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

May 13, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L073 - Mon 13 May 1996 / Lun 13 Mai 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

MINING INDUSTRY

POLICE WEEK

EDUCATION FINANCING

MINING SAFETY

HEARING AWARENESS MONTH

WOMEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

TAX REDUCTION

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS LEGISLATION

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

RENT REGULATION

POLICE SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDUCATION REFORM

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TENANT PROTECTION

VOLUNTEERS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

PETITIONS

TAX REDUCTION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

RENT REGULATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

EDUCATION FINANCING

ABORTION

CUSTODIAL SERVICES

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

RAMER'S WOOD CO-OPERATIVE HOMES

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

EDUCATION FINANCING

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

TRANSITION HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

CITY OF OTTAWA ACTS, 1996

TRADE UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA DIVULGATION DES RENSEIGNEMENTS FINANCIERS PAR LES SYNDICATS ET LES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1996 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today, the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights, on behalf of the tenants of Ontario, served eviction notices to the Tory government, Al Leach and Mike Harris to vacate possession and occupation of the Legislature of Ontario due to the Tories' breach of obligation to the 3.2 million tenants of Ontario.

Their notice read:

"This government is developing legislative amendments which will remove rent controls and gut all other tenants' rights in this province. The government is doing this despite the fact that the elimination of tenants' rights has nothing to do with deficit reduction, was not part of the Common Sense Revolution and was not part of their campaign platform. The destruction of tenants' rights without a mandate from the electorate to do so constitutes a breach of the government's obligation to this province's tenants."

The Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights is working to stop this Conservative government's plan to dismantle tenants' rights.

The Minister of Housing will be proposing legislation that will dismantle the tenant system we have now in place. The minister has made his future intentions clear: As tenants move from one unit to another, they will no longer be covered by tenant protections. The unit they would move from will be lifted from rent control, and the landlord would be able to charge whatever rent he wanted for that decontrolled unit. Of course, the tenant's new unit would also be lifted from tenant protection as well and the rent will certainly be considerably higher.

I urge the Premier and the Minister of Housing not to dismantle tenants' rights in this province.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This week is National Mining Week and, as the NDP critic for northern development and mines, I'd like to congratulate the industry on its contribution to this country and this province.

Mining is a cornerstone of the Canadian economy, creating thousands of jobs and contributing billions of dollars to the economy. The minerals and metals sector employs over 300,000 across Canada, and in 1995 contributed $23 billion to the Canadian economy.

In the province of Ontario more than 50 communities, most of them in northern Ontario, depend on mining for a significant portion of their livelihood. Each year, the industry generates $5 billion in personal and corporate income in Ontario and supports over 72,000 direct and indirect jobs, contributing more than $1.2 billion to provincial revenues.

In my riding of Cochrane North, the Detour Lake gold mine of Placer Dome Canada Ltd recently won the John T. Ryan national trophy for achieving the best safety record in 1995 of any metal mine in the country.

Earlier this year saw the opening of a permanent camp for the employees of Detour Lake, a $10-million commitment made by Placer Dome and a great boost to the economy of this province and my riding of Cochrane North.

The contribution of this industry to this country and to this province is considerable. Through their investments in us, they have shown the confidence they have in our workers and our ability to be productive and competitive in this industry, in this resource-rich province.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Today marks the beginning of Police Week in Ontario. Police Week is celebrated from May 12 to 18. The theme this year is Working Together in the Community as Partners in Community Safety. Our theme of Police Week stresses the importance of partnerships between the police and the community and reflects our commitment to community policing.

Part of that commitment will take the form of new funding for community organizations and local police services to be directed towards crime prevention activities. The government will provide $2 million this year for community-based crime prevention initiatives as part of our commitment to reinvesting in the justice system.

This new funding is intended to be seed money which will encourage the growth of local community-based crime prevention agencies across the province. The money may be used for such programs as the development of community resources to combat youth crime and gang-related violent crime; the development of community safety audits to identify local safety concerns; and the expansion of Community Watch programs across the province.

The provincial government will not run these programs. They will be run by community-based organizations meeting the needs, which will mobilize the resources of the community to identify and solve local problems.

Police Week provides an opportunity for our communities and community organizations to show their support for police services and it allows the police services to demonstrate their commitment to community safety and to public safety.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Last Thursday evening I took

part in a forum on education in Sudbury. The hall was filled with people clearly upset about the direction in which this government is going with regard to education funding.

The message was clear: People are fearful about these cuts to education. There were several speakers outlining the major effects to the classroom because of this reduced funding. It was abundantly clear to the audience and to the viewing public that the effects to the classroom are real and will impact negatively on the classroom, especially those classrooms housing special-needs children -- the autistic child, the EMR student, the developmentally handicapped student -- all those students who need a specialized setting with specialized teachers and a specialized curriculum. These, mostly directly, will be devastated.

I only wish the Minister of Education would realize that every life is a biography and the special-needs students' biographies will all be sad stories because of the government that didn't care about them.

An adult education student who spoke literally wept at the effects of the minister's slash to the funding model for adult education. Her dreams are being shattered by a government that doesn't care.

These people asked that I present letters and petitions to the Premier and the Minister of Education. Will you read these letters? Will you listen to the voters? Will you show you care? Do you understand that fear?

MINING SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to bring to the attention of the House correspondence to the Solicitor General from Mr Harry Hynd, the director of District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America, regarding this government's intention to take away mandatory inquests into the deaths of workers on construction sites or in mining. The letter in part says:

"The United Steelworkers represents the majority of the workforce in the mining industry and thus we have considerable experience with this industry and its hazards....

"The mining industry is an extremely hostile environment. There is no natural lighting underground. All light is artificial and in a number of cases, the only source is that which is supplied by a miner's cap lamp, particularly when working in development areas. The travelling conditions underground are very rough and often very slippery. It is not uncommon to experience ground movement when working underground which may cause rock bursting or rock fall to occur.

More and more heavy equipment is being introduced underground and more and more of it is being operated from remote locations, meaning that greater potential exists for the equipment to come into contact with unsuspecting workers who may be in the area of travel, including the operators themselves."

He goes on to say:

"Our experience tells us that in every inquest into a mining fatality that we are aware of, something has been learned that would not otherwise have been learned."

We know that just a couple of weeks ago Mr Ray Courchesne died in a mining accident at Inco. Under the new law there's no guarantee there would be an inquest into that death. Shame on the government.

HEARING AWARENESS MONTH

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I rise today on behalf of the Minister of Health to recognize that May is Hearing Awareness Month.

The aging of our population and the increase in noise pollution have made hearing loss the fastest-growing disability in North America. Often referred to as the invisible disability, more than one million Ontarians experience some degree of hearing loss, with the greatest incidence occurring among the elderly. For these people, making the communication link is the key to enjoying an independent life.

The barriers to communication can be lifted through the use of technology, sign language, interpreters, closed-captioning, assistive devices such as teletypewriter phones and American sign language.

Hearing loss, unlike many physical symptoms, may go unnoticed even when a person is wearing a hearing aid. Hearing loss in an adult may have many detrimental effects such as withdrawing from family and from social situations. People who have a hearing loss often stop communicating with others because they are unable to hear and understand what is being said.

There are many ways to facilitate communication, and I would like to thank the Canadian Hearing Society not only for their information but also for their assistance to people with hard-of-hearing difficulties.

WOMEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On Thursday, May 2, I had the pleasure, along with the member for Hamilton Centre, David Christopherson, and 900 people, of gathering at the Hamilton Convention Centre to pay tribute to the Hamilton status of women subcommittee's awards to nine women of the year for Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Hamilton status of women committee was established in 1975, the first such committee of its kind in Canada. For 20 years this committee has brought the interests and issues of women to the forefront and has been a leader right across this country.

The winners that evening were: in the arts category, Hamilton choreographer Virginia Binko and Candace Malott, a promoter of African-Canadian art; in community service, Irene Stayshyn, a member of the board of directors of the Catholic children's aid society and a tireless volunteer; in the communications field, community activist Leonor Sorger; in public affairs, Evelyn Myrie, founder of Black History Month in Hamilton, and Marlene Thomas Osbourne, co-chair of the mayor's committee against racism; in health, sports and fitness, administrator Joyce Caygill; in the workplace, Birgitt Bolton, former executive director of Wesley Urban Ministries.

The evening also paid a tribute to past winners, including Priscilla de Villiers, founder of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination.

It was a successful evening, a great evening to pay tribute to many women who have given tirelessly over the years to Hamilton in their work in the community and the environment. We pay tribute to them and all members of the House join me in congratulating these women.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Members of this House for years have heard members from the current government talk about the importance of Ontario wines, the importance of the Ontario wine industry and the importance of supporting Ontario grape growers.

Ontario boasts 15,000 acres of vineyards located in Niagara and southwestern Ontario. Ontario wines have reached international recognition, winning gold medals in Europe and elsewhere in the world, and they are being featured in many European wine stores. The grape and wine industry provides made-in-Ontario jobs for 10,000 full-time and seasonal employees.

The Premier and his finance minister talk a lot about investment in Ontario, yet last week, when they were out celebrating their budget, spending their tax break, how did they do it? Not by investing in Ontario; not by maintaining or creating jobs in the Ontario grape and wine industry; not by supporting Ontario farmers by purchasing a fine Ontario wine or an award-winning Ontario wine. No, they did not do any of these things. Instead, they celebrated their tax break by purchasing a wine from Europe. I wonder what all those announcements and statements by members of the government mean when they don't walk the talk.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): The 1996 Ontario budget announced that Ontario's personal income tax rate will be cut by 30.2% over three years, with the first step taking effect on July 1 of this year.

Among the benefits Ontarians will enjoy as a result of these tax cuts is the fact that 91% of all taxpayers will see an Ontario tax cut of 30% or greater and that 64% of the benefits of the tax cut will be concentrated on middle-income Ontarians earning between $25,000 and $75,000.

According to the 1991 census, the average household income in the riding of Perth was $45,331. This means that more than 65% of the people living in the riding of Perth fall into the $25,000-$75,000 category and therefore will see a greater than 30% cut in their Ontario personal income taxes.

To illustrate the impact of the fully implemented tax cut, a couple with two children and a family income of $60,000 from two earners will realize an Ontario tax saving of $1,385 -- 30%. We trust this will lead to hope, jobs and prosperity, not only in the riding of Perth, but for all Ontarians. We congratulate the Minister of Finance on making the announcement.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Holocaust survivors who are being recognized for their contributions to the province of Ontario. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS LEGISLATION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Since the Employment Standards Act became law in 1974, it has undergone numerous reforms. As a result of this patchwork process, the act has become increasingly complex, more difficult to understand and administer, and more expensive to enforce. Economic restructuring has also significantly changed the nature of work among the workplace parties. As a result, the act no longer responds to the needs of the workplace parties.

Later today, I will introduce amendments to make the act more relevant to the modern workplace, as well as facilitating its administration and enforcement by reducing ambiguity, simplifying

definitions and streamlining procedures.

In keeping with our government's desire to encourage greater self-reliance in the workplace, employers and employees will be required to settle more disputes on their own rather than appealing to the ministry in each and every case. This will allow ministry staff to focus more attention on helping the most vulnerable workers.

To accomplish this end, bargaining unit members will be required to resolve employment standards complaints through the grievance procedures provided in their collective agreements.

To facilitate resolution of complaints, employees will be required to choose to pursue a complaint through either the ministry or the courts as opposed to using both avenues in order to determine which one offers the best settlement.

The government will also change the act to enable employment standards officers to focus on the resolution of claims and to make the claims and appeals process more efficient.

Among the changes to make this possible:

The limitation period for filing an employment standards claim will be reduced to six months of an alleged violation from the present two years.

The limitation period for appeals will be increased to 45 days from the present 15. The shorter period does not allow the parties enough time to consider whether they should exercise this important right to appeal.

The time-consuming and expensive work of collecting money owed to employees by employers will be done by collection agencies.

The act will also be amended to clarify employee rights regarding continuation of service credits and the entitlement to vacation pay and time under the pregnancy and parental leave provisions. There has been confusion among arbitrators and referees as to how to interpret the present wording in the act concerning these rights. Clarifying this poorly worded

section of the act alone will reduce the number of claims and the amount of litigation as well as enhance the benefits to which women across the province are entitled.

The proposed changes are consistent with the Red-Tape Review Commission's direction for regulatory reform in that they provide for greater flexibility and streamline the procedures for compliance and enforcement.

These changes represent the first part of a two-phase review of the act to cut through years of accumulated red tape, encourage the workplace parties to be more self-reliant in resolving their disputes and make the act more relevant to the changing nature of work and the needs of today's workplace parties. The broader review will be completed by the end of 1996 and legislation will be introduced in 1997.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If I could have the House's attention for about five seconds, I want to inform our guests, if you'd like to stay, that I understand there's unanimous consent after this statement has been finished to make a statement by each party.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The minister began her statement today by referencing the Employment Standards Act and the fact that it has not had a comprehensive review since 1974. Indeed, history tells us that the Employment Standards Act and its predecessors, which were first brought into this province to help keep unions out and to help keep workers from organizing and improving their lot, have not been substantively reformed in actually close to 60 years. We welcome any opportunity to discuss the Employment Standards Act.

The minister has said there's also been restructuring going on in our economy, and we concur entirely. We believe that the act itself is out of date and is in desperate need of positive amendment.

Today, the minister is introducing roughly 15 amendments to the act, substantive amendments, including some clarification of language. The long and the short of it in our view is that these amendments are the beginning of undermining the ability of unorganized workers to protect themselves, and indeed it affects organized workers as well.

Under the guise of streamlining and better administration, the government intends to implement an employment standards system in this province which will ultimately leave the most vulnerable workers in Ontario unprotected.

The minister has also referenced her desire to bring forward more comprehensive legislation later this year. The Employment Standards Act covers a wide variety of topics, everything ranging from hours of work through to minimum wage and other minimum standards in Ontario. We invite the minister to begin a public dialogue on those issues to allow for more complete discussion. The government is proceeding in an area in which it didn't have a lot to say in either the pre-writ or writ periods during the election. We are very concerned that this government, given its history, will in fact penalize those who are least able to protect themselves.

The Employment Standards Act is an important statute that affects virtually every workplace in this province. It's our view that amendments to it and discussion around amendments to the act ought to be conducted in full public view. The government again is pursuing an agenda behind closed doors without adequate opportunity for response to very important issues. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised with this government. We've seen it from the beginning. We saw it with Bill 7. We saw hundreds of amendments brought forward without any opportunity for public debate.

We saw it with Bill 26, which affected so many aspects of how we govern ourselves, particularly in important areas in health care and municipal affairs; again, very little room for public debate.

We see an agenda that isn't designed simply to streamline administration in this case but in our view is designed to lessen rights and protections for those most vulnerable workers in Ontario. It is our view -- and we will have more to say about this -- that as time goes on the government intends to undermine the protection that workers in this province have enjoyed for many years, long before 1974.

We, in addition, will present our own version of amendments to that act, because we think it is an important act and we think it requires updating. We think, however, government should err on the side of protecting vulnerable people in the workplace and not on the side of lessening their protections and making their lives more difficult.

Any changes to the Employment Standards Act, be they minor clarifications, affect tens of thousands of workplaces and workers in Ontario, and we believe, particularly as the minister begins to embark on her more substantive reforms to the act later on, that there ought to be public hearings, public discussion, so that everybody who has an interest in this important piece of legislation has the opportunity to comment publicly.

We are reminded time and again of this government's insensitivity to the working poor, to middle-class people. Again, they are removing protections. They would have us believe that they are doing this in the interest of streamlining and making government more effective. What it does is lessen those protections that workers have come to rely on.

We think and we believe that changes to the Employment Standards Act ought to be predicated on the fact that vulnerable workers in this province require a certain degree of protection and have enjoyed that protection for many years. We look forward to further amendments and we will debate them and continue to represent the views of those who need their views represented the most: the most vulnerable workers in our society. This is an important beginning to amendments to an important piece of legislation. We'll be there to protect the interests of those who are least able to protect themselves.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Today we see yet one more piece of this government's ongoing, relentless attack on the rights and protection of workers. Their announcement of changes to the Employment Standards Act of course not only waters down the rights that workers have but is in large part meant to cough up the $2.4 million that the Ministry of Labour is contributing towards the tax cut.

We know, because in the document tabled by the government with their business plan, sketchy as it was, that the changes to the Employment Standards Act were included in a

section of this report that showed where they were going to find savings. I don't imagine there can be doubt in anyone's mind in the province of Ontario that when this government talks about savings, when it has to do with the rights and protection of workers, it means those rights and protections are under attack and that they're losing them.

In this case, we're looking at $2.4 million in 1997-98 that's meant to be saved by amending the Employment Standards Act. That means fewer rights, less protection for workers in legislation, therefore less need for employment standards officers because there are fewer rights to enforce and therefore this government can lay off staff and contribute its portion of the $5 billion needed to pay for the tax cut, of which, as we all know, over half will go to the top 10% income earners in the province.

In the short briefing that we had just before question period on the content of this legislation, because as yet we have not had a chance to review it, we were told that from now on there'll be a maximum amount of $10,000 that a worker can claim under the Employment Standards Act. Currently, there are several hundred cases a year where workers are awarded more than $10,000. This government says the Ministry of Labour no longer has any interest in those cases.

You've got to go off to a civil court process, and if that means more cost to the worker, more cost to the employer, more of a burden on the court system, which we've heard the Attorney General talking about needing to come to grips with, so be it. If those costs increase, so be it. It doesn't matter because the Ministry of Labour gets to save its portion of the contribution to the tax cut.

What else do we find? We're told that they're putting the right to provide for regulations in this law where they can set a minimum amount, where if your claim is less than that, you're out of luck; you no longer qualify. You cannot make a claim if it's under a certain amount. What will that amount be? We don't know. All we're told is that this law will make a provision for the cabinet to put in place regulations that will set that limit.

That could mean if they set it at $100, because to a lot of the Tory members and their supporters $100 is nothing but to a lot of workers $100 is in many cases $100 they worked for, are entitled to, this government could now put a regulation in place that says, "If your claim is $100 or less, it doesn't count; you can't do anything." According to the stats that we were able to get a hold of, that means about 1,000 people a year, if it was set at $100. Obviously it would be even more if it was set lower.

One of the most insidious things that I found sitting listening to the briefing earlier was that it's now possible under this new law for collective agreements to provide for rights and protections that are less than the Employment Standards Act, less than the minimum provided for in the Employment Standards Act. It relates to issues of hours of work, overtime pay, vacation pay, holidays and severance. They're talking, as I understand it, about the total package, as long as it's greater than, individual parts of that package can be less than, meaning, if you increase the overtime rate, you can provide fewer public holidays than the law requires you to.

The problem there is that first of all, with unions under attack, with scabs now being made legal again, the intent of this government is to water down the effectiveness of unions. We already see with the Jockey Club, for instance, a strike that's ongoing becoming very bitter because there are scabs involved in that strike. This government's tipped the balance in favour of employers. That's the name of the game. So if you can provide where a collective agreement can give you less than the Employment Standards Act, all you need is a weak union and you can force them to sign anything.

This government's intent has been to go after unions, workers and their rights and people will not stand for it.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to acknowledge Holocaust Remembrance.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Harnick: On April 16 at sundown, Jews around the world lit memorial candles in observance of Holocaust Memorial Day and the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis during the Second World War. As we stand in remembrance, the sufferings and the testimonies of Holocaust survivors are a song, a hymn of praise and a testimony to the eternity of the Jewish people and the greatness of their spirit.

It is almost impossible for me to adequately express the fact that six million Jews were annihilated from virtually every town, village and city which the Nazis touched.

Without the memories and testaments of the Holocaust survivors and their families, this horror might be allowed to fade into the pages of history, which it must never be allowed to do if we are to ensure that it never happens again. As time passes, it is going to be more difficult to convey to future generations what happened in Eastern Europe during the Second World War.

Today, a number of Holocaust survivors have joined us. These men and women have been honoured by the Canadian Society for Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes Remembrance Authority. Joining us today are Mr Efim Multianer, Mr Leo Drukmaler, Mrs Catherine Horvath, Mr George Horvath, Mr Louis White, Ms Ada Hefter, Mr Joseph Klasner and Mr Thomas Simon Newman. If we could welcome them to the Ontario Legislature.

That these survivors chose to rebuild their lives here in Ontario is a point which we honour by not forgetting the horror which forced them to move here.

This past year, I had the opportunity to visit Israel, a nation which arose in 1948 out of the ashes of the Second World War and where so many other survivors eventually arrived. Israel has been and remains a haven for Jews, a home to go to, a place to seek a new life, a place where the desert has blossomed and where life has been changed from darkness to light.

Canada and Israel are very different nations with very different histories, but we share in common a recognition of the horror of the Holocaust and a commitment to ensuring that it is not forgotten.

As we look at the world today, it is already apparent that some people and nations have forgotten the atrocities that the Jewish people endured during the Second World War. As a people and as a nation, we cannot allow the world to forget as once again the horror of "ethnic cleansing" is visited upon the world. We must all work together to ensure that the memories of both the survivors and those who died during the Holocaust are not forgotten.

As I've done previously, I would like to conclude my comments with a quotation from the Rabbi of Bluzhou, Rabbi Israel Spira, a Holocaust survivor. In his teachings he stated: "Every day, every child, after studying the daily lessons prescribed by our sages, should learn about the Holocaust, for it says in our holy Torah, `Then it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.'" This is from Deuteronomy 31:21.

The sufferings and the testimonies of Holocaust survivors are a song, a hymn of praise, and a testimony to the eternity of the Jewish people and the greatness of their spirit. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to the Legislature today.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Last week I made a statement to the House commemorating Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and today we have an opportunity to put a face, a body, to those who survived.

We have eight members who survived the Holocaust, who have come to Ontario, who have made a life for themselves and have made an outstanding contribution. In what context? After the war, western theologians were trying to reconcile the horrors of the Holocaust between God, civilization and the horrors of Auschwitz, and a growing body of literature grew up trying to come to terms with this particular conundrum: How, if there is a God, was this allowed to happen?

Now we have another body of literature, sadly, coming forward that denies that the Holocaust even happened. We have a situation where today there are desecrations of synagogues, there are defacings and vandalism in cemeteries, there are growing signs of anti-Semitism and, as I say, most disturbing of all, a growing body of literature that even denies that the Holocaust happened.

I challenge all of us to take a look at the eight individuals in the Speaker's gallery, and face them and tell them that the horrors that they experienced and the viewing of their families being slaughtered and being separated didn't happen. It is something that makes no sense, and yet as time and distance removes us from the situation of the 1930s and the 1940s, we have this growing situation.

The survivors had a vow that those who survived would remember those who perished from generation to generation and that they will remember. It is up to us, as citizens of Ontario, of Canada and the world, to make sure that those who perished -- "the Holocaust" is an Old Testament term for dealing with sacrifice. If it turns out that this was a sacrifice for nothing, then we as humans have all lost. It's imperative that we always remember so that the world will never forget.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I join with my colleagues in remembering and celebrating. This is a time to remember the Holocaust, and the individuals who are here with us in the gallery are a testament to what we should be celebrating as well, and that is a commitment to humanity, a testament to the strength of the human spirit, that they could suffer so much and yet go on to contribute so much to our society. As my colleagues have indicated, it's something that those of us who have not experienced it directly sometimes have difficulty understanding, and we run the risk, with the passage of time, of having the memory fade.

If I could be permitted to relate a personal experience: I would indicate to you that I never really understood, although I had studied the Holocaust, the emotion, the terrible personal loss that survivors have experienced, until a couple of years ago when a close family friend who is a Holocaust survivor visited my wife and myself after a tragedy in our family, along with a clergyman. We had a long talk in which he explained what it meant to him to have lost his family and the fact that he survived himself only because the Belgian underground hid him throughout the war.

The clergyman who was with us said to him, "But what happened to you was the result of unspeakable evil; what happened to the Wildmans was just an unfortunate, terrible accident." He responded and he said, "The fact that I survived was an accident," and to me personally, that brought home what it meant to be a survivor.

As we experience every night on the newscasts what is happening in Bosnia, what has happened in Rwanda and Burundi, sometimes I guess we might be tempted to wonder if the sacrifice of the Holocaust was in vain. But surely if one individual can bring home to me the humanity of that experience, then in remembering, we will all be driven to struggle, to strive, to ensure that despite our human failings we will not destroy one another, but rather live to celebrate our achievements together.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In response to an answer on Thursday, May 9, on page 2872 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicated in his answer in part, "municipal tax increases this year" --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. You can correct your record, but you don't have the right to correct somebody else's record.

Mr Bartolucci: No?

The Speaker: You can correct your record, but you can't correct the minister's record.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask this question of you, and you may be able to help me on the ruling in the House.

The Minister of Finance the other day made reference to a study or a document which was related to a police document on video lottery terminals. I read somewhere in the rules at one time that if a minister makes reference to it, it is supposed to be tabled in the House. Is that correct, or would you at least look into it, perhaps to be fair to you?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Thank you. I will.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Attorney General. This government has clearly broken its promise not to touch spending for law enforcement. Minister, it is clear that you have to cut millions of dollars from your law enforcement budget and it appears that you are going to do that by prosecuting fewer so-called minor crimes.

Your plan, as we understand it, is that criminal offences such as house break-ins and thefts will no longer be treated as seriously as they once were and as they must be. It is not a minor crime or a lesser crime when your home is broken into, it's not a minor crime when someone steals from your business, but it appears that in Mike Harris's Ontario it is about to be open season for house breakers, fraud artists and car vandals. Will you tell us today exactly what your plans are to scale back prosecutions for crimes such as breaking and entering and theft?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Let me at the outset say that I have no plans to scale back the prosecution of crime in the province of Ontario. I am quite frankly very, very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would read something in the newspaper and all of a sudden it becomes the gospel and then it is used to strike fear into communities across the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I'm having a problem hearing the answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: Let me outline for you some of the research that you get out of the media. The media said that I'd be cutting 33% from the Ministry of the Attorney General. Wrong. Eight per cent.

The media said that I'd be closing -- it was front-page news -- 50 courthouses across the province. You know what? Wrong again. Fifty courthouses have not been closed.

They said there were going to be 120 crown attorneys cut from the system. Wrong again. They've said we're going to get rid of all the court reporters in the province of Ontario. What we might do is start five pilot projects for electronically dealing with court reporting on an experimental basis.

What we are doing in the province of Ontario is developing a plan that will streamline the justice system so we won't have any more situations like the Askov case when the Liberal Party was the government, which ignored the backlog and had 60,000 cases of very serious offences struck from the system.

The Speaker: Wrap up your answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: We will develop a system that properly deals with every crime that comes before the system.

Mrs McLeod: I listened very carefully to what the minister said. I asked him a straightforward question. He acknowledged he is streamlining the system. It is clear that he has to cut millions of dollars from law enforcement that was not supposed to be touched. Law enforcement includes policing and includes charging and includes prosecution. As you streamline the system, you are going to gut law enforcement in order to pay for a tax cut.

I asked the minister to tell us what changes he was proposing to find the millions of dollars he needs to pay for the tax cut, and he did not respond.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Give him a chance, Lyn.

Mrs McLeod: We will indeed give him a chance, because the rumours that he suggested are out there are very worrisome. It's worrisome to think there will be fewer investigations, fewer charges and therefore fewer prosecutions of house break-ins and car thefts when in 1994 there were almost 400,000 business and residential break-ins in Ontario, when there were almost 40,000 cases of fraud.

These are very significant crimes to the people who are hurt by them. The very thought of the kinds of changes you are contemplating worries people like the High Park Residents' Association in Toronto who say this proposal is "a green light for thieves." Minister, I don't know how a government that campaigned on a solemn commitment not to touch justice or law enforcement can even contemplate changes that will gut law enforcement to pay for the tax cut, but I ask you to tell us what you are going to change.

Hon Mr Harnick: There's not one penny coming out of the Ministry of the Attorney General to pay for any tax cut. Furthermore, in terms of the overall budget there's maybe a 1.1% difference in the criminal prosecution's budget from last year and the year before.

Mr Redekop of the Junction-High Park residents' group said that "the government should focus on alternatives to court for property offenders.

"`I think it's fair that we have to find ways of dealing with these issues other than a long litigious system which benefits mainly lawyers, but just saying we're going to put these all off -- that's not the answer.'"

We're not going to put them off. We're going to do a better job at pre-trial diversion, post-trial diversion, screening pre- and post-trial, we're going to deal with more minor cases and every single one of those cases is going to have a sentence imposed. We're also going to ensure that we can always properly prosecute serious crime in this province. That is the intention and that is exactly what we're going to do. Every case will have a proper sentence. That is the commitment of this government.

Mrs McLeod: There's a certain pattern developing with ministers in this government. Whenever there is a so-called rumour out there they say: "That's all it is. It's just a rumour. No decisions have been made. This information has no basis in fact." Then lo and behold, what do we find the next day? The rumour turns out to be absolutely factual.

Closing family support offices across the province? No decisions have been made on Thursday, but on Friday we see that clearly those decisions are being made.

There is one decision. It's not enough to bluster about what you would like to do; it's not enough to bluster about streamlining. The question was, what are you doing to take money out of the justice system, which means fewer cases will go to court? Clearly you are considering having fewer cases go to court and result in prosecution and conviction.

Minister, what has to be clear, the decision that has to be made -- it's not good enough to say no decisions have been made -- is that you and your government will keep the commitment not to cut dollars from law enforcement. The commitment was clear that you would not be cutting dollars from law enforcement, that you would not be scaling back prosecutions for any type of crime, even in the name of diversion. Will you make those commitments today?

Hon Mr Harnick: We will not be scaling back prosecutions in this province one iota.

I have a lot of trouble from the Leader of the Opposition who was in a government that, because of their inaction and because of the fact that they didn't care about how the system worked, saw 60,000 cases of drunk driving, sexual assault, manslaughter, murder jettisoned from the court system because they wouldn't streamline the court system to ensure that we could prosecute serious crime.

This government is doing just that. There will not be any cutbacks to prosecutions. We will do a better job dealing with less serious crimes and a better job dealing with serious crimes, but no cases will be lost and there will be no scaling back of prosecutions by this government.

Might I also say that if the Leader of the Opposition believes the Toronto Star is the place to do her research, that's her problem. But let me tell you, we said in opposition and we say when we're in government that the crime of breaking and entering into someone's home is a serious offence and we will not turn a blind eye to any of those cases. They will all be prosecuted by this government.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: We know we're in trouble with any government that says it will not touch law enforcement and cuts $115 million from the operating budget --

The Speaker: New question.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question will be to the Minister of Housing. As he will know, today the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights pinned an eviction notice to the doors of this building, and they did it because they wanted to show their fear about what you're planning to do to gut rent control and to leave tenants across this province without any protection.

You have been very unclear, Minister -- "unclear" is putting it mildly -- about what your plans are. You will tell landlords that you're going to scrap rent controls at the same time you're going to tell tenants that somehow you're going to beef up tenant protection. Obviously, people are concerned about plans that are again being made that are only rumours but are about to become a fact.

We have thousands and thousands of postcards, Minister, that have been sent to us by people who want to tell you that rent control is necessary. They want you to know that they cannot afford exorbitant rent increases. Don't leave these people in fear and confusion. Will you come absolutely clean with your plans? Are you intending to strip away rent controls?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We have been very, very consistent in our approach with rent control. We have said that nothing's going to happen to the existing system until such time as we have something that provides protection for tenants, and we are going to do that. We are going to bring forward our proposal in the very near future and we will be going through a full consultation process with all of the stakeholders involved before we make any changes to the existing legislation. I have been very consistent with that approach.

Mrs McLeod: If you've been consistent, Minister, it may be in line with what you told the Fair Rental Policy Organization on November 27 when you said, "Marketplace rent control will take the sledgehammer out of the hands of tenants and provide a level playing field." That doesn't sound much like tenant protection to me.

Let me get very specific. I think you would agree the most basic provision in rent control is that all tenants in the province are covered. We understand that you are planning to change this most fundamental principle, and as we understand it, one of the plans you're looking at is that as tenants move from one unit to another, they lose the protection of rent control. If they stay in their apartment, they're covered; if they move, the new unit is no longer covered and the unit they left would be decontrolled. This is clearly a way to, step by step, simply abandon rent control.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Wrong. You are fundamentally wrong every time you stand up and say anything.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, is this the plan? Are you planning to scrap rent control through this back door, underhanded method?

Hon Mr Leach: We plan to take our proposal out to the stakeholders, all of the associations, and I can tell the member across that we've had conversations with all of the interested stakeholders. They're quite aware of the direction we're going in.

I think we have a proposal that will bring balance to the system, something that will enable the industry to get back into building new rental stock. There's absolutely none being built anywhere. We have tens of thousands of tenants looking for some place to live, but with the existing system, nobody will build. We have to find a balance that will provide protection to tenants, which we intend to do, plus provide incentives to the industry to get back and to build. We will see that proposal coming forward very shortly.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: I find it surprising that the Premier is sitting in his seat saying: "No, no, these are not the plans. This is just one more wild rumour that somebody's hearing about what this government is not planning to do." Yet, Premier, because we can't see your plans, you're not prepared to show us your plans, all we have is you saying in Stoney Creek two weeks ago, and I'm quoting: "There's no question that a thriving, competitive, active, vacancy surplus marketplace will keep your rent lower than any government plan." That doesn't sound like rent control to me. That sounds like a man, a Premier, and a government that are planning to scrap rent control.

Minister, instead of you and your Premier playing games with words and cooking up complicated schemes to hide what you're doing, why don't you just admit that you are planning to get rid of rent control and let rents go sky-high, whatever the market says, and that we'll find out your real plans some time after May 23?

Hon Mr Leach: What I've said we are going to do is to take our proposals to the stakeholders so they'll have every opportunity to have input for it.

I think, again, the opposition party is flip-flopping around. They said in their red book, and their housing critic said in the estimates, that the existing system doesn't work and has to be fixed. How are you going to fix it if you don't change it?

I think the Liberal Party and the NDP are the only people in the world who are in favour of rent control. I can tell you that the Toronto Star, that bastion of Tory support, says that rent control should go. The Toronto Sun says rent control should go. Canada's national newspaper says rent control should go. Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Would the House please come to order. These outbursts do not do any good at all.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Solicitor General. In the Common Sense Revolution, the Conservative Party promised that funding for policing would be guaranteed. On page 5 of the Common Sense Revolution, the Conservative Party stated, "Any actions we take will not result in increases to local property taxes."

Now, about nine months later, we have a discussion paper that was issued by the Ministry of the Solicitor General which talks about the financing of police services. On page 11, it states: "Since property tax is the largest source of revenue to municipalities, it is likely that many of the 576 municipalities will raise property taxes to finance the costs of police services in their communities."

From your discussion paper, Solicitor General, it becomes clear that you are going to pass the cost of policing to municipalities, which have no choice but to raise property taxes. Why didn't you tell people and communities that provincial funding for policing was being cut in order to find money for your tax break? Why don't you tell people that municipalities will be forced to raise a head tax now to cover the cost of policing?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): That is, as the member described it, a discussion paper. It was a discussion paper drafted by all of the various stakeholders in the policing community across this province, a steering committee that wanted to put virtually every option on the table for discussion. I can't stress more than that: This is a discussion paper.

There will be a policing summit in June where all the various options available to the stakeholders in the policing community will be discussed. We'll be moving out of that towards some legislation in the fall. Really this is the first in-depth review of policing in 25 years in this province, and I'm proud of it.

Mr Hampton: This is interesting once again. Last spring it was a promise: No cuts to policing. Last spring it was a promise: No actions that will result in the raising of property taxes. Now it's open for discussion.

What is open for discussion? What it is is this: There are all kinds of municipalities in rural Ontario and in northern Ontario that are going to be asked to raise their property taxes substantially, because they're going to be told that they have to cover the cost of OPP policing.

Let me put it this way: Your document states that in rural and northern Ontario, "regardless of mechanisms for allocating and/or phasing in the costs of OPP service, it is likely that any increase in property taxes could create financial hardship for some of these municipalities."

Let me ask the minister: Last summer, it was a promise -- not a half promise, not a one quarter promise; a promise -- "No cuts in policing services and no increases in property taxes." How does he get away now with proposing that municipalities cover all this?

Hon Mr Runciman: If I have to, I'll go back to the quotes that I delivered last week to the same party with respect to the former Solicitor General, sitting directly behind him. He should turn around and ask him what his position was and what his government's position was with respect to equitable funding. I have made -- we talk about --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): You made the promise, Bob.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): You said you weren't reducing funding to policing.

Mr Cooke: Don't be so phoney. You made the promise.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I can't hear the answer.

Hon Mr Runciman: Obviously, they can't deal with the truth. When we were in opposition, I was clearly on the record, my party was clearly on the record in favour of equitable financing for police services right across this province. We've always said that. We said that in opposition. I pressed the then minister to move in this direction. We're doing exactly that now that we're forming the government. We're keeping our promises; we're keeping our commitments.

Mr Hampton: The Solicitor General makes an allegation that a former government was looking at this. Yes, there were a few wisenheimers in the civil service who advocated this, and as a government we had the good sense to turn it down. All right? Let's get straight about it: We had the good sense to turn it down.

Your report further says, your discussion paper further says that you are suggesting to boards of education that they pay police services for crime prevention videos. Get it? The police, under this Conservative government, are now going to charge school boards for community policing services. Not only that; we have this in the face of school board budgets being cut.

Last summer it was a promise that you were not going to cut policing services and you were not going to raise property taxes. Now it's open for discussion that you will raise property taxes, that you will cut policing services, and even school boards are going to be forced to pay for policing services. How do you get off on this?

Hon Mr Runciman: The member's comments about the public service were a cheap shot. It's clearly on the record, and I indicated that if he was in the House last week he would have known. I quoted my predecessor as a Solicitor General clearly on the record on at least two occasions standing up and indicating that we had to move towards equitable financing. We have municipalities in this province paying for their OPP --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You made a promise you can't keep, and you knew it.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: I quoted municipalities in northern Ontario as well indicating that they believe quite clearly that it's not fair. We're going to bring fairness to the system. I've always said we'll bring fairness to the system. That's what we're doing. We're not breaking any promise; we're keeping a promise.

The Speaker: New question, the member for London Centre.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also to the Solicitor General, because I think we have to get to the bottom of how he thinks this government is going to keep its promise around maintaining policing, around guaranteeing that policing will be maintained when he says first of all they will stick with their promises around taxation and that sort of thing. It just doesn't make any sense.

In this same discussion paper you admit that -- and I quote from page 19 -- "Without adequate financial support, many police services may be compelled to reduce service levels and/or cut existing crime prevention or law enforcement programs." We hear you shouting over there that, first of all, you are not going to reduce policing; you do not favour municipalities raising taxes, even though your government reduced your grants to them by 43% --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): That's a minor detail.

Mrs Boyd: Just a minor detail -- making them make cuts to policing. Really, when you say this, are you saying very clearly to the people of Ontario that you expect police services to reduce their service levels and cut existing crime prevention and law enforcement programs? Is that what you're saying?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated on a number of occasions since December, when we announced a significant review of the structure and financing of police and the governance of police in this province, the first major review undertaken in a quarter of a century, that we're going to look at all of the various roles and responsibilities of police officers right across this province.

Even in discussions with rank-and-file officers, they know their areas they can move in to improve the ability of officers to be on the front lines. We may be looking at paperwork burden. We may be looking at oversight. We're looking at questions like prisoner transportation: Should police be involved in that? Court security: Is it necessary to have a fully trained, highly qualified police officer involved in court security?

In traffic management and in parade situations -- a whole range of responsibilities where questions have been raised about whether indeed we need a fully trained, highly paid police officer in that responsibility and in that role. This is a very significant review. We're looking at every issue, every possible question that could be raised.

Again I emphasize that these are discussion papers. They are not policy statements; they are not policy directions. They are encouragement of discussion surrounding some very detailed issues.

Mrs Boyd: Well, Mr Solicitor General, it is very interesting that this discussion paper was not widely available. You have selected very few people to distribute it to. We couldn't get one until someone kindly gave it to us. It's very important that you admit that your level of discussion does not allow people to really explore the issues.

Your document stipulates that, due to the current fiscal reality, police services may wish to explore partnership opportunities with public and private institutions, and it goes on to state that the opportunity may exist to reduce the burden on police services in the province by "providing certain narrow powers to particular individuals employed by designated organizations and institutions that have specific security needs that would otherwise have to be provided by the public sector."

You want to minimize the need for police by relying on the private sector. You want little private armies of people hired by other institutions to do the policing instead of the highly trained and publicly accountable police. Are you really proposing that services that are presently provided by police be provided by those private organizations because your government is unable to keep its promise to guarantee policing funding?

Hon Mr Runciman: It must have been desperation day at question period meeting this morning. I'm not proposing anything. This is a discussion paper. These issues were drafted by a steering committee involving all the stakeholders across the province. These are not policy directions.

I'm not sure what more I can say to the member in terms of these kinds of issues. I think it was the consideration of everyone involved in the policing community across the province that those kinds of issues should at least be looked at and discussed at the summit in June. That's all it means.

Mrs Boyd: You also in this discussion paper want police services to explore the use of unpaid volunteers to support the functions presently being provided by paid members of trained police services.

A few weeks ago you stood here in this House and elsewhere, speculating about whether welfare recipients forced to perform workfare situations could provide security in local neighbourhoods instead of the police, and you would have untrained people with varied backgrounds, conceivably thrown into hazardous situations, who might then become a danger to themselves, the community and the police themselves. You're the one who speculated on that, nobody else, and when you were asked about it, you certainly didn't deny that you thought that might be a possibility.

You are belittling in this discussion paper and in the comments you make the expertise and training that police officers bring to the job they perform. Is that the kind of policing your government said it would guarantee?

Hon Mr Runciman: I want to indicate that --

Mr Christopherson: Do you put a flag on the fender when you go to the summit, Bob?

Hon Mr Runciman: That's only something you would do, David.

The irony of it is that those of us who have been around this place for some time realize the -- I can't use the word, but I think you all appreciate the word that I would like to use with respect to that party's support for policing and public safety. They have a dismal record.

I want to indicate that just before I came to this House I was down at Metro police headquarters, where I announced $2.24 million of new money going into community policing efforts across this province. Following that, I visited the Centre of Forensic Sciences, where I announced over $2 million going into the expansion of the DNA lab in this province.

We're committed to reinvesting in the justice system in this province. We're committed to bringing policing into the 21st century. We're going to keep our commitments, we're going to keep our promises, and we're going to have a much safer Ontario as we go into the next century.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to continue this line of questioning with the Solicitor General. You had mentioned that this is only a discussion paper, yet two weeks ago we had a concrete example of your new pay-for-policing policy where in Ottawa the car dealers had to pay for the conclusion of a car theft investigation. We're seeing this already, so it's a reality today.

Now your discussion paper goes beyond that, saying the police are going to have to spend some of their time off the street and raising revenue to give police services in Ontario, so the police are going to sell advertising and market crime-related products.

Minister, what's policing coming to in Ontario? In the election you said there wouldn't be any cuts to policing. Now you're telling them they're going to have to go out and raise their own funds. We don't want our police to be hucksters. We don't want them to be into show business. We want them to be making policing in Ontario the world-class policing system that it is. Minister, are you running a police force over there or are you turning it into a circus?

Hon Mr Runciman: The only circus these days is a Liberal caucus meeting.

In his question, the member raised one valid point, and that had to do with the Ottawa situation. I have a real concern about that as well, and the ministry is taking a look at the appropriateness of that. On the face of it, I agree that was an inappropriate measure, and we're going to develop a policy with respect to those kinds of contributions.

But I will say that the involvement of the community in support of police is not something new. In my own community, for years the Lions Club service clubs have been involved in purchasing new police vehicles, in assisting in the purchase of police boats. We've had this year the involvement of private sector firms in the sponsorship in Metro and expansion of the RIDE program.

I think these kinds of initiatives and involvement of the community and the private sector are welcome. I do not think they're wrongheaded at all, but there are issues concerning the kinds of support that we're going to spell out clearly are not appropriate.

Mr Ramsay: This is just another example where Ontario is starting to look more and more like New Jersey. Are we going to have OPP officers now on television endorsing The Club? Are you going to be doing those all-night infomercials maybe with Mel Lastman pushing pepper spray? I don't know. You'd better change that mad dog image there if you're going to be doing that. Minister, if you go down this road, one of two things is going to happen.

People are going to be afraid to ask for assistance in this province because they're afraid they're going to be charged because you're going to start to charge people on nuisance calls, or it's only going to be the well-heeled in this province who are going to get the adequate, proper policing that all Ontarians deserve.

Minister, are you going to stop this nonsense and ensure that Ontario continues to have the world-class police force that we're all proud of?

Hon Mr Runciman: This kind of rhetoric does no one any good. I want to say, I've met with police services right across this province. I was at Metro today, and they understand the tough financial pressures this government is facing as a result of spending policies, in part, of that member's government.

We're dealing with it in a very positive way and I'm getting that kind of feedback from rank-and-file officers right across this province. They feel very positive about what we're doing and the fact that we're taking a look at very serious issues that were avoided by governments of the past. These are issues that have been crying out for a serious review and we're moving in that direction. The kinds of issues that you are raising today simply don't merit response.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. The minister will know that on March 28, on TVO, the Premier made the following statement regarding private universities in Ontario: "I don't see anything wrong with a private sector, private university system. No taxpayers' dollars. They have to meet standards and set those standards. I personally believe that competition might be good for our institutions."

Minister, are you intending to establish a private university system in Ontario?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I think the leader of the third party is aware of the fact that there are a variety of private post-secondary programs offered across the province now, and some of our universities are considering some private, outside-of-provincial funding structures for some of their courses. There already exists a body of that sort of education and training available to people in Ontario now.

We have a discussion paper that we look forward to releasing in the very near future that will look at some of these issues as they relate to the future of post-secondary education in the province. I look forward to that discussion with the universities, with the colleges and with students across the province. We want to make sure we do what meets the needs of the students.

Mr Wildman: The minister talked about certain types of programs at certain institutions, but it appeared that the Premier was talking about a freestanding private institution. As a matter of fact, he said, "Before the mandate is out, or before I retire, it is something I'd like to put before the people."

We've talked to Michael Piva of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations. He says: "Privatizing Ontario's universities is the wrong solution to the problem of underfunding that has been exacerbated by this government. It will inevitably lead to a two-tiered university system, one for the rich and another publicly funded system for the poor."

Hon Mr Snobelen: I note the honourable member's delectation at using half a quote, or misusing it. My understanding, and I read the media report, didn't suggest at all taking one of our 18 universities and privatizing it. As a matter of fact, what it said is we should have a look at what services might be provided to students, without taxpayers' support, by other institutions, by other organizations; what might happen that's new in the province of Ontario in the area of post-secondary education. I think there's no point in taking that quotation and making it into something that it didn't mean to imply.

We are going to have a discussion paper and we will be taking to the people of Ontario a discussion about post-secondary education. The principal piece of this will be about how we have the proper access to post-secondary education in the province of Ontario. If private university fits into that structure, why wouldn't we consider it?

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is also for the Minister of Education and Training. In talking with several OAC students in my riding, they expressed some concerns about the way OAC marks are collected. It seems that several students take OAC courses two, three, even four times, either to pass or to upgrade their marks. Since these marks are used to determine qualification for university admittance and determine qualification for specific courses at university, would you not agree that it would be a fairer system if somehow the high school transcript could show the number of times a high school course was taken?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Chatham-Kent for the excellent question. Given that my father's side of our family came from the Chatham-Kent area, I'm not surprised at the quality of question, because I recognize the fact that there are a lot of great thinkers in that area of Ontario.

The member is quite right that currently only the highest mark a student obtains is recorded on their transcript and students frequently repeat courses so as to get a higher mark for college or university entrance. This is unfair to students who have earned a high mark their first time through a course and it's unfair to universities and colleges, which rely on these marks for entrance standards. The colleges and universities have been calling for some time for a more open transcript so that they can determine the number of times a student has taken a course and all the marks that have been obtained.

This is one of the things we are considering in our secondary school reform, because we believe full disclosure would be useful both for the institutions and for the students.

Mr Carroll: I compliment you on that initiative. I think it's a great approach.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Mr Carroll: I didn't realize the compliment was quite that humorous.

Minister, can you imagine some circumstances where indeed there would be exceptions to your rule of showing the number of times a course was taken?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, there are situations that we are considering where full disclosure may not meet the objectives of either the colleges and universities or the students. Some of those exemptions would include a severe sickness by a student or perhaps a death in the family, so we are considering those circumstances where perhaps full disclosure would not serve the purposes intended, and we will include those in our final position on disclosure.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Premier. Your government has promised for some time now that you would prepare legislation for auto insurance. While all the parties agreed that it was helpful to review the draft legislation, we still have yet to see legislation placed before this House. The legislative clock is ticking, sir. Drivers with no claims and clean records are continuing to see their insurance premiums skyrocket, and drivers who have been out of the system for a short period of time are finding that they're being thrown into the Facility Association.

In short, the situation is a mess and your government is dragging its feet. When can drivers in Ontario expect rate relief?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question, particularly on this day when so many new jobs are being created in the province of Ontario and the excitement is building about the prosperity and the excitement of the tax cut is coming forward, but that's just this day.

I accept on behalf of the government the member's compliments on the full consultative approach that we took to this so we can finally get it right. The input that was received by Mr Sampson on the draft proposal that was put out has been very beneficial. A number of changes he has recommended be made will answer some of the concerns you talk about with Facility and with the rates of insurance.

I would like to tell you that we could have had this finalized, but we inherited a mess of such gargantuan proportions from two governments that failed to deliver and really fouled up the auto insurance available here, with changes here and changes there, and then the Liberals and then the NDP, it was such a mess that it took a little bit longer than we thought, but I can tell you the results will be worth waiting for.

Mr Crozier: I'm just a little disappointed, because when I came to this place I told the folks in Essex South that if anybody would answer a question, the Premier would, and he hasn't. You haven't told us when the legislation is coming down. In the meantime, insurance rates are going up at five or six times the rate of inflation. You mention the tax break. I suggest that even the rich, who are going to receive the bulk of your tax cut, are going to find it gobbled up in increased insurance premiums.

All you have to do is tell us. You've had enough time. You said last year you had a plan. In the fall you said you had a plan. We've had the committee meetings. We've had the report. When are you going to stop dragging your feet and put the legislation that you seem to be so proud of on the table?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate this question on this very special day when it was brought to my attention that the Lakehead school board, the Muskoka board, Nipigon, Ottawa, the Timmins board have all come in with zero tax increases, no teacher layoffs. They've all retained junior kindergarten.

So on this exciting day with all these zero tax increases, I really appreciate the opportunity to talk as well about insurance rates, which will be important to the municipalities and others who have a lot of vehicles as well. I want to repeat that it was a huge mess that we inherited, but the consultative process brought forward by my colleague Mr Sampson from Mississauga West has been an exhaustive process.

The member wants to know when the good news can be received by all the people of Ontario, and I will respond that as we are speaking now, the legislation is being drafted.

TENANT PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, despite your soothing words in your answer to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, the tenants of this province say that you and your government have declared war on them and that they're not going to take it. They're starting to fight back.

As you know, the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights tried to serve you with an eviction notice here at Queen's Park this morning. My colleague seems to have it right there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Hamilton Centre is out of order.

Ms Churley: Their notice of eviction under

section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act says -- it's very short -- that your government has "breached its obligations to the tenants of Ontario and has by

an act or omission seriously impaired the safety or other lawful rights of the tenants of Ontario." These words mirror those infractions for which tenants can be evicted under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Under the act, an eviction can be halted if a tenant takes certain action within seven days. Minister, within seven days will you promise to the tenants of Ontario that you will keep your hands off rent control and all other tenants' rights in Ontario?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member from the third party, I'm very surprised to hear that they've declared war on changes that we've made, because we haven't made any changes at all at this point in time.

I have met with every one of those tenants' groups. I have assured them that we will bring in a proposal that protects tenants' rights. But the first thing that tenants do when they come in to see me is complain about the conditions of the buildings they're in, that the buildings are falling apart, that they don't have any choice about where to live because nobody is building any new ones, that maintenance is non-existent.

We have to do something that will allow an owner of a building or a landlord to be able to carry out those repairs, to entice people back into the building business so they can give tenants choices. We're going to introduce some proposals that will do that. But I'm still assuring the tenants of Ontario that there will be strong protections for tenants in our new legislation.

Ms Churley: The tenants of the province just don't believe you. Some of them have met with you and they come out of the meetings afterwards terrified because of what you're saying. You know that evictions in Metro have gone up about 33% during the term of your government, and that is before your new act.

The tenants are afraid you're committed to gutting rent control, bringing back the days of 30%, 40% and even higher percentage increases. I was a city councillor when that was happening in my riding. Our government put a stop to that and the tenants are terrified about what you plan to do. They say that because of your government, tenants who face eviction will also now lose their day in court.

Now I'm asking you very seriously, Minister, how can you call your package a tenant protection package when the legal aid clinics and other people who work directly with tenants every day say that all of your proposed changes will weaken tenants' rights and force more people out on to the street? That's what people are afraid of.

Hon Mr Leach: I think the member might have hit the nail on the head there, because that's one of the problems. Your party did stop everything. It stopped the construction of new buildings. There are no new buildings being built; 25 rental units built in all of the city of Toronto last year. That's a direct result of nobody being prepared to invest money in this province because of the ridiculous systems we have in place at the present time.

We have to entice people back into the building business. They are not going to do that with the legislation that's in place today. They have told us that. You know it's wrong, the Liberals know it's wrong, and it has to be changed. We are going to bring in a balanced package that will protect tenants and also get new stock built in Ontario.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last Tuesday the Minister of Finance announced new measures to help generate an additional $180 million a year for volunteer initiatives. Part of that was an allocation of up to $10 million to support the work of volunteers, including a component dedicated to linkages among volunteer groups and agencies. Minister, can you tell us anything more about this exciting initiative?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you to the honourable member for Halton Centre. First of all, I want to recognize and thank the efforts of the member for Durham York, Ms Julia Munro. Her hard work and determination on behalf of the Premier led to the creation of this initiative that was announced last week.

As well, I'm very proud that this government has given my ministry the responsibility for developing this initiative to create linkages within the volunteer community. The province will commit up to $10 million annually to coordinate, assist the work of and link volunteer service networks. Under the linkages program there will be increased capacity to match people in need of services with volunteers able to offer their time and their skills.

Mr Young: Madam Minister, on a short supplemental: When do you think linkages will be up and running?

Hon Ms Mushinski: My ministry is currently working on the development of this particular initiative, and I expect to make an announcement on the details of this program within the next few months.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. On May 16, 1995, the current Premier wrote in a letter, and I quote: "A Harris government will not move on VLTs until all sectors have been consulted, all impacts are assessed and an agreement is reached on the distribution of revenues." As the minister responsible for the Ontario Lottery Corp and now responsible for VLTs, can you tell us when these consultations took place, when all the impacts were assessed and when an agreement was reached on the distribution of the revenues?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): We are very excited about the introduction of the video lottery terminal program. We have done extensive research, as the member asked, to be sure that they are phased in very slowly. First off will be at the racetracks, as you know, and then there will be the charity gambling locations, and then we will bring in the video lottery terminals in due course.

We are very fortunate that we've had the ability to watch what is going on in the eight other provinces that have had the VLTs. We have studied what's happened in those provinces very carefully. We're very comfortable about our decision and we're sure it's going to benefit all of Ontario and will be done properly.

Mr Kwinter: That has to be one of the more bizarre answers we have ever heard in this House.

I want to quote. On March 8, only eight weeks prior to the day the Minister of Finance announced the VLTs, I appeared at estimates with the minister. I started to talk to him about the potential for VLTs in Ontario. He said, "I think I should interrupt you right at the moment just to say that to date the decision of the government is that there will be no VLTs." That was only eight weeks before you announced them. I also want to quote a little later on in the discussion.

The minister said, "To say again...there are no VLTs on the horizon." All I have to say is, you either have a very short horizon or you have no idea what is going on in your ministry or this government. How can you stand there and baldly say you've done extensive research when eight weeks before the announcement you said there would be no VLTs and they weren't even on your horizon?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm very happy to have the chance to respond to that supplementary question. May I say to the honourable member that his question is just as bizarre as himself. When I made that comment we had not had all of the budget consultations received at that particular time. We were going through proper consultations. I felt that my answer was the correct one at that time, and I think what we're doing now is the correct action for the province.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. We were all interested earlier this afternoon to hear your response to the Leader of the Opposition's question when she asked you about the extensive stories about a drop in the level of prosecution in the province. You said you wouldn't see that happen.

I'm looking at the budget put out by your government, and your ministry is slated to drop from $753 million in 1995-96 to $637 million in 1996-97; that's $116 million. You have so far talked about all the things that haven't been decided or that you're not going to do. The people of Ontario would like to know what it is you are going to do.

On Friday we heard about the budget plan on the FSP -- family support plan -- offices. You'd been asked about that before and you said no decision had been made, yet we understand the Deputy Attorney General has been going around from office to office of the FSP plan talking to the staff. They're expecting pink slips. Would you tell us what you're expecting to do with the FSP plan and whether that's where you're going to get some of that $116 million in savings?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I've indicated that we are reviewing the family support plan in the province of Ontario. It's very interesting that prior to any discussions about changes to the family support plan members of the opposition would stand up and say: "Nobody is answering the phone. Nobody is getting good service.

There is money that is out there that is going uncollected." Now we are reviewing the family support plan in a way that will provide better customer service for those who need the family support plan and in a way that will provide a better method of collecting money for mostly women and children whose support orders are not being paid.

We have right now in Ontario about $900 million owing on family support plans. I listen to the opposition. One day they say: "The plan is terrible. You've got to change it." Then when you start to do a review to decide how to change it, they say: "Don't change the plan. It's just fine. We like it exactly the way it is." It is not good enough that $900 million remains outstanding in Ontario, mostly money due to children. It is also not realistic to leave the plan the same way it is now, because customers who need access to people can't get it. We're looking at making changes to make the family support plan better.

Mrs Boyd: It's nice for all of us to know that the minister has read the business plan and knows how he is to manage the problems that are likely to occur.

This business plan says there are a number of contentious issues: first, staff layoffs -- a lot of staff layoffs, 161 full-time equivalents; reduced local service delivery -- local service delivery to people all over the province; perceived reduced telephone inquiry -- reduced telephone inquiry to the plan; economic effect on local economies where the regional offices are located -- my situation is one where London will be grossly affected and we're very concerned; and the last one, which should concern us all, will affect the Ministry of Community and Social Services, on whose behalf the plan enforces and recovers welfare payments, $46 million worth last year.

Attorney General, when you talk about this, no one says the plan doesn't have to be fixed. We say what you are doing is going to gut it, because you are planning only to enforce those orders where there's a problem, instead of all the orders, so that it becomes a non-contentious issue, and you are putting women and children at risk who then will have to try to collect personally those payments through the courts.

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know what can put women and children more at risk than the fact that there's $900 million outstanding and that no one is implementing new ways to try and collect that money. That is exactly what we are going to try to do: to implement a system that will collect successfully a very large proportion, a much greater proportion of the outstanding money. As well, we're going to try and make the plan more friendly for those who have to use it. We want people to be able to call the family support plan and speak with someone who can deal with their problem immediately, without having to refer it. We're looking at making the family support plan better.

PETITIONS

TAX REDUCTION

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

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

This is signed by a number of constituents in my riding. I have affixed my own signature because I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

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

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addition in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across Ontario is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos and various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the previous provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in Ontario."

I affix my name to this petition as I'm in agreement with its content.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This petition is about rent control. It says:

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister Al Leach and members of the Ontario Legislature:

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

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

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

"Whereas the government has consulted with special-interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants in Ontario;

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

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province."

I affix my signature to this petition.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm presenting a petition today from constituents in Nepean and those from Ottawa, Stittsville, Kanata and Richmond, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature thereto because I am in agreement.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition was accumulated by the students at the St Albert Adult Learning Centre in Sudbury. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, disagree with the Conservative government concerning the cutbacks to our education and the layoffs of our teachers. Students need an education; and

"We therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the funding to education, and specifically the funding to adult education."

Because I agree with this, I have affixed my name to it.

ABORTION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas induced abortion is the intentional medical killing of pre-born human beings before birth and evidence that pre-born human beings of five to six weeks' gestation have the ability to experience pain has been reported as long ago as 1941 and corroborated as recently as 1994;

"Whereas a recent study reviewing all available research on the reasons for abortion in Canada concluded that `as a procedure abortion is not therapeutic and as there is mounting evidence that it is harmful to women's health, funding by the government under health care cannot be justified';

"Whereas US studies have shown that where public funding for abortion has been removed, both the pregnancy rate and the abortion rate have dropped significantly;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require that elective procedures be funded nor has any Canadian court ever found a constitutional right to publicly funded abortion;

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

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

"That the Ontario government remove induced abortion from its medically insured services, and

"That the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, endeavour to encourage an alliance between all groups offering crisis pregnancy support across the province."

I affix my signature.

CUSTODIAL SERVICES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas our school mission statement requires the establishment of a stimulating and challenging learning environment; and

"Whereas the Carleton Board of Education's proposed contracting out of our custodial staff would seriously jeopardize this learning environment;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend Bill 34 in such a manner as to prevent Ontario school boards from contracting out custodial services."

I affix my signature.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): At the beginning of the week that the Health Action Task Force is presenting its report to the district health council, I'm pleased to refer the petitions urging the saving of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton. The petition is to the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

I continue to support these petitions.

RAMER'S WOOD CO-OPERATIVE HOMES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the member for Markham. It's a petition from Ramer's Wood Co-operative Homes Inc. It appears to be in the correct format, and I'm submitting it to the Legislative Assembly.

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from Parkdale against an open-custody residence.

"Whereas the Dellcrest Children's Centre is planning to open a 10-bed open-custody residence for troubled children and youth at 182 Dowling Avenue; and

"Whereas the residence is an inappropriate site for the rehabilitation of troubled children and youth because it is within walking distance to illicit drugs and prostitution activities; a large number of unsupervised and supervised houses that are home to ex-psychiatric patients, parolees and our society's most vulnerable and ostracized members; and a number of licensed establishments that have been charged with various liquor infractions; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Dellcrest Children's Centre have decided not to hold open discussions with our community prior to the purchase of this home for the purpose of an open-custody residence; and

"Whereas the decision to relocate also expresses a total lack of regard to our community's consistent and well-established wishes for the Ontario government to stop the creation or relocation of additional social service programs or offices in an area that is already oversaturated with health and social services for disadvantaged, troubled or disenfranchised people;

We, the undersigned local residents and business owners, urge the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to suspend plans to relocate the open-custody residence for troubled children and youth until a full review of the Dellcrest Children's Centre's decision can be conducted and explore with us alternative locations that can be established."

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition that has been signed by members of many ratepayers' associations who support local option assessment reform in the city of Toronto.

I affix my signature to it.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable housing owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"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 housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend, and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I affix my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I still have another petition signed by residents of my area where they are showing concern with cuts to the education system, and I'll read it to the House:

"Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has gone on record stating that the government is deeply committed to an educational system that delivers excellence; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is cutting funding support for elementary and secondary education by $400 million; and

"Whereas by reducing grants to boards such as MSSB which can be shown to be well under the targeted expenditure level for administration and operational support, the minister has penalized the very boards which have been extremely prudent and frugal in their non-classroom spending; and

"Whereas the so-called equalization payments are indirect taxation without representation because there is no guarantee that they will be used to offset reductions in education transfer;

"We, the undersigned residents of North York, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure any reductions to expenditure levels are implemented in a fair and equitable manner to both grant-dependent and negative-grant-position school boards."

I support this and I will affix my signature.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to reject all recommendations put forward by the Hamilton health task force as they relate to any hospital closures in Hamilton-Wentworth, and in particular St Joseph's Hospital, 50 Charlton East in Hamilton."

I support the petition and affix my name to it.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000 they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals;

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; and

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and a regimented environment at Transition House have combined with counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and places the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham and Kent."

I affix my signature to this.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act to improve the Employment Standards Act / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à améliorer la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Does the minister have a short statement?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): No, I have no further statements, Mr Speaker.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACTS, 1996

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr34,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr47,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr48,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

TRADE UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA DIVULGATION DES RENSEIGNEMENTS FINANCIERS PAR LES SYNDICATS ET LES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉE

Mr Shea moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 50,

An Act to provide for financial disclosure by trade unions and employees associations / Projet de loi 50, Loi prévoyant la divulgation des renseignements financiers par les syndicats et les associations d'employés.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Very briefly, what we have required for the private sector and have required for the public sector I think it is now appropriate to require for unions and employee associations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1996 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): When we adjourned last, I believe the member for Sault Ste Marie had the floor.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): As I was saying last Thursday afternoon when it became 6 of the clock, the folks out there in Ontario become increasingly concerned as they get a further look at the reality of the budget that was presented last Tuesday, as they get a chance to read it themselves, as they get a chance to read the analyses that are being done by various and sundry people and, most particularly, as they begin to realize how it's going to affect them in their communities, in their families and personally.

Their concern is one of several factors. They look at this proposal and they see it for what it is: a very simplistic approach to a very difficult and challenging concern or situation that we face here in this province, in this country and indeed globally today as the economy changes and we are all challenged in very significant and important ways to respond and to contribute.

If you look at the program this government has put before us -- and I think it's important that we not get sidetracked here, that we not misunderstand or not put the whole package together -- this program is about cuts, first and foremost about cuts to government, about cuts in services and about cuts in the level of employment in the public service in this province, and yes, it's about cuts in taxes.

We are told that it is also about cutting the deficit, but we know when you put the numbers together, that just doesn't add up. At the end of the day, to meet the targets that have been established by way of the tax cut particularly, and the need there will be to cut services, we're going to have a deficit that's going to continue to grow, a debt that's going to continue to grow in this province or a massively enlarged cut to programs and services and the job level that we've all learned are so important and contribute in such a significant way to the stability of the communities in which each one of us lives.

When we look at this program the government has put before us and we see in it the absence of any real detail, any real business plan, any impact statement, we begin to understand why so many have some very genuine and real concern -- in fact, as I said last Thursday, are anxious to have the program this government is putting before us work. They know you're going to be the government -- you were elected with a mandate a year ago and will be around for another three or four years, so you're going to be the government -- and they want your program to work.

But what they're beginning to realize is that they don't think you understand or want to hear from them re the thoughts and ideas and concerns they might have, because you have not given them any opportunity before the budget was presented, and with the lack of material with the budget they don't see any opportunity for them to participate in any further discussion, so they become more and more concerned.

As they look at the program itself they become concerned, and they become even more concerned as they look at how this is beginning to roll out and the reality for them in their lives, and we begin to hear things. I suggest to you that over the next days and weeks we will begin to hear it more and more as reality sets in.

I have here today a copy of a paper that my colleague from Kapuskasing brought today, the Northern Times. It's saying here that the folks in his area are saying, "Don't cut services for taxes," because they know how important services are in their neck of the woods, how important the jobs that those services represent are up in that part of northern Ontario, and indeed I would suggest to you there are many people in my city of Sault Ste Marie who are saying the very same thing.

As a matter of fact, even before the announcement of April 11 regarding how many jobs are going to be lost directly in provincial government service cuts, we are going to lose in the neighbourhood of 525 to 550 full-time, high-paying good jobs in Sault Ste Marie. That represents approximately $31 million out of the economy of my community. If you want to boil it down to an even more finite or focused scenario, let's look at some of the numbers and how they play out in Sault Ste Marie.

The benefit of the government's tax cut for a couple with a combined income of $60,000 with two children in Sault Ste Marie would be $1,385 a year.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That's not chicken feed.

Mr Martin: That's not chicken feed, that's for sure. But based on that implementation schedule, the tax benefit to this family is $163, and we're getting close to chicken feed here.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): That's not bad.

Mr Martin: It's not bad, though. It's not bad, that's right. For a person on a low and fixed income, $163 is a significant amount of money. As of July 1, they will receive an increase in take-home pay -- listen to this one -- of $2.53 every two weeks.

Mr Stockwell: Go crazy.

Mr Martin: That's it, go crazy -- $2.53 every two weeks. If you place this family in my riding of Sault Ste Marie, your tax cut will cost them -- just keep all this in perspective -- $86.40 in increased property tax.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Oh, no, no, no.

Mr Martin: Well, you're the guys who keep saying to us over here that there's only one taxpayer -- so $86.40 in increased property tax. If this family happens to have one child in university, and there are a lot of people out there who do, we have a tuition increase of $490; and an increase of $6 a month, or $72 per year, if one person in that family is taking public transit. This government is giving them back $163, but they'll have to pay $648 more for services than they were before this budget came into place. That means they're short $485.

Interjection: Chicken Little.

Mr Martin: Chicken Little? That's $485. This is the program. This is how it boils down.

In my community of Sault Ste Marie, we're losing over 500 jobs, and that's just the beginning. We anticipate that by the time you're finished, we will have lost somewhere between 800 and 1,000 full-time jobs and all that represents to my community. What it represents in my community is $31 million out of the economy of Sault Ste Marie, not being spent in corner stores and grocery stores, not being spent on new cars or on flowers for the garden, for food -- all the different things people spend money on that keep the economy going.

When you boil it down to an individual family case, the situation that I presented to you here works itself out so that these folks are now going to be short $485 in their take-home pay.

Does it bother us --

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): No.

Mr Martin: -- that this program you've laid before us, that you've spun out with such great enthusiasm and excitement, that you've had your spin doctors do their utmost to present in a positive and constructive light, doesn't at the end of the day work out, doesn't accrue any benefit to any community in this province or to any individual or family? No.

It's for this reason that I, as I said last Thursday, stand here in this House today and second the motion of the finance critic of my party when she says that she has absolutely no confidence that this government and the budget that it's presented will do anything of a positive nature for the people, the working people, all of the people of this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions? The Chair recognizes the member for Etobicoke West.

Interjection: Good luck.

Mr Stockwell: Good luck to you too.

I want to comment to my friend the member for Sault Ste Marie, whose addition to this debate for the budget is probably a good speech. It's a speech that really reveals the position of the member and how he's seen the debate and the direction this province has been heading in the last number of years. I understand his concerns with respect to the direction this province is heading. I'd be very surprised if he didn't offer that opinion of the direction of this province, and no, I'm not setting you up.

I understand and appreciate the fact that Mr Rae and his administration probably did a couple of good things in Sault Ste Marie in the last four or five years. I myself think that a couple of the initiatives he took -- it was Algoma, I think, and --

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): St Marys Paper.

Mr Stockwell: St Marys, yes. They turned out to be very productive. They were productive initiatives. If the kinds of initiatives that Premier, Mr Rae, took in the rest of the province had been as successful as the initiatives he took in Sault Ste Marie, he might well still be in government today and you would probably be a powerful and engaging parliamentary assistant of some kind, maybe even a minister. I understand what you're saying with respect to the issue.

I'm not a parliamentary assistant, nor am I a powerful minister, so by suggesting to the member for Sault Ste Marie that he'd be a powerful parliamentary assistant, that means he'd be one notch higher than I, which I think is probably without doubt for sure.

Having said all that -- my time has run out so I don't get to finish my comments -- I just want to thank him for his contribution. I will certainly review the numbers with respect to the tax cuts and the impacts that will be felt at the local level. I myself found it interesting and certainly engaging.

Mr Michael Brown: I'd like to commend the member for Sault Ste Marie on his fine speech and I'd like to commend the government on its approach to the budget, which seems, absolutely incredibly, to be exactly the same as the former government's. One of the interesting statistics, if people will look carefully at their budget document, is that the ratio between revenue and debt service remains exactly the same as the former government's.

What's going on here, if you want to have a look, is that Ontario intends to spend 21 or 22 cents -- I can't remember exactly the figure -- to service the debt today, which is exactly what the former government was spending, and intends to be spending that same 22 cents out of every revenue dollar four years down the road. We will not have improved our situation one little bit.

That is a tremendous change from 1989. In 1989 we were spending in this province less than 10 cents of every revenue dollar to pay interest. That meant there was money available for programs; that meant there was money available for education; that meant there was money available for health.

As we watch this government follow exactly the same budgetary process, coming out with the same result, borrowing an additional $22, borrowing $13 billion for a tax decrease that I don't think the shareholders have earned yet, I think this is something the member for Sault Ste Marie may want to consider in his reflections.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just want to compliment my good friend the member for Sault Ste Marie on the excellent presentation he made over the last number of minutes and the previous day.

I find it interesting that the member for Etobicoke West would congratulate the NDP on what happened in Sault Ste Marie with Algoma Steel and St Marys Paper -- which are good news stories, there's no doubt about it, and I acknowledge that -- also, Spruce Falls in Kapuskasing and Provincial Papers in Thunder Bay. But what the member for Etobicoke West has neglected to tell you is that when he was in the opposition as the third party, when that legislation came up for employee ownership to protect the jobs in these communities, the Tory caucus at that time voted against that as a group.

A solid block voted against any incentive there was to save jobs and protect some of the communities in northern Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: What are you talking about -- never came to the Legislature.

Mr Len Wood: The member doesn't remember voting against that particular legislation. But I just wanted to say that even though the cuts to health care, education and the forcing of the municipalities and school boards to raise taxes -- and they're going to use up more than what is proposed in the tax cut to the population out there. It's going to cost them $200 or $300 more a year for most people, and it's all on borrowed money, as the member pointed out.

You're going to go out and