Switzerland and several from the United States as they stake their claims to the 1996 championship.

For those who love highland dance, there will be more than 175 dancers from across Canada, the US and Scotland kicking up their heels and joining in time with the pipe bands on hand to entertain and compete.

I would like to invite members of the public and especially my fellow MPPs to join in the fun of the stone toss, caber toss and farmers' walk, which sees participants carry 185-pound concrete blocks until they drop them. The person carrying them the farthest wins.

So on behalf of all those in Oxford, I would like to invite those who love the games to Embro on July 1.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'd like to remind this government about a commitment made to families who participate in the special services at home program. Many of the children involved with this program are severely affected with disabling conditions and require 24-hour care in order to sit, stand, walk, eat or dress, all things many of us take for granted. Through the assistance of dedicated parents and programs such as special services at home, these children have the chance to realize their full potential.

On October 16, the Minister of Community and Social Services pledged the support of the government to this program in the House, maintaining that funding for the program had not been cut. He said, "We're protecting the funding for these programs to help parents with the cost of raising a disabled child." Now we find that this commitment is not as straightforward as it appeared.

The truth is, more and more families are opting to keep their special-needs family members at home, in safe, nurturing environments. Funding as a result is spread further and does not support the families in the way that they need.

Families in my riding have been informed that the support that they receive under that program has been cut by at least 25%. Let me repeat that: 25%. The needs that they have to support their children at home haven't changed, yet funding has been drastically reduced.

Let me reassure you that the needs of these families do not diminish and, if anything, their needs increase as these children grow and develop. The only thing that has changed is the commitment by this government to maintain this program so that it truly supports those who need it.

ART PROJECT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Last night marked a very special occasion in my riding of Riverdale, the official dedication of Time: and a Clock, a public art project initiated by the Queen-Broadview Village Business Improvement Area. The event was the culmination of years of work by member merchants and residents of the area: one of Toronto's most historic neighbourhoods.

Time and a Clock is a three-site installation. On the Queen Street bridge over the Don River is a clock and a river of text. Embedded in the sidewalks at the intersection of Queen Street East and Broadview Avenue are four meditations on time. On Queen Street East at Empire Avenue are four pennants of time.

The Queen-Broadview area has suffered greatly through the recent recession. It's a testament to small businesses in the area that they've continued their dedication to this project.

I particularly want to thank Albert Edelstein, who has been chair of the Queen-Broadview Village BIA for about 17 years, for his continued dedication and hard work to the economic development of the area. I also want to congratulate Eldon Garnet, the artist who conceived and created this stunning piece of public art. The work perfectly weaves together a sense of the area's historic legacy and the hope that we all share for a bright, better future.

Unfortunately, because the House sat last night discussing the government's plan to gut environmental assessment in Ontario, I had to miss the event, but I heartily want to congratulate all of those involved.

GROWTH IN PORT COLBORNE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I wanted to let the members know of some exciting developments going on in Port Colborne, Ontario. Under the leadership of Mayor Neal Schoen, Port Colborne has shown that it belongs to the new school of government. It believes in cutting taxes, balancing budgets, reducing red tape and duplication. It believes lower taxes lead to higher growth.

Port Colborne is promoting economic growth by cutting taxes, like the provincial government is doing, for new home buyers. A creative incentive program announced by Mayor Schoen in the city will give new home buyers in Port Colborne up to a $5,000 tax break on new homes when combined with the provincial land transfer tax rebate.

Recently, with Canol Block opening its doors once again after two years standing idle; with Niagara Shoes, an employer of 30 women and men, winning a $1-million contract; with Raven Industries expanding its workforce significantly; and just down the road in Welland, Ontario, with Canadian Tire Acceptance increasing its workforce by 100 people; and Alliance Communications Call Centres tripling its workforce by another 100 people; with new growth and new jobs and 3,000 jobs coming to the peninsula directly with Casino Niagara and with this new program in Port Colborne, Ontario, I'll tell you, for these new jobs, the new people coming to the Niagara Peninsula, Port Colborne, Ontario, will make a very fine place to live.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise today to jog the memory of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, as well as two other cabinet colleagues, about how they have misled the people of eastern Ontario regarding the reopening of the parks and the campgrounds in my area.

For years now, they have been talking about -- unfortunately, all it has been is talk -- reopening these parks to tourists and visitors through partnership and private sector enterprise. When I asked the minister last fall when he'd open the parks, he told me -- I am quoting from the October 26 edition of Hansard -- that he'd like to "investigate a bit further into the situation."

More recently, on April 2, 1996, when I cautioned the minister that he was ruining tourism opportunities and economic rejuvenation in eastern Ontario, he said, "when the summer is finished, it's going to have been very prosperous season for eastern Ontario."

Then there is my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville, who said over two years ago, "Potential private operators...can do a very good job" reopening the parks, and "I hope the government addresses this before the summer" of 1994.

Minister, you have been in power for over a year now, and to date, you have failed to prove that good news is coming by the end of the summer for all the private investors to create jobs for students.

GREAT LAKE RACE FOR CHARITY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Members will know that I often rise in this House to talk about the wonderful community of Beaches-Woodbine and the incredible spirit that is there as people come together to work to raise funds to help others in our community who are less fortunate.

Today I want to inform members of another event and invite them to attend the Great Lake Race for Charity. The Great Lake Race for Charity is now in its 13th year. I had an opportunity 14 years ago to be a member of the board of directors of Community Centre 55 when we initiated this.

It takes place on Monday, July 1, Canada Day. It's a 30-mile race involving North canoes. It starts from Niagara-on-the-Lake and finishes at Ontario Place some time between 11 and noon. It's the biggest canoe race of its type in Ontario.

There are a lot of people involved in making this happen and a lot of corporations which have sponsored it over the years. This year corporations like Husky Injection Molding Systems, TECHCAN, Chrysler, the Toronto Sun, Labatt's and the Bank of Montreal are all involved.

I want to pay particular tribute this year to Robert Schad, owner of Husky, for his ongoing support but his support for a boat which is for paraplegic athletes. This is the first and only North canoe of its kind, and it's the world's first adapted sports canoe for persons with disabilities. The Adapted Sport Technology Research Association, ASTRA, along with One Step Beyond, have developed this so that people with disabilities can be fully integrated into this event.

It's an incredible event. The money that is raised by the teams of paddlers who dedicate their time and earn money for this goes to good works within my community. I hope you'll all come out and join us.

LABOUR PROTEST

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to comment on labour's day of disruption in Peterborough yesterday. I had the opportunity to tour downtown Peterborough before the march to find that many businesses were not going to close no matter what. Many merchants indicated they were going to lose significant amounts of money, but they chose to do this out of their belief in democracy, that we all have individual rights no matter what side you're on.

As the 4,000 protesters gathered in Crary Park to hear from the out-of-town labour leaders about the negative, the rest of the city was concentrating on the positive.

I had the opportunity to welcome a Japanese delegation visiting Peterborough to witness the excellent programs offered to our senior citizens. I attended a sod ceremony for a massive real estate development, a project that will build 1,200 homes, which means jobs.

Many people participated in various activities for a variety of reasons. Taking a stand is something we all have to do. To everyone who went to work yesterday and stayed open for business, let me thank you for choosing to stand up and be counted. Our city was not shut down. The people of Peterborough were the only real winners.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario's 1995 annual report and the individual members' expenditures report for the fiscal year 1995-96. The members will find a copy of this report in their desks in the chamber.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RENT REGULATION

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Over the past 10 years, previous governments have put stricter and stricter controls on rental housing. They said they wanted to protect tenants. I believe they thought their changes would help, but the reality is that they did just the opposite.

Rental buildings are getting more and more run down, and no new apartments are being built. In Toronto, for example, only 20 units were built last year, and that's in a city with a vacancy rate that's plunging to zero.

Our rental stock is on average over 25 years old, and much of it is crumbling. It's only going to get worse unless something is done to deal with this reality.

Over the past year, we consulted with landlord groups and we consulted with tenant groups. It became quite clear that on several issues their views are polarized.

Tenants need a system that protects them from skyrocketing rents and ensures that their homes are properly maintained, safe and secure. Our government wants this too.

Landlords, on the other hand, have told us they can't recover their costs for maintenance. We need to make the system more attractive so that landlords want to invest in their buildings and want to properly maintain them. Our government wants this too.

For these reasons, we are proposing changes in the current system. We will continue to protect tenants from unfair rent increases. There will continue to be an annual guideline set each year. We will maintain the current calculation for setting the guideline and, like today, landlords will have to apply if they want to go above it.

A cap on the above-guideline increases will be maintained. Capital expenditure increases will be capped at 4% above the guideline. This cap is necessary to avoid the problems of the 1986-90 system when tenants were experiencing 30%, 40% and 50% increases. This will not happen under our new system.

Rent increases related to extraordinary operating costs such as municipal taxes, fees and utilities will not be capped. Landlords have no control over these costs and the resulting rent increases tend to be very low.

Tenants will still be able to make applications concerning rent reductions and illegal rent increases.

Tenants will be protected while they remain in their units. When a tenant moves out, however, a landlord can negotiate a market-based rent with the new tenant. Once the new tenant moves in, rent controls will once again apply.

As a result of this change, we will stop tracking maximum rents and get rid of the cumbersome rent registry.

These changes will give landlords greater incentive to maintain their buildings. It should also mean more investment in rental buildings, with the resulting economic growth and job creation.

The rules will be tougher for those landlords who refuse to properly maintain their buildings. Municipalities will have greater powers to enforce the maintenance and repair of existing rental stock and, in particular, to fine serious offenders of the property standards bylaws.

The proposed Tenant Protection Act will also have stronger provisions to keep landlords from harassing tenants. Fines will be increased and municipalities will have greater flexibility to lay charges.

Care home residents, land-lease communities and mobile home park residents will also be guaranteed protection. They will continue to have rent and tenancy protection as well as special rules to address their unique needs.

We have long aimed to make the system more efficient and responsive to tenants. Therefore, the Landlord and Tenant Act will be moved out of the courts and become part of the new legislation.

Tenants' rights won't change under the act. Matters will be resolved through an administrative body to streamline the dispute process and provide one-stop shopping in all tenancy-related matters. Our system will mean faster decisions.

A consultation paper that sets out our new direction is being released today. We invite comments from the people of this province through to August 30. We're also planning legislative committee hearings across the province throughout the summer and hope to introduce legislation in the fall.

We stated from the outset that we would not put forward a new rent control system without first ensuring tenants were protected against unfair rent increases, and we've done that. We wanted a system that would get tough on enforcing maintenance. We've done that. We wanted a system that would significantly improve the climate for new investment, and we've done that. We wanted a system that would streamline administration and cut red tape, and we've done that too.

We wanted to create a more balanced system that was fair for landlords, tenants and Ontario taxpayers. We believe we have found that balance.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today, of course, it is a long-awaited statement we wanted from this minister which has taken so long. What this government has done is officially declare war on the tenants in our province. This paper, as I read it, is nothing more than a strategy to displace tenants so landlords can profit when a new tenant moves in, as he has indicated. It's going to be a siege mentality in this province from now on in regard to tenants. This new system pits landlords against tenants. Tenants will now have the burden of disputing every problem with their landlord.

First, it was the cancellation of all non-profit housing; he came in with his sledgehammer and did that. Then they went on to reduce those who are on welfare by 22% to make sure the poor were being attacked. Mr Leach and his government seemed to have forgotten all about the people on the waiting lists for affordable accommodation. Speculation is afoot about selling off Ontario Housing to the private sector because it can do it better.

Who looks after those tenants? Where is this minister? This is a minister who wants to get out of the housing business and give it to the private sector. That's what they're doing. People are paying up to 50% and 60% of their income on rent. They cannot afford the current rents as we see them today. What your new system will do is force rents up, not down.

Don't forget about the seniors and the disabled. Don't forget that 80% of this province's disabled live in private rental accommodation. They, along with other tenants, will not be able to move. They'll be stuck in their homes. They'll be sentenced to their apartments because moving will mean an enormous rent increase. That's what you said. As soon as they move, they are subject to higher rents, and when they get in, they are stuck with those high rents anyhow.

Under this current system, newly constructed buildings are exempt from rent control for five years, as he talked about, but no one has built. In the new system, that won't change. Landlords will harass tenants to get out of their apartments, and you know it. As we see it, that way a landlord can get a tenant out, have an empty apartment, take the rent control off, hike up the rent, advertise, get a new tenant in and get a heftier rent. My God, what a system; quite a system to be put in place.

They will set up a whole new bureaucracy, they said, to deal with tenant harassment. This move, from a government that talks about cutting red tape and reducing government, really surprises me. I would like to see, when that bureaucracy is set up, what the cost will be.

It will not work. This system will mean higher rents for tenants. There's no way the market will force rents down. The motivation behind taking units off rent control is allowing landlords to jack rents up.

They are waiting until the last week of this House, as you have seen -- as a matter of fact, the last day or two in the sitting -- to announce this paper, even though the minister has known for a long time what plans he had calculated.

I am glad that many tenants have organized and confronted you and told you to take your hands off rent control. That's what they have done. Somehow you are playing the squeeze game to make sure they seem to be satisfied. This process will not work. Tenants will be in fear of what their rents will be if they should move. If you think that you have heard from the tenants already and that you have consulted, as you said, in the short time you gave to do this enormous change, I am advising every tenant out there to call Mr Leach, the minister.

Thanks for technology. The telephone number of the Minister of Housing is (416) 585-7000. Call him. Send him a fax and tell him what you think about this plan; 585-6470 is the fax number. I'm telling you that you'll be hearing from these tenants. We will be discussing in detail those six items in the legislation you want to change which will tamper with the protection of tenants so that you can let your friends convert and demolish those apartment buildings that we have protected over these years.

Take your hands off rent control. Make sure we have something that is fair to all.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): There you have it, the beginning of the end of rent control. The government has come out and has clearly chosen sides. In this province of Ontario the Conservative government, by this action, is saying that it's choosing the side of landlords and forgetting the side of the tenants, the people who are going to get it in the ear when it comes to what this legislation can do.

What's the government doing? It's hiding itself behind a façade of tenant protection. But the bottom line here is clear. What is it? Rents are going to go up in Ontario; there are no ifs, there are no buts, there are no two ways about it. What the government is saying is that if you build an apartment building in this province, it will never fall under rent control, which means that the tenants who move in will be under no protection from rent control, the landlord will totally have those tenants at their mercy, and the rents will go up according to what the landlord wants, with no regard for the tenant.

As long as the market will bear the price, the payer will pay the bill; and that's what this thing is all about.

They also try to hide behind the question of vacancy decontrol. Vacancy decontrol means quite simply, what? Rents are going to go up. The landlord is going to say, "I'm getting $800 a month for my unit, I want to get $900 rent for my unit, so I will harass and I will intimidate, I will do whatever I can to get that tenant to move out of the unit so I can jack the price up."

The government in its own report that it's putting out in this discussion paper is saying, by their own admission, that this is going to be an issue of harassment, because they have set up themselves an harassment policy within this legislation in a guise to be able to protect the tenant. But the reality is, there's no teeth in this, there's no detail in this, there are no staffing requirements that have been spelled out at this point. It means to say, quite frankly, that if you own an apartment building in the province of Ontario and you want to kick your tenant out so you can raise your rent, you will get the benefit of doing that.

I say to this government, shame, because in the end, who is going to pay? It is going to be the tenants who pay. It is clearly, as I say, another example where this government has chosen sides. This government is intent to race to the very bottom, as they can, when it comes to legislation in this province, to take away the controls and the protection a tenant has, because why?

They want to choose the sides of landlords, they wanted to choose the sides of big money at the expense of the working people of this province, the middle class of this province who rely on having affordable rents in order to be able to live, not counting what it means to the poor. It's going to be absolutely tragic for that particular group of people.

I say to the government, when a government forgets what its purpose is -- and its purpose is to be able to protect all people in this society to make sure that they're treated fairly and equitably -- I say that this government, quite frankly, is totally out to lunch when it comes to this particular issue.

The tenants in this province are really at risk, and I would say to this government, in the end they should do the right thing, they should keep in place the legislation that was put in place by the NDP government, a piece of legislation that put protection of tenants squarely out in front and didn't try to hide behind the fact of trying to do something that it shouldn't. The bottom line is here, we need to protect tenants; and I say to the government, shame on you.

The other thing they're doing that I find quite interesting is they're taking away the protection of tenants to be able to settle their issues within the courts and to be able to do it within the rent control legislation. They're going to be setting up a tribunal system where tenants who disagree with what happens and how their landlords deal with them will be sent out in front of a tribunal. I would say that is an extremely bureaucratic process. In the end what it means to say is that the decisions will be made in the hands of bureaucrats, and not in the hands, under the auspices of legislation, through the legal system that is presently the situation today.

The government says that it's doing this, why? They're saying they're doing this because they want to build brand-new apartment buildings and they feel that rent control is the issue. The reality is, it is not rent control that is providing a roadblock to construction; it is a question of how much it costs to build a building. If the government was truly serious about trying to spur economic development and having new buildings built -- and I notice that the minister is agreeing with me -- the reality is, if you want to be able to increase the ability to construct apartment buildings in Ontario, you need to deal with the other issue.

This is nothing more than a guise of trying to repay the people who supported the Conservative Party and Conservative candidates in the last election by giving them huge contributions to their campaign coffers. And what did they get in exchange? The tenants are taken hostage in the province of Ontario, and the landlords are going to reap the benefits, and the tenants will pay the price. I say, shame on the government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUY PAUL MORIN

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, Guy Paul Morin's mother, Ida, is in the gallery today on behalf of the Morin family. For one year now, you and your Premier have been promising to quickly establish a public inquiry to determine who is accountable for this gross miscarriage of justice in the Guy Paul Morin case.

Mrs Morin today delivered a letter to the Premier which concludes by stating, "Guy Paul was exonerated on January 23, 1995, but in the eyes of the people of Ontario and Canada, this doesn't right the wrongs done by incompetent public servants and government officials to Guy Paul and his family."

It is now clear that you are in a conflict of interest. Whatever excuses you may offer to explain away the delays of an inquiry cannot now have any credibility. As the government's top legal adviser you are on the one hand a defendant in a lawsuit for compensation and on the other you are mandated to establish a public inquiry on the same set of facts, which facts may serve to increase compensation. As the chief law officer for the province you are bound to act ethically. Minister, you are in a conflict of interest.

My question is this: In view of this conflict, will you now authorize Justice Gold to completely and independently establish the public inquiry which has been ordered?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It has been the intention of the government to ensure that such an independent inquiry will take place and we are in the course of making those arrangements.

Mr Chiarelli: That answer is simply not satisfactory in view of the time that has expired, but I have a question about Justice Gold's role. In February 1995 the then Attorney General stated that her advice from Justice Gold was "very clear" that the commission and the courts will be able, at the same time, to deal with both the issue of compensation and the issue of a public inquiry: "It is much more important in the public interest to go ahead with a public inquiry in as expeditious a manner as possible."

Some 16 months later, on May 28, 1996, you told this House you are still working with Justice Gold and taking his advice. My question is this: Has Justice Gold changed his mind, after 16 months, about establishing a public inquiry as expeditiously as possible? If so, will you tell us why he has been supporting delays in establishing the inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: I continue to take advice from Justice Gold, who is mandated to deal with a certain aspect of this issue. He is dealing with it, and I am taking his advice.

Mr Chiarelli: From time to time over the last eight or 10 months, you have indicated your inability to find the necessary judges from outside Ontario's jurisdiction to be appointed to the inquiry. My question to you is this, and I'd like you to be very specific: How many judges whom you or your officials have approached have declined appointment to this inquiry, and how many, if any, have agreed to participate to date? Will you give us a date for the start of the public inquiry or will you continue to stonewall it until you can jawbone down a settlement on financial terms on the civil case?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have indicated that we will proceed with an inquiry and we will be doing what has to be done to ensure that inquiry is an independent inquiry that examines the issues that are outstanding and that are the cause for concern. We will comply with that mandate.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns the plan introduced today which can only be regarded as this government's tenant "rejection" package. It will take any controls which exist now off all new units in perpetuity, but more importantly it will allow rents to increase to any level possible once someone has moved out of a unit. It has also anticipated that this will cause landlords to intimidate, to go after tenants to get them out of their apartments because it's made it more favourable to do so.

In anticipation of this, it's created a whole new bureaucracy to deal with intimidation by landlords but one that won't work. It has set up, as it has in so many areas in this province, friction between landlords and tenants and it has broken its promise by taking controls off units.

I ask the minister today, is there one thing in this tenant "rejection" package which actually protects tenants in this province?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I know what it will do. It won't give you a system that was in between 1986 and 1990 where we had 30%, 40% and 50% increases. If there was ever a rent control system that failed, it was yours.

We're going to put before the public over the summer a consultation paper that provides a balance between tenants' rights and landlords' rights to get a reasonable return on their investment. At the present time there's absolutely no fairness in the system, and we intend to bring fairness to it.

Mr Kennedy: It's unfortunate the minister chooses not to answer the question and at least to agree, admit for sake of clarity so that the tenants out there will know, and the landlords who have been given a disservice by the way this is structured, that this government has broken its promises. The Premier made a promise to lower rents. Where are the lower rents in this?

The minister has decided to give away all the enforcement of standards to municipalities. Municipalities will charge user fees, municipalities will get no extra money from the government to enforce those standards and the access to the courts is going to be cut off.

Minister, agree at least very clearly that the promise you made in your riding to be elected and the promise the Premier made in the constituency of York South, that rents would be lowered, was broken in the consultation position paper you produced today.

Hon Mr Leach: We've kept every promise we made. We said we wouldn't touch the rent control system until we had something that was better, something that was fairer, and this is fairer and better. They will see it. As we go out to consultation over the summer they will have an opportunity to have input. If there's an opportunity to improve the positions we put forward we'll be glad to do that but I think, as I said earlier, what we put forward is a fair and balanced package.

Mr Kennedy: The disappointment is profound because the minister is unable to come to terms with the essence of what he's presented to the House today, that after all the fear that's been created out there among tenants, all the insecurity, it's now come true: People are sentenced to their own apartments. They can't move for fear of how much that will cost them.

Rather than deal with the housing shortage, none of the factors that are really causing the problems with rental stock have been addressed in this proposal today. Instead we will see as people move -- some 25% of apartments get vacated each year -- the end of rent controls. Minister, for the sake of the integrity of this House and for your own integrity, admit today that rent controls effectively have ended in this province. This is what you've said in the consultation paper and this is what we need to discuss over the summer.

Hon Mr Leach: The only thing that bothers me about this conversation is having to look over at those buttons that were bought and paid for by the city of Toronto. That's really irritating, but that's another issue.

We have put this consultation together after major discussions with landlords' groups and tenants' groups. We've consulted with tenants, we've consulted with landlords and we know we've got a system that is balanced, better than what is there now. As we continue to go on I know we'll improve it, and we intend to have the standing committee go out to the public this summer and we'll bring in legislation this fall.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): It's interesting to notice that the Liberal Party, which voted against rent control, now wants to pretend that they're in favour of it.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Your package means the end of rent control. You want landlords to be able to jack up the rent when a tenant moves out, you want landlords to get a bigger rent increase for sitting tenants as well and you've removed rent controls entirely for new buildings. Are you saying that rents aren't high enough? Is that your point?

Hon Mr Leach: To the leader of the third party, congratulations on your election; I never had an opportunity to do that yesterday.

We know that under the present formula the NDP brought in, right now the maximum rents in many cases are higher than the market rents, so if you wanted a system that put rents up higher than they should be, then you should keep your system.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Leach: That's right, absolutely right. In many instances there are people who own apartment buildings who will tell you they couldn't get the amount of rents that were put under the controls of rent control.

The system we're bringing forward is a very balanced system that has been negotiated between landlords and tenants. We want to put it on the street to make sure we get further input, and we'll do that.

Mr Hampton: I want to be sure I follow the logic here. I believe what the minister said is that rents are too high and therefore he's going to bring in a system which will allow them to move higher. Minister, you're clearly hoping that tenants overlook one basic fact: Your package will mean the end of rent control. That's what it means. As you just said, your package will mean higher rents.

Tenants move a lot. In fact, your own study shows that more than two thirds of tenants move at least once every five years. This means that more than two thirds of tenants will face an unregulated rent increase within the next five years. You don't have to look very far down the road to see that means the end of rent control. Why don't you just come right out and say to people that you want rents to be higher, that that's your real goal here? Why don't you just come out and say it?

Hon Mr Leach: To the leader opposite, what we want to do is make sure we have a system that will entice the industry back into building more apartments. Right at the present time, tenants have absolutely no choice. If we don't get the industry building more apartments, things are going to get worse and worse for tenants. What we have to do is develop a balanced system that gives incentives for the industry to get back into building while still having rent control on for sitting tenants.

Mr Hampton: What I think I heard was the minister say that rents aren't high enough and he wants to push up rents. He says that by pushing up rents he thinks he can get more apartments. But I want to say to the minister, the average household income of tenants is only $34,000 a year. More than one third have incomes of less than $20,000 a year. Many are seniors on fixed incomes. So I guess I have to say to the minister, this is what you think is a good thing, that lower-income people, that seniors on fixed incomes are going to pay more so that your friends the landlords get more? Is this your idea of a good thing?

Hon Mr Leach: As we all know, most seniors live in their buildings and they stay in their buildings, and as long as they're there under existing -- they have absolutely nothing to be worried about. This fearmongering that's going on by the opposition is totally unnecessary. They have rent controls on their units. It's the same formula the NDP brought in. What they're so upset about I don't understand. I can only repeat that the package we're putting forward is fair and balanced and it will work.

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

Mr Hampton: To the same minister, you said, and you alluded to it here today, that landlords told you that if you got rid of rent control, in other words, if you got rid of rent control and allowed rents to rise, they would build 20,000 new units in Metro alone. You've repeatedly said that the aim of your reform is to get the landlords to build, but your own report, the Lampert report issued last fall, says that getting rid of rent controls won't do it, that it's not the answer. The landlords want a whole bunch of other goodies too. The landlords want other things.

What guarantees have landlords given you that they will build affordable rental housing as a result of the end of rent control that you've announced today? What guarantee?

Hon Mr Leach: To the member opposite, they said that if we put a fairer system together, get rid of the unfairness that's in the system, they will come back and build, and I believe they will build.

The member of the opposition is right that rent control alone is not going to entice the industry back. It's one of the issues. One of the other issues is the unfairness in the tax system, and why the city of Toronto, which buys the buttons on Save Rent Control, charges tenants four times the amount of tax that they do for a single-family home is a mystery to me. So if we address the tax issue, if we address a number of other issues, we're confident that the industry will come back and build apartment buildings once again.

Mr Hampton: I didn't hear a guarantee there. What I heard is that poorer people, that fixed-income people, that seniors on fixed income, that people who are at the lower level of incomes in the province are going to pay more, and there's absolutely no guarantee that there is going to be more apartment stock, more housing stock, no guarantee whatsoever. So the minister is saying rents should go up. You've cut off the supply of non-profit and co-op housing but you won't guarantee any solution here.

Minister, will you admit that the only incentive you've given to the private sector, the only incentive here, is the incentive to make big profits by getting rid of their tenants, and that the end of rent control won't guarantee a single unit of new affordable housing? We've got no guarantee.

Hon Mr Leach: What I can absolutely guarantee is that it sure won't be any worse than what you had, with 20 new units built in the GTA last year. That's shameful. Some 60,000 people move into this area every year, and there are absolutely no new apartment buildings being built.

We know that the industry is anxious to get out there and build when they can be assured they'll get a reasonable return on their investment, and if we make the changes we're planning to make, we know they're going to get out there and build, something they would never do under your legislation.

Mr Hampton: The issue here is any guarantee that new rental accommodation will be built, and the minister can't offer any, so he's relying on other excuses now.

Minister, I'm going to send over to you three election leaflets put out by the member for High Park-Swansea, the member for Eglinton and your candidate in York South. They say things like, "Mike Harris will strengthen rent controls, not cancel them," "Rent controls will remain," and "Mike Harris will maintain controls for all tenants in rental units."

Minister, you are scrapping rent controls. The whole thrust of your policy is to increase rents, and you can't guarantee that a single unit of affordable housing will be built to compensate. Will you admit that you have broken the promise made by your colleagues to tenants? Will you admit that you've broken a promise?

Hon Mr Leach: Actually, I can tell the honourable member that we've kept the promise. What we've done is brought in a system that is going to be fairer and is going to be more balanced and is going to provide more choice for tenants. Right now, tenants have limited choices because the policies of the previous government wouldn't entice anybody to build anything in this city or in this province. So what we're doing is to ensure that tenants have choice.

I can tell you that in any area where there is a large vacancy rate, landlords are offering incentives for tenants to sign two-year leases. In Ottawa, for example, they're offering free televisions or free microwaves to sign a two-year lease. Why? Because there is supply and there is competition. Without supply and without competition, tenants are trapped. They were trapped under your system; they'll be let free under ours.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Health. On July 15, your new user fees for prescriptions needed by sick seniors, those on social assistance and those coping with mental disability will kick in across the province. The confusion regarding the implementation of these new user fees is widespread, Minister. You acknowledged this confusion when you changed the implementation date from June to July 15. Furthermore, in a letter to my colleague the member for Port Arthur, you stated, "The Ministry of Health recognizes that collecting the proposed copayment may present some challenges."

Minister, are you going to clarify the confusion regarding this poorly conceived idea? Answer the question of how you're going to ensure seniors are informed that they have to apply. How are you going to justify that fees will vary from community to community and pharmacy to pharmacy? How are you going to deal with the compliance problems that people in long-term-care facilities, sick seniors, are going to face and those people with mental disability who are trying to cope in our community?

How are you going to tell all of those people that you've solved the problems, the challenges that you've identified, when you bring in the new user fees that you promised during the election you would not bring in?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It's interesting. When Sheila Copps, her federal cousin, was in the by-election, she blamed this government, which has fully preserved the health care budget, in fact increased it, for cuts in health care. The only cuts going on in Canada in health care are the $2.2 billion that the federal Liberal Party is taking away from the seniors and the children and the patients and the sick and elderly in this province. So let's clear up the record once and for all from this person, who's a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and Ontario. I'm getting a little tired of this.

Secondly, user fees are illegal in Canada under the Canada Health Act. If the copayments, for example, that are in every other province in Canada, including provinces run by four Liberal premiers, were illegal for some reason under the Canada Health Act, then I expect Mr Dingwall and Mr Chrétien would be clawing back those provinces for illegal user fees. That is not happening. These are not user fees and in fact they are the lowest copayments on any drug plan in Canada, the envy of all Canadians.

We're sorting through the technical difficulties, keeping in mind that Ontario is not breaking new ground with this program; we're simply catching up to nine other provinces who have gone through all of these problems and solved them to the satisfaction of the people of their provinces.

Mrs Caplan: The minister can rant, he can rave, but his rhetoric is not going to belie the fact that he promised they would bring in no new user fees, and on July 15 Mike Harris and the Conservative government are bringing in new user fees for the drug program. Minister, the technical difficulties that you have just referred to are hurting real people, and you have an obligation to stand in this House today and explain to those people how you're going to protect them.

I don't understand why you are hell-bent for putting in these new user fees. These user fees are going to affect sick seniors, sick children, disabled children, people who are suffering from mental disability. Will you confirm in this House today that you are planning to waive the user fees for recovering drug addicts on methadone? And if you are, how do you justify this action to people who are coping with mental illness in the community, who have compliance problems and need to take their drugs in order to survive day by day?

What do you say to mothers with sick children who need antibiotics and are on social assistance and what do you say to those senior citizens living in long-term-care facilities? How do you tell people where they are supposed to fill in their application forms, and how do you justify waiving a copayment for recovering drug addicts but forcing others to pay the new user fees? Stand in this House today and answer those questions and forget your silly rhetoric.

Hon Mr Wilson: I say to the honourable member, that may be the way she views a $2.2-billion cut in health and social services in transfer payments over two years from your federal cousins in Ottawa, but I don't think it's silly rhetoric. It is a reality that this government is dealing with in terms of fully preserving and enhancing our health care system. That is a reality and it is a minor miracle that we've been able to fully preserve the health care budget in this province and in fact enhance that budget in spite of the cuts.

I admit I've not raised this point very often, but my blood was boiling when Sheila Copps was running around this province saying Mike Harris and Jim Wilson cut health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of the facts in this House and in this government are contrary to what the honourable member and her party, at the federal level anyway, have been saying and she's been saying around this province too.

With respect to the implementation concerns the honourable member has, I have had the opportunity to discuss this with other health ministers in Canada, and we've got a lot of good ideas from those nine other provinces that have gone through this. Our plan is still the most generous plan in Canada. We are able, by having everybody pay a little bit in the copayment, to expand the program to 140,000 working poor families in addition to those that are getting help with their drug costs today. It's a good-news item.

As seniors' minister I met recently with CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and with the seniors' consumers association's Jane Leitch. They didn't even mention this issue, I say to the honourable member, because seniors in this province, in the spirit of generosity and in recognition of the federal government cuts and in wanting to fully preserve the Ontario drug benefit program, don't mind paying a few dollars to be generous to their fellow citizens, expand the program and save the program from your federal cousin's cuts. That's the generosity of spirit of the seniors in this province, and that's being expressed by their groups.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, in addition to the allegations of abuse on March 1 at Elgin-Middlesex that our caucus has been raising over the last few weeks, I have learned that at least three more young people were allegedly assaulted approximately two weeks later at the same institution.

Following these incidents, apparently these young people were isolated for varying periods of time. At least one of those young people who was put in solitary confinement says he was not allowed phone calls until he was due in court some days later. I have been told that this individual appeared in court with bruises to his face and cuts to the inside of his mouth which he claimed to his lawyer, his parent and the child advocate were caused by a beating at the hands of correctional staff at Middlesex.

Minister, these are additional incidents of young people allegedly being assaulted while in the care of your ministry. We know these are young people who have been charged with crimes; that's why they're incarcerated. But we're also talking about people who have basic human rights in Ontario in 1996. I would remind you that both the Young Offenders Act and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act forbid corporal punishment of young people.

It's absolutely outrageous that this situation continues. It's your responsibility as the minister to ensure that young people are safe and secure while in the care of your ministry, that they are not mistreated and abused by anyone, especially correctional staff. If you and your office had taken the allegations of abuse seriously when they were first raised by the mother who called your office, if you had read your briefing note of March 7 and taken account of the concerns about safety, it may well be that these other young persons would not have experienced the abuse that they claim occurred.

Minister, won't you finally admit that your inaction on behalf of young people in your care resulted in these additional problems at EMDC?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I have indicated on a number of occasions now that I believe the ministry acted in a responsible fashion upon hearing of the concerns expressed by the child advocate. In fact I've said, and the opposition for reasons best known to them want to continue to ignore what the child advocate has said since that time, indicating her complete support for the response of the ministry with respect to the safety of young offenders. Certainly any allegations are treated seriously.

I've indicated in this House on a number of occasions that we take these allegations very seriously. They're being properly and thoroughly investigated, and I believe we're handling them in a most appropriate way.

Mrs Boyd: Well, to make matters worse, the parent of one of these young offenders called the superintendent, Mr George Simpson, shortly after being told of the assault, and I'm sure you can guess what his response was. It was consistent with his memo of June 4 to the regional manager responding to the child advocate's report. He claims, as apparently he does when anyone complains, that young people in the care of the ministry are manipulators, liars and cannot be believed when they claim abuse.

The parent was dissatisfied with his dismissive response and claims the superintendent refused to pursue this matter any further, again breaking the rules set out in your own policy around allegations of physical assault.

Are you aware that this young person, who alleges to have been assaulted by staff at Elgin-Middlesex, also felt intimidated by the presence of staff people who had witnessed the beating when he tried to contact the child advocate's office to complain about the incident? This amounts to interference and intimidation, exactly what the child advocate has alleged is endemic at EMDC in her report.

Isn't it true that these additional incidents are included in that child advocate's report? Isn't it true that this is not just one incident that took place on one evening after exceptional circumstances, it is numerous allegations of assault that took place over weeks and, for all we know, over months and possibly even years?

Hon Mr Runciman: This is a very selective use of the views of the child advocate and the opposition, especially the NDP, have continued to ignore, for political purposes I would suggest, the opinions of the child advocate with respect to the response of the ministry and the minister in this particular situation. If they want to sit down and talk to the child advocate with respect to her views in terms of how the ministry responded, they would have a totally different story to portray here in the House today.

COURT DOCUMENTS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is to the Attorney General. I've recently heard about a pilot project that's supposed to be a collaboration between the local crown attorney's office and the local police. Could you please explain to the Legislature what this pilot project is and how it can benefit my community?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Brampton North for the question. We have indeed set up eight pilot sites in Brampton, Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Whitby and Windsor. Formerly police briefs that have been used in crown prosecutions were stored at local police stations. Copies had to be made for court preparation, there was a lot of duplication of effort, materials being stored in separate locations.

What has now changed is that the original police briefs will be held in the integrated case management unit at the courthouses. There's no longer going to be a need to make copies of those briefs. There will no longer be a need to transport those briefs back and forth. This then will free up crown attorney time and police time and will result in savings to the justice system so that we can focus on prosecuting serious crime and ensuring that officers are out on the road keeping our communities safe.

Mr Spina: This program has been heralded following the recent Thunder Bay unveiling of this unit. As a tool to make administration of justice more direct and efficient, how will this new unit actually accomplish this?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have designed this new integrated unit to improve efficiency and reduce costs associated with the handling and storage of police and crown documents required for prosecution. This, as I said, will save travelling time, staff time in duplicating copies, and if any changes need to be made to documents they can be done very quickly.

Improved efficiency, the elimination of duplication and resulting cost savings are key elements in the ministry's plan to modernize the justice system and make it more accessible, timely and affordable. Our goal is to streamline the justice system and make it less cumbersome, less unwieldy and more available to those who need access to justice.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is also for the Attorney General, following on the heels of the last question. Yesterday in this House, the Solicitor General stated that he was looking forward to meeting with the police commissioner of New York to look at the crackdown on crime in that city. There it seems that the police and the justice authorities take crime very seriously and prosecute them all to the fullest. In fact the crime rate has plunged by 30% in that city.

You stated in this House in no uncertain terms that criminal prosecutions would not be reduced. In fact on May 13 you stated, "I have no plans to scale back the prosecution of crime in the province of Ontario.... We will not be scaling back prosecutions in this province one iota." Despite your denials and despite the Solicitor General's obvious differing stance on crime, a document by your ministry entitled Draft Screening Directives suggests that you're preparing to do just that. In fact your response just previously indicates that. That documents states: "Increased pressure on criminal courts and reduced resources are causing the ministry to change its prosecutorial screening standard."

Can you confirm that you are considering classifying such offences as death threats, fraud, break and enter as less significant and less deserving of resources, and are you disagreeing with the Solicitor General on the procedures on how to crack down on crime in this province?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In order to avoid the problem that the former Liberal government had when they ignored the Askov crisis and they were the direct cause of having 70,000 cases thrown out of court, we recognize that the status quo is not possible.

What we are doing in the Ministry of the Attorney General is working with senior officials, working with crown attorneys out in the field who know best their communities and developing strategies so that we can ensure that all serious crime is properly prosecuted in the most conventional way and that less serious crimes can be dealt with by some innovative means that will ensure the appropriate penalty for all crimes but that will not permit the jettisoning of crime from courts as was caused by the Liberal government during the David Peterson years when 70,000 cases, among them murder cases, manslaughter cases, drunk driving cases, sexual assaults, spousal assaults, were thrown out of court because they had no strategy to ensure that they could deal with all the cases coming into the court system.

What did they do? They just let the cases be thrown out and made our communities less safe. That's why we are not resting with the status quo; we're dealing with the problem to ensure that we can always prosecute crime properly.

Ms Castrilli: That answer just defies belief. What the minister is actually saying is that he is prepared to let criminals walk away. What the minister is actually saying is that he's going to say to a young woman whose life is in danger because of a death threat that her right to have that investigated does not exist. He is going to say to a senior citizen in his own home that he is no longer safe; that when somebody breaks and enters into that home, there will be no prosecution. What kind of message is that to the criminals of this province and what kind of message is that to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harnick: I might suggest that the member for Downsview pay a visit to the courthouse in her own riding at 1000 Finch Avenue, the North York provincial court. There she might get some insight from Mr MacDonald, the senior crown attorney in that jurisdiction, who can tell you a little bit about what crown attorneys are working on in order to ensure that they can manage the caseload that comes into the courts.

I might tell the member about the spousal abuse project that's being set up in North York provincial court, a scheme to deal with spousal assault, to deal with wife assault, to provide counselling, to look at different ways to solve problems.

I might invite the member for Downsview, who thinks she's a very enlightened person -- I think she would become a little more enlightened if she visited the court in her own community, to understand how crime is being dealt with, to understand how communities are being kept safe and to understand how crown attorneys are dealing with the intake of cases so that we don't have a repeat of what her government did to the justice system in this province, when people were allowed to go free because they couldn't prosecute the cases that were before the courts.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, you've tried for the last few weeks to distance yourself from the institutional abuse that is alleged to have happened at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. You've blamed ministry officials; you've blamed systemic problems within the ministry.

Young people are accusing the management at Elgin-Middlesex of assaulting them, and the management staff in turn say the youth suffered injuries because they assaulted each other. Correctional officers are accusing Elgin-Middlesex managers of ignoring the allegations of assault, and so are parents.

You deliberately refuse to answer any questions and continue to ask us to believe you remained unaware of these allegations for three months. You refuse to take responsibility for these very disturbing series of events that are hanging over your ministry. Minister, you are the one who must be held accountable for this mess. So I ask you very seriously and very directly, which one of the half-dozen investigations that you have set up will be investigating the role you and your political office played in this sad, disgraceful affair?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): There are two investigations, one being conducted by the police and one being conducted through the internal investigations unit within the ministry.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you said yesterday, and I'm going to quote from Hansard from June 24:

"...I had briefing sessions on a daily basis with the acting deputy minister.

"The ministry of corrections at the best of times is a challenging ministry in terms of the incident reports, but I feel comfortable with the reports I had on the basis of the efforts I made to try and keep on top of the wide range of issues."

In fact, you've demonstrated the complete opposite. You are not up to the challenge of your ministry. You've shown your incompetence by not knowing about these very disturbing allegations until three months after the fact. You have the gall to say you feel comfortable with the briefings you were receiving, when there was a very serious omission day after day by your most senior official, whom you say with no shame you met with on a daily basis and you're comfortable with those briefings.

Minister, you cannot be the judge and jury of whether you acted appropriately and whether your ministry officials acted appropriately since you've already concluded by making this statement, and frankly many others, that you're quite comfortable with their actions as well as your own. To resolve this issue, Minister, we must put this whole matter before a parliamentary committee. We need to hear from Michael Jordan, the acting deputy minister; we need to hear from your deputy minister, Elaine Todres, and from Neil McKerrell, assistant deputy minister of correctional services -- from your own political staff and, frankly, from you.

Minister, since you do not have the decency to step aside until these investigations are concluded, will you at the very least refer this scandal to a parliamentary committee?

Hon Mr Runciman: I will await the outcome of the two investigations that are currently under way before I make any determination on whether or not any further action is required.

RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Although I've never claimed to be the most technologically advanced person -- did I say that right? -- I am rapidly learning the many benefits of technology and what it can offer to the rural areas of Ontario such as the riding of Perth.

I'm amazed by the number of my constituents who are putting this new industry to work as a method of obtaining up-to-the-minute information on everything from the daily weather forecast to the latest trading prices. It would appear that these advances are rapidly becoming necessary for members of rural communities to stay competitive in the new world markets.

Access to telecommunications would seem to be of great importance to the future economic prospects of rural communities, and I would like to ask the minister what role the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is playing in regard to the important rural infrastructure issue.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank the honourable member for Perth for his question. We always measure agriculture with weather and markets, but communications is very important to today's modern agriculture. I'm pleased to tell you that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has been negotiating with Bell Canada and other telecommunications people to establish an advisory committee to better address the needs of rural Ontario.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, along with other groups, is represented on this committee. We used the forum to make sure that Bell Canada is well aware of the needs in the telecommunications of our rural and food producers in rural Ontario. Of course, this summer my colleague Mr Beaubien, the member for Lambton, who is also my parliamentary assistant, is working on that very subject. We are addressing the need for better communications in rural Ontario.

Mr Bert Johnson: It is good to hear that this ministry, along with the rest of the government, I might add, is on top of things. I look forward to the parliamentary assistant's visit to the riding of Perth to discuss these issues and the potential benefits to all Ontarians.

Of course, technological advancement always has a cost, and this new telecommunications infrastructure will be no exception. Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to provide any funding assistance to increase access to telecommunications and improve the economic activity in rural areas such as Perth?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Yes, the rural areas are going to get some financial support. Colleagues in the Legislature will know that in the budget the Minister of Finance brought in recently there is $1.25 million to support student employment on farms; there is a rebate on farm building products of up to $20 million that farmers will be receiving if indeed they spend on expansion; and of course the Grow Ontario project has $15 million to promote research, development and competitiveness in rural Ontario. I would like to advise all members of this Legislature that this money is very much available for new projects to improve communications in the food-producing areas of Ontario.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. In the Hyde Park dump along the Niagara River there is over a tonne of dioxin, the largest single concentration of dioxin found anywhere I believe in the world. All along the Niagara River there are dozens of old toxic waste dumps that are leaching toxic materials into the Niagara River. Aquatic life, including fish, those which are found adjacent to those sites along the Niagara River, is growing tumours.

The Niagara River flows into Lake Ontario, which is the source of drinking water for the city of Toronto and many other municipalities. Could you tell us how you can possibly justify the dismantling of the special environmental project team which had been established by your previous Conservative government and kept by two other governments to monitor and ensure the cleanup of the Niagara River?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): We are very concerned about any issues of toxic material entering our waterways or soils throughout the province. We are unable to continue every single project that has been in place over the years. We are working very hard at our core business, which is attempting to deal with all of the water and soil and air issues of the province. Right now that is an issue that we continue to work on with the federal government as much as possible.

Mr Bradley: If I had asked this question about eight years ago, the world would have come to a standstill.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): You would be asking it to yourself.

Mr Bradley: I tell the member from Ottawa who has such a big mouth over there that in 1987 the previous government signed an agreement to look after the monitoring and cleanup of the Niagara River, and on that occasion it was said that unless there was action to follow the signing of that agreement, the agreement would be worthless.

What we're seeing today, I tell the member and the minister, is a dismantling of a special environmental team that is supposed to be monitoring all progress on the cleanup of the Niagara River, which has many toxic dumps adjacent to it. You are totally dismantling this team, totally undermining the effort of the province of Ontario to protect the drinking and recreational water for the people of Toronto and all of the other communities that get or use the water in Lake Ontario.

Minister, will you not reconsider this decision and re-establish the team that was in place to protect the environment and particularly the drinking and recreational water of all those residents who live on Lake Ontario?

Hon Mrs Elliott: There's not a day goes by that in my news clippings I don't read about dumps leaking or old sites that are being discovered. It's not something new that's just happened as this government has come into power. These are environmental problems that have been occurring for years and years and years. We are now attempting to clean them up.

I can say to my colleague across the way that Ontario is showing leadership in a number of issues: many, many issues. In many issues we are the leaders, bringing other provinces together with the federal government to try and solve problems that are beyond just one jurisdiction alone.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question today is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Yesterday the Barrie and district rape crisis line held a news conference about the holdup in their funding. For a government that's so big on business planning, you have a pretty funny way of flowing money to your transfer payments.

The rape crisis line issued an announcement of their news conference last Friday, and lo and behold, on Monday they received a couple of calls, one from bureaucrats and one from your staff, saying that their funding would be forthcoming. This is after trying to get hold of people and get word on their funding for months. Nothing.

My question is, is this your new way of doing business? Do agencies providing vital services to abused and assaulted women have to call a news conference to get their funding?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I would suggest that the Barrie and district rape crisis centre doesn't have to hold a news conference. They just have to get in touch with us, as we tried to get in touch with them on Friday, and they'll have their cheque tomorrow.

Ms Churley: I would like to say to the minister that they tried to get hold of you; they tried to talk to people. Nobody would get back to them.

Minister, you are gutting the Ontario women's directorate. Now I know why nobody has been answering the phones there. There's hardly anybody left to answer the phones. Your business plan has totally --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I'm having a problem to hear the question.

Ms Churley: -- whittled down the work of the directorate. In fact, your continued use of the term "community safety" as a replacement for "violence against women" is creating speculation that you intend to dissolve the directorate and transfer those programs to the Solicitor General, God forbid. Your layoff of most of the staff in this directorate only furthers this speculation.

Minister, will you tell us today what exactly are your plans for the Ontario women's directorate?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The Ontario women's directorate is alive and well. I can tell you right now we have a business plan. It is promoting actively and supporting agencies such as the Barrie and district rape crisis centre. We have a plan for economic independence for women, and we're putting over $100 million into programs that support women who have been victims of assault and violence.

In spite of what the opposition keeps saying to our communities, we continue to fund 97 shelters, 34 sexual assault centres, 27 hospital-based sexual assault treatment centres, 16 male batterer programs, 13 crown offices for victim-witness programs -- expanded to 26, as my colleague the Attorney General announced last week -- four programs in the Solicitor General's agenda expanded to 20 next year.

I don't understand why you continue to perpetuate the image that the Ontario government and the people of Ontario are not out there to support women, because they are. The only person that we ever hear from is you, from your riding in Riverdale, promoting this kind of propaganda and encouraging the people in Barrie and district to have to send out this kind of brochure when in fact they just got $75,000 from the Minister of Health, and quite frankly, like the Minister of Health, most of us are pretty fed up with the fearmongering that you are doing to women across the province of Ontario.

EDUCATION OF INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILDREN

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training with regard to

section 27 programs and those students in care and treatment in hospitals and correctional institutions. What commitment are you prepared to make to individuals receiving education in hospitals and correctional institutions?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. There have been some reports, some stories recently that grants and the provision of services by boards to young people who cannot attend a school because they're involved in a correctional or health care facility -- they're called

section 27 grants because they're made under

section 27 of the GLGs -- that there may be a withdrawal of some of these services. I assure the honourable member that our ministry is monitoring these programs and the supply of these services because we believe, and I think all boards across Ontario believe, that each child in Ontario, regardless of his or her circumstances, is entitled to a quality education system and access to a quality education system.

This current year the amount of money involved in

section 27 grants to school boards is $68.5 million, and there'll be some 6,505 children serviced under the

section 27 grants. We are monitoring that to make sure those services are provided.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): To the Minister of Education and Training; Our leader asked you a question about two weeks ago concerning a directive that was issued by your ministry to the isolate boards, and it instructed those boards that if they wanted to continue to deliver junior kindergarten programs, they would be required to impose an increase in the property tax by 5%. We called several more isolate boards and they confirmed that this is what was required of them. Some will have to increase property tax if they continue the program; some will not be able to continue.

Minister, it appears that you have two sets of rules. On one hand your government is opposed to tax increases, but on the other hand you and your government are instructing certain communities to increase their property taxes even though they can continue the program without being required to do so.

Will you reconsider this decision and will you give the isolate school boards the options of finding the funding without having to increase their taxes?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. I believe we did address this question a couple of weeks ago. As I'm sure the honourable member is aware, the way the funding works for isolate boards is considerably different from the way it works for boards that fall under the regular GLG structure. In fact, the province funds almost all education services in the isolate boards because generally there is not a large community to draw from for a local tax base.

The provisions under the GLG for isolate board funding are different from those for other boards and there is an attempt, whenever there is a change in funding by the ministry, to make sure that the same circumstances apply to the isolate boards as to the surrounding board areas so that they're on an equal footing and that the residents who are served in an isolate school board are on the same footing as the residents and taxpayers of the surrounding areas. In fact, that is what has been attempted by the ministry; that's the reason why we've had the changes to the funding model that we announced this year.

I believe that the purpose of those grants is to make sure there's an equitable funding system and equitable community support by all those boards.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I've been informed that we have a visitor from Beaches-Woodbine in the gallery, a former member, Mr Thomas Wardle.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 76,

An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act / Projet de loi 76, Loi visant à améliorer la protection de l'environnement, à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes et à intégrer la consultation publique à la

Loi sur les évaluations environnementales.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1505 to 1510.

The Speaker: We are dealing with second reading of Bill 76, standing in the name of Mrs Elliott. All those in favour will rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Harnick, Charles

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Bassett, Isabel

Hodgson, Chris

Ross, Lillian

Boushy, Dave

Hudak, Tim

Runciman, Robert W.

Brown, Jim

Jackson, Cameron

Sampson, Rob

Carroll, Jack

Johns, Helen

Saunderson, William

Clement, Tony

Johnson, Bert

Sheehan, Frank

Cunningham, Dianne

Johnson, David

Skarica, Toni

Danford, Harry

Johnson, Ron

Smith, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Jordan, W. Leo

Snobelen, John

Doyle, Ed

Kells, Morley

Spina, Joseph

Ecker, Janet

Klees, Frank

Sterling, Norman W.

Elliott, Brenda

Leach, Al

Stewart, R. Gary

Eves, Ernie L.

Marland, Margaret

Tascona, Joseph N.

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Flaherty, Jim

Maves, Bart

Tsubouchi, David H.

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Vankoughnet, Bill

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Villeneuve, Noble

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Gilchrist, Steve

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wilson, Jim

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Witmer, Elizabeth

Guzzo, Garry J.

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Hardeman, Ernie

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Curling, Alvin

McGuinty, Dalton

Bisson, Gilles

Duncan, Dwight

Miclash, Frank

Boyd, Marion

Grandmaître, Bernard

Morin, Gilles E.

Bradley, James J.

Gravelle, Michael

Patten, Richard

Brown, Michael A.

Hampton, Howard

Phillips, Gerry

Caplan, Elinor

Hoy, Pat

Pouliot, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Cleary, John C.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Conway, Sean G.

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Cooke, David S.

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Cordiano, Joseph

Martel, Shelley

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 72; the nays are 43.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that Bill 76 should be referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the government of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government of Ontario to repeal this user fee before it takes effect on July 15 because of the potential dramatic increase in emergency and police services, and the suffering and misery of human lives -- especially psychiatric outpatients and those who depend on medication for their daily survival."

I've affixed my signature to this document.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition from approximately 50 residents of Blind River, Algoma Mills and Sudbury. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and states:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith;

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years;

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and a reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I'm in full agreement with this petition and I affix my signature thereto.

BEAR HUNTING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear-hunting activities."

MOOSE TAGS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas moose hunters must be in possession of a valid moose tag to legally hunt moose during the designated hunting season in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources holds an annual moose tag draw for all applicants to determine those hunters that are to be eligible to hunt in designated wildlife management units; and

"Whereas the livelihood of many residents of northern Ontario depends on their ability to participate in the moose hunt; and

"Whereas in 1995 there were 106,013 applicants entered in the draw and over 66,000 applicants turned away without a tag; and

"Whereas some hunters have been unsuccessful in the draw for many years in a row;

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

"That the Minister of Natural Resources hereby revise the annual moose tag draw to automatically issue a moose tag hunting permit to individuals who have been consecutively unsuccessful in a given number of previous annual draws."

I've affixed my name to that petition as well.

SERVICES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

"Attendu qu'il est crucial que les services de santé et de sécurité au travail à l'intention des travailleuses et des travailleurs soient fournis par des organismes auxquels les travailleuses et les travailleurs font confiance ;

"Attendu que les Centres de santé et de sécurité des travailleuses et des travailleurs, CSST, et les Centres de santé des travailleurs de l'Ontario, CSTO, assurent ces services de façon fort efficace depuis plusieurs années ;

"Attendu que le CSST et le CSTO ont fait une contribution importante aux améliorations en matière de santé et de sécurité au travail et à la réduction des blessures, des maladies et des décès liés au travail ;

"Nous, soussignés, soumettons la présente pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario et l'engageons à rejeter toute initiative visant à affaiblir la structure, les services ou le financement des Centres de santé et de sécurité des travailleuses et des travailleurs ou des Centres de santé des travailleurs de l'Ontario ;

"En outre nous, soussignés, exigeons que des services d'éducation et de formation des travailleuses et des travailleurs de l'Ontario continuent à être offerts sous leur forme actuelle par les Centres de santé et de sécurité des travailleuses et des travailleurs et que des conseils professionnels et techniques continuent à être offerts par les Centres de santé des travailleurs de l'Ontario."

J'y affixe mon nom.

PERTH AND SMITHS FALLS DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition from the town of Smiths Falls. The town has a population of 10,000, and my petition has over 5,000 names on it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the board of governors of the Perth and Smiths Falls community hospital has openly endorsed the closure of the south unit in Smiths Falls; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has authorized the hospital board to develop a plan to relocate patients and services from the south unit to the north unit; and

"Whereas such relocation will necessitate the construction of a multilevel addition to the existing north unit of the hospital; and

"Whereas the hospital board may close the south unit prior to the completion of the addition to the north unit; and

"Whereas such an action will force long-term hospital patients to be uprooted from the community, causing distress to them and their families;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to stop the closure of the south unit and to direct the hospital board of governors to utilize renovation funds intended for the north unit addition in order to upgrade and renovate the south unit to an acceptable level."

I affix my signature.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): "Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

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

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

I've affixed my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition that was sent to me by CUPE Local 1263. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvement in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

That's signed by Darren Simpson of Welland, by Sharon Simpson of Port Robinson, and hundreds of other people from Welland-Thorold, and I have affixed my signature in view of my strong support for this petition.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition for the House today from some residents of co-op housing in Port Colborne, Crystal Beach and Fort Erie in my riding of Niagara South. Individuals like Cynthia Yates, Deb Hardemann and Shirley Clark came to my office and presented this petition. After a

preamble, it says:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of the housing co-ops."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

"Whereas: Opposition to retail stores opening 365 days a year,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose having retail stores remain open 365 days a year, and we strongly urge our MPP, Mr John Cleary, to voice our opposition against this legislation."

I have also signed the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further petitions? The member for London Centre. Hamilton Centre; I'm sorry.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): With all due respect to the great city of London, Speaker, I thank you for the accuracy.

I have a petition of over 3,000 signatures, in addition to the thousands I've already presented, from the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 175, which is one of the largest single local unions in all of North America, and it relates to this government's continuing attack on workers' compensation. To Premier Harris:

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

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

As I support these petitions, I also add my name to theirs.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from the Women's Institutes of Perth County, and this was headed up by Shirley Nowack from Rostock.

"Whereas the Young Offenders Act is under review with the Minister of Justice of Canada; and

"Whereas there is a widespread public opinion that young offenders are not being dealt with appropriately for crimes being committed and the deterrent to young offenders is not working and respect for authority and property is declining,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards hereby be authorized to correspond with the Minister of Justice of Canada requesting that the Young Offenders Act be revised so that upon conviction the names can be released on the second arrest after a first conviction to the public."

I agree with this resolution and I add my name to it.

SCHOOL BOARD AMALGAMATION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force has been released and recommends the Kenora District Roman Catholic Separate School Board be amalgamated with the Red Lake Area Combined Separate School Board effective 1 January 1998; and

"Whereas we are of the opinion that there are no benefits for the Kenora system, its students or its ratepayers to be achieved through this amalgamation;

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

"The Kenora District Roman Catholic Separate School Board not be amalgamated with the Red Lake Area Combined Separate School Board or any other school board."

I've affixed my name to that petition as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the Report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, number 21, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I'll make a few very brief comments. This is largely a report on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, and in particular norOntair, as a result of the cancellation of the air service.

The standing committee on government agencies held a hearing and invited witnesses before the committee. This outlines the comments made by people who appeared before the committee and also contains a couple of very interesting dissenting opinions from the two opposition parties. I would encourage all the government members to read in particular the dissenting opinions.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Martiniuk from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the Report on the Impact of Halfway House Closures and the Introduction of Electronic Monitoring and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This report, which received the unanimous support of the committee members, examines the impact of the closure of halfway houses and the introduction of electronic monitoring. The issues which the report addresses go to the heart of how we help offenders reintegrate into their communities while maintaining public safety. It is important that we accomplish these goals as efficiently and cost effectively as possible.

We were greatly assisted in our deliberations by expert witnesses from other jurisdictions that have well-established electronic monitoring programs. We also had the benefit of hearing from community-based groups and individuals who continue to be active participants in our community corrections programs.

The committee has made a number of recommendations which are forward-looking and will help guide the future of community corrections in the province.

I would like to point out that the evidence of one of the expert witnesses was obtained by videoconferencing. It is the first time that an Ontario legislative committee has used videoconferencing to obtain testimony during the course of public hearings.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all the witnesses who shared their experience and expertise. I'd especially like to thank the clerk of our committee, Donna Bryce, for her able administration, and Susan Swift of the legislative research service for her skill in summarizing the evidence.

It was determined by the committee as an addendum that some $10,000 a day was spent by our committee in its travels in Ontario. Because of the increase in size of the committees, the cost has gone up proportionately. That does not include the ministry staff that accompanied us. I would estimate some $15,000 a day is spent by our committees in travelling. Our committee strongly recommended to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly that it investigate the use of videoconferencing to either supplement or partially replace travel by committees.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 52

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): With unanimous consent, I move that the order of the House referring Bill 52 to the standing committee on resources development be discharged and that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government, as agreed to by the whips.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD ABUSE -- AN APOLOGY

Mr Harnick moved government notice of motion number 7:

Whereas it is acknowledged that numerous incidents of physical and sexual abuse took place during the 1940s through 1970s at the St John's Training School in Uxbridge and the St Joseph's Training School in Alfred which were operated by the Christian Brothers of Toronto and Ottawa and funded by the government of Ontario; and

Whereas it is acknowledged that the abuse suffered by the students at these schools has caused lifelong physical and emotional pain, distress and trauma to the men themselves and to their families and community and that such abuse of children is deplorable and intolerable; and

Whereas the victims bear no responsibility for the abuse they suffered; and

Whereas child abuse is a serious social and community problem that must be addressed; and

Whereas the government supported by the Christian Brothers of Ottawa and the Catholic archdioceses of Ottawa and Toronto entered into agreements of reconciliation in 1992 and 1994 with the victims to overcome the aftermath of abuse experienced at the schools;

Therefore this House, on behalf of the people of Ontario, apologizes and expresses sincere regret for the harm caused to those in the care of St Joseph's and St John's training schools.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Remove them from the gallery. Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Today, on behalf of this assembly, I rise to address an issue regarding victims of crime. Over many decades, hundreds of young people entrusted to the care of St John's and St Joseph's training schools suffered horrible abuse at the hands of those entrusted with the care and nurturing of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

Today we wish to bring closure to this matter for those victims. We are fulfilling an obligation made by the former government and the then Premier, Bob Rae, to those hundreds of residents of Ontario who, as children, were abused while attending St John's and St Joseph's training schools. There is no question that children committed to the care of these schools, which were directly supervised by the government and operated by the Christian Brothers, were the victims of neglect. Deplorably, many of these children were also victims of physical and sexual abuse. On behalf of the government, I have already written many personal letters to individuals expressing regret concerning these matters.

Those incidents, which took place decades ago, resulted in lasting emotional scars. The victims have suffered feelings of fear, doubt, insecurity, lack of trust, guilt and poor self-image. Some victims attempted to cope with their tragedy by engaging in self-abusive behaviour. Many of the victims are overwhelmed by the difficulties they face in their attempts to establish caring and nurturing relationships and to participate fully in the life of our community.

I wish to express in the strongest terms on behalf of this legislature regret and condemnation for the events which took place a number of years ago. Clearly, we do not condone such deplorable actions, either then or now. Those who were harmed by such conduct were not at fault; we are here today to say that the victims are in no way responsible for the abuse they suffered. While we cannot change the past, we have endeavoured to help victims rebuild their lives and prepare for a better future. This apology I am making today comes at the conclusion of a process that was established to provide direct assistance to the victims.

In Ontario in the late 1980s and early 1990s, revelations were made surrounding the conduct of staff at the St Joseph's Training School in Alfred, Ontario, and at the St John's Training School in Uxbridge, Ontario. The direct result of these revelations of abuse was the creation of a process designed to review the claims of former students and, where appropriate, to provide them with direct assistance and support to cope with the trauma they suffered.

These assistance and support programs were reflected in agreements developed jointly by the former government; the Christian Brothers who operated the St Joseph's school in Ottawa; the archdioceses of Toronto and Ottawa; and Helpline, the organization of former students. Unfortunately, the Toronto Christian Brothers chose not to take

part in this healing process. The approach adopted by the former government and the other participants offered an alternative to traditional litigation, where the remedies are limited and the risks of revictimization are high.

Over the last four years, more than 500 former students at the two schools have received assistance from the government, the Christian Brothers of Ottawa and the archdioceses of Ottawa and Toronto. This process, designed by the victims themselves, has benefited a great many people. This is thanks to the courage and support of the victims.

Abuse must not be tolerated. Its prevalence is a source of shame for all of us. Those persons in whose care these children were placed were in a position of trust and broke faith both with the children and the entire community. For this, this Legislature and its elected members apologize.

Across this country, victims of abuse are demanding a voice, and they are being heard. They no longer need fear embarrassment. Victims are now being encouraged to confront their past.

As a society, we must also confront our past. Together, we can begin the often painful process of reconciliation and healing. Therefore, to fulfil former Premier Rae's obligation to these victims and to take a step towards public understanding and a confrontation of our past, I have tabled this resolution.

In closing, I want to express my recognition of the courage of those individuals who came forward, insisted on being heard and, through their perseverance, were not denied a voice. Much of the success to date is owed to them.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): This apology to the former students of St John's and St Joseph's training schools for boys, while never sufficient to make up for the injuries done them, marks nevertheless a historic day for this province. It recognizes government's, in fact society's, obligation not only to seek out cases of abuse of our children but to implement measures to prevent such abuse.

This acknowledgement that dreadful wrongs have occurred has been long awaited by the victims and their families. This all-party resolution is just one more step in the long road of recovery from events that transformed people's lives like no other event in Ontario's past, events that should never have happened.

I would like to commend the perseverance and dedication of the former students who have worked diligently in an attempt to resolve to some satisfaction -- any satisfaction -- outstanding issues, concerns and emotions. I would like to thank Helpline for bringing the details of this case to my attention last fall.

Although I have met many of the victims, I will never appreciate the true pain and suffering they have experienced and will continue to experience the rest of their lives. Many have already passed away without the benefit of seeing those responsible held accountable and without having heard the apologies so important to them.

For four decades, as many as 1,200 or more former wards of the two schools suffered psychological, physical and sexual abuse at the brutal hands of those responsible for their safety and wellbeing. The allegations did not surface until the summer of 1990 when victims began coming forward to tell their horrific stories. Ontario Provincial Police investigations have resulted in more than 200 charges against more than 30 people, representing the largest, most notorious child abuse scandal in Canada's history.

Helpline was subsequently established by the former students as a means of disseminating information to the victims and to provide emotional and strategic support throughout a very complex and very trying process. The most difficult thing in the world would be to face these issues, the memories, the nightmares, all alone.

The reconciliation agreement signed by Helpline, the Ottawa brothers, the archdioceses of Ottawa and Toronto, and the government of Ontario was intended to provide additional assistance to the victims in dealing with the issues while initiating a reconciliation process among the parties. Although the Toronto brothers did not sign it, it was designed to address the concerns of the related families, other affected persons and the general public regarding child abuse and public education. While many of these goals were achieved, many others remain.

Now funding for Helpline has ended, the tribunal for dealing with claims is ending, but the pain continues.

Government and indeed society must never relinquish their responsibility to pursue the eradication of violence and abuse against children. Children not only have the right to feel safe and protected, but they have the right to be safe and free from mistreatment.

The events that took place at the St John's and St Joseph's training schools were nothing short of a breach of trust of the most repugnant kind. The wellbeing and security of those children was entrusted to the adult brothers. Instead of protection, the children received lifetimes of pain, lifetimes of torment and lifetimes lost.

We must all be conscious of the damage such abuse inflicts upon society in terms of the survivors and their families. Besides the permanent physical and psychological damage, we must also be aware that the economic cost of abuse is immeasurable. There are medical costs to help the healing and there are social assistance costs for those who are struggling with the healing process and cannot work because they have lost their self-confidence, their self-esteem and perhaps even their ability to enter into a relationship of trust. These are lifelong wounds that may never heal.

The students of St John's and St Joseph's are now receiving some compensation, counselling and even apologies. There have also been some convictions. But the real story to be told today is that of the survivors.

The long painful healing process never really begins until the truth is told. For many of these individuals the truth has been blocked from their minds for many years out of sheer horror, embarrassment and necessity. That simply reinforces the remarkable courage of these incredible people, willing to face, to relive the darkest periods of their lives.

To them I wish to say that they must remember that not one ounce of responsibility rests upon their shoulders for these terrible acts. They should live entirely free of any guilt. The guilty are those cowardly individuals who abused their positions of authority and took advantage of children incapable of defending themselves.

Now is a time for the victims to begin to rebuild their lives, with new hope for their children and for society. But society has an enormous job ahead. Child abuse is truly a social problem of the utmost seriousness that requires our urgent attention. We must promote public education of the lasting injuries abuse inflicts. We must pursue prevention and early detection strategies. When abuse does occur, we must provide rapid support for the victims and ensure abusers receive the punishment as well as the long-term help they require.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services had been leading an interministerial policy development project to review such strategies. I hope that this process is continuing, that the government is committed to it, provides adequate resources and releases a discussion paper very soon.

The issues over St John's and St Joseph's do not end with this apology. There remain some very serious concerns over the progress and speed of outstanding settlements and funding for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board now that the tribunal is being dissolved; over the conciliation commitment to reimbursing St Joseph's Group I members from moneys collected from St John's Group I members; over the failure to make public the recorder's report that was to promote child abuse awareness and ensure lessons are learned from the past.

Now that Helpline funding is ending, there is also concern that the approximately 300 victims in Group III who have not yet received hearings will not have advocates to assist them through the process and promote their rights and opportunities.

Finally, I believe there needs to be some reflection on the whole process. Rather than being helpful to the victims, the process has been bogged down in bureaucracy, controversy and disputes. When dealing with victims, we must all take precautions, all steps to ensure that further victimization does not occur.

Please allow me on behalf of the official opposition to express to each and every victim of St John's and St Joseph's our sincerest regret and apology for the years of unimaginable pain and suffering you have experienced. I commend you for your courage, strength and determination, and pray that you are able to put these terrible experiences behind you and lead fruitful, meaningful and happy lives.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This day has been a long time coming for many people. My colleagues are quite right to have recognized the courage and strength that has been required by those who came forward to break the silence about institutional abuse.

It's very important for us to know that it is essential for those of us who have participated in government to acknowledge that over many years people who were placed, in good faith, under the care of the government suffered as a result. Institutional abuse is similar to other forms of child abuse, but it is even more serious, because all of us are implicated when the state is responsible for a lack of care in terms of neglect or for a lack of safety and security of the person in terms of physical and sexual abuse.

It is important that all three parties in this Legislature recognize that we have all been government and that we have all had responsibility for those who are in institutional settings, and that responsibility remains today. As we speak today and acknowledge very clearly to those who suffered at St John's and St Joseph's over many years, we need to renew our commitment to ensure this kind of abuse does not occur under the institutions over which we now have authority.

One of the first groups that approached us when we came into government in 1990 was the very courageous people from Helpline, who explained to us what the process was they had gone through to that point, and their hope that there would be some way they could work with the government of the day to achieve this result without the kind of pain and suffering we all observed in the public inquiry in Newfoundland around the Mount Cashel orphanage situation.

I bring that up because I think for many of us that may have been the first real experience of seeing the pain and anguish that institutional abuse can cause, understanding how the effects of that abuse continue to magnify within someone's life until some form of reconciliation is achieved. It was untracked land. There were very few examples of any jurisdiction that had ever faced up to its own responsibility of institutional abuse and certainly no examples of how to negotiate and wo