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

May 13, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L190 - Tue 13 May 1997 / Mar 13 Mai 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BOARDS

HIGHWAY 17

FIRE SERVICE AWARDS

TRANSLATION SERVICES

ERIC HOLMDEN

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY MAILING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ROYAL WEEK

ANNUAL REPORT INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

RENT REGULATION

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

TRUCKING SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BOOK PUBLISHING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

RENT REGULATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

LONDON PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

DRINKING AND DRIVING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SCHOOL BOARDS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

TVONTARIO

ORDER OF BUSINESS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DES EMPLOYÉS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The Minister of Education had no choice but to admit that he made a mistake in drawing up his proposed boundaries for school boards. His boundaries simply made no sense. Even the Tory members on the committee knew that. You simply cannot manage a board efficiently when you have boards that are larger than European countries, which was the case in northern Ontario.

The minister did some damage control and he fixed the worst of the mistakes, but what about the board boundaries that he didn't fix? Why did the minister not hear the concerns in northeastern Ontario? Why has he ignored the very real problems he created for the Hornepayne Board of Education and made their problem no better?

What about the rest of the province? Did the minister not hear the concerns of the London, Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford boards, which are to be amalgamated to become the third-largest district school board in Ontario? Did he not listen to any of the representations that said 300,000 students in the new Toronto board is too many to be manageable? What about the new Lanark, Leeds-Grenville, Prescott-Russell, Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry board, which will be 11,759 kilometres in size and will cover very different and very distant communities? Leo Jordan was assured that board was going to be broken up.

This minister is doing damage control, but he has by no means fixed the mess he has created. Once again we see that the government is not interested in either good policy or good management. They want to ram their agenda through and slow down only when the negative reaction is overwhelming, and sometimes not even then.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This government is determined to download the cost of just about every provincial service it can to the municipal property taxpayers. The Minister of Transportation has repeatedly tried to justify his government's downloading of highway maintenance to municipal taxpayers by arguing that the roads he is transferring to municipal responsibility "no longer serve provincial purposes." In other words, they are really local traffic roads only.

If this is the reasoning the minister uses, how on earth can he justify including Highway 17, or Causley Street, through the town of Blind River in the list of roads to be downloaded to Blind River taxpayers? Highway 17 is the Trans-Canada Highway. It not only continues to serve provincial purposes, but indeed it serves national purposes. Highway 17 does not bypass Blind River. Causley Street is not a B-designated provincial highway; it is the main provincial highway. In fact, it's the main street for our nation of Canada. Highway 17, or Causley Street, through Blind River is not a local road.

The provincial government was responsible for paying 90% of the maintenance cost under a connecting-link agreement. Now the government has unilaterally cancelled the funding and downloaded 100% of the maintenance costs to Blind River taxpayers, even though Highway 17 continues to serve trans-Canada traffic. This road is not a local road. The provincial government --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

FIRE SERVICE AWARDS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On April 10, 1997, 17 firefighters from Mississauga were recognized for 25 years of service in Ontario's 135th long service medal investiture.

First awarded in 1971, the Fire Services Long Service Medal is an expression of public appreciation for the dedication and hard work of Ontario's firefighters. In addition to the medal, each recipient receives a citation signed by the fire marshal of Ontario. Both full-time and volunteer firefighters can qualify for the medal.

The medal recipients in Mississauga's fire department were Bill Bayliss, Jerry Brouwer, Gary Denny, Cliff Evans, Leo Ewing, Frank Gabrek, Jim Herridge, Roy Jones, Gord MacCannell, Glen McAlpine, Mark McDonald, Kris Nicholls, Bob Read, Herb Sanderson, Bob Smith, Harold Taylor and Clay Waite.

On behalf of all residents of Mississauga, I am honoured to congratulate these 17 long-serving firefighters for their fortitude, valour and commitment to public service. Every day our firefighters risk their lives in order to protect us. We owe them our deepest admiration and gratitude.

TRANSLATION SERVICES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): We know how this government is philosophically driven to privatize and outsource every possible service on which Ontarians have come to depend. This is the case even with abundant evidence that delivery of those services will suffer as a result.

Against all reason and common sense, the government refuses to take advantage of the expertise of its own civil service, which has always provided impeccable service to the people of Ontario. As a direct result, the government is permitting huge errors to be made at considerable cost to the taxpayers of Ontario. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars were spent to print last week's budget documents.

Forty-six thousand of those documents now have to be reprinted by the Ministry of Finance because hundreds of errors in transcription and translation make them virtually useless. These simple errors, that didn't need to happen, prove the government to be incompetent in what should be routine matters. What then can we assume of the bigger issues?

J'introduis cette motion et je demande aujourd'hui à l'Assemblée, et spécialement au gouvernement conservateur, de reconnaître qu'ils ont une responsabilité en tant que gouvernement de faire sûr que tous les francophones de la province soient traités d'une manière égale, faisant affaire avec les services de la province, aux anglophones.

Je demande spécialement au ministre délégué aux affaires francophones de l'autre bord de finalement ouvrir ses oreilles, ouvrir son esprit et commencer un peu d'écouter la communauté francophone et prendre sa responsabilité, en tant que ministre délégué aux affaires francophones, de s'assurer à ce que les francophones soient entendus au Cabinet de l'Ontario. Jusqu'à date, je crains beaucoup qu'à ce point-ci nous, francophones, nous trouvons dans une situation très délicate faisant affaire avec ce gouvernement parce que personne ne veut écouter les affaires qui concernent notre communauté.

ERIC HOLMDEN

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have the honour today of rising to recognize Mr Eric Holmden, a constituent of Northumberland, as the new chair of the Organization of Small Urban Municipalities, commonly known as OSUM.

OSUM is a major

section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which works to address the problems of small urban municipalities. Members of OSUM are those municipalities with populations of less than 50,000 and townships with an urban interest.

Mr Holmden has for many years actively contributed to his community, which includes service club work in the Campbellford Lions Club and also playing a significant role in local politics. He is currently a member of the Campbellford town council and has served for the past four years on the OSUM executive committee.

I'm sure that everyone in the Ontario Legislature joins with me in congratulating him on his new role as chair of the Organization of Small Urban Municipalities and extending to him best wishes for a most successful year. Mr Holmden's extensive experience will no doubt ensure this accomplishment as he works to represent the concerns of his greater community of the urban municipalities in Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY MAILING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My statement is to the Minister of Health. Some very disturbing information has come to my attention regarding a very strange coincidence between the mailing list at the Ministry of Health and the one at the PC Party office.

A few weeks ago, a constituent of mine requested information concerning health care cuts from the Ministry of Health. Some time later, she received from the ministry the publication Putting the Patient First. Shortly thereafter, my constituent, someone who has no party affiliation and has never received direct mail from a political party, received a fund-raising letter from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

This begs the question: Does the Ontario PC Party have access to mailing lists at the Ministry of Health? I find it to be a very strange coincidence that someone who has never been a member of a political party, never received direct mail from a party, would receive a Tory join-the-party letter only days after making her request for information using the ministry's special 1-800 line.

Of course, what is even more surprising is the fact that the Ontario PC Party would think that anyone concerned about health care would even consider donating to the party that has shut down scores of hospitals across Ontario. Nevertheless, I wonder if the minister would offer this House an explanation as to how these mailing lists could contain such similarities.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is on downloading. This Tory government's so-called revenue-neutral strategy for downloading responsibilities is anything but neutral. Communities all across Ontario are struggling to find a solution to the huge mess this government has created. In every riding municipalities and residents are getting more and more divided. Many feel the local municipalities shouldn't be doing the province's dirty work. After all, reducing the number of municipalities is a provincial wish, not a municipal one. Others fear that if they don't participate in an amalgamation study, they won't be in line for the $1-billion municipal transition fund.

Who is right? There is no way to know because this government is intentionally leaving us in the dark. What we know, though, is that the mega-week announcements will quickly add up to a huge shortfall. For example, Smooth Rock Falls, a municipality in my riding with a population of 2,100, is facing an estimated $485,000 shortfall and, to make up the difference, the municipality will have to raise taxes by about 30%.

When Minister Leach is saying that there will be no tax increase because of the downloading -- well, I cannot say that he is not telling the truth, because that wouldn't be acceptable in this House. However, I would certainly like to invite --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Cochrane North, it isn't acceptable in the House. That means you can't say it, so you have to withdraw it.

Mr Len Wood: I withdraw that particular comment. But people are very much concerned that Minister Leach --

The Speaker: Thank you.

ROYAL WEEK

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise to remind members of the House today that the week before Victoria Day is designated as Royal Week. Organized by the Monarchist League of Canada, Royal Week is punctuated by numerous events that increase our awareness of and appreciation for our constitutional monarchy in Canadian history and contemporary life.

Royal Week culminates on Victoria Day, which, this year, commemorates the 178th anniversary of the birthday of Queen Victoria and the 71st birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada. In addition, we mark the 50th wedding anniversary of the Queen and Prince Philip. We are also celebrating 500 years of the monarchy in Canada with the arrival of Giovanni Caboto here in 1497, an anniversary which the Queen herself will honour with her presence among us in June.

The Queen's birthday parade in Toronto, the largest outside of Britain, is ably run by the Ontario chairman of the Monarchist League, Gary Toffoli. Joining me in the House today is the Dominion vice-chairman, Arthur Bousfield. On behalf of the government of Ontario, I congratulate you, Mr Bousfield, and all of your members for your excellent work.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to join so many other Canadians on Victoria Day in celebrating our royal heritage and in renewing our pledge of loyalty to our sovereign. God save the Queen.

ANNUAL REPORT INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 1996 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and has to do with Ipperwash. We are tabling today some new evidence of government interference in the OPP operation at Ipperwash. The Premier has said on several occasions that the OPP operated with no government input, no direction or advice, that the OPP handled Ipperwash all on their own.

We now have a transcript between the commanding officer, Mr Linton, and his superior officer, the transcript taken about an hour and a half before the fatal shooting. It shows that the government, for whatever reason, decided to overrule the OPP wishes and to direct them on action.

Here is one quote from this transcript. The superintendent, Parkin, is saying, "It was our intention to get a certain type of injunction; however, they," the government, "went from that, that regular type of injunction to the emergency type which, you know, isn't really in our favour." He went on to say, "We" the OPP "want a little bit more time."

Premier, this is clear evidence of the government interference in the OPP operation.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We did not interfere. Those are matters for the Attorney General and the OPP to work out. We accepted their advice and sought an injunction.

Mr Phillips: The evidence shows different. As I say, it's a transcript from the commanding officer indicating the OPP wanted to do one thing and the government directed otherwise.

I want to go on in the transcript to further evidence of the government interference in the OPP operation. Recognize, again, this was a government that had been in office for two months. The OPP clearly worried about this government. Rather than a hands-off approach, it is clear the OPP felt that they were under a microscope from the government.

Another quote from the superintendent. He goes on to say, "There was a rumour that was circulated, not from the OPP but from other government officials hanging around the OPP command post." He then says, "That rumour got to Queen's Park and then the Deputy Solicitor General's office, so there was concern that, you know, maybe we weren't doing the right thing." In other words, the superintendent is saying the government doesn't feel they're doing the right thing.

If the government and the cabinet were taking a hands-off approach, why would the commanding officer feel that, at the Deputy Solicitor General level, there was concern that maybe the OPP --

Hon Mr Harris: I can't speak for rumours at the staff level.

Mr Phillips: None of this is rumour. I am prepared to table today the transcript. None of this is rumour. This is all the OPP commanding officer and his superior. The issue at Ipperwash is clear to us. This was the first incident between your new government and the first nations. It was clear that this was going to be the way that you determined and defined how you dealt with the first nations. Unfortunately, it all got completely out of hand, Premier, and now you, personally, have to live with that. Ontario has a right to know the government's involvement in this very sad episode. Will you commit today to a public inquiry so all of Ontario can know exactly what happened that day?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member is well aware that in opposition you can be irresponsible, quote rumours and draw innuendo from wherever you are. In government, unfortunately, you actually have to be responsible and you have to understand the justice system following its course. As I have said, the legal advice I have is that we should await the conclusion of those cases before taking any decision on inquiry.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Minister, yesterday we began the debate on your bill to eliminate tenant protection in Ontario, the tenant rejection legislation in Ontario. In the debate yesterday you suggested to this House that you're maintaining a system of rent control, that there's protection of rent control. Yet we have been faced in this House and in other places with quotes from you to the effect of -- I quote directly from a speech to the Ontario Home Builders' Association: "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rent control has got to go."

Yesterday you said you're protecting tenants; that there will be rent control. And then on October 3, 1995, in this Legislature you said to the member across, "Yes, eventually we will be eliminating rent control." Then on May 13, 1996, in this House you said, "We will be eliminating rent control." Which is it, Minister? Have you protected tenants and kept rent control or have you eliminated it with Bill 96?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Rent control will be maintained for anyone remaining in their existing unit. When the tenant moves, the landlord would have the ability to negotiate a new rent with a new tenant. So rent control remains from that aspect. When the new tenant moves in, the rent control goes back on, as the member will knows.

However, on new construction, on new buildings that will be put up as a result of this legislation and other moves this government is making, new buildings will be exempt from rent control. From a standpoint of rent control being off any rental accommodation, that is correct. So will rent control go? Yes, rent control will go off any new construction forever. Will rent control remain to protect existing tenants? Yes, it will.

Mr Duncan: Minister, you are explaining nothing but a smokescreen to remove every protection that tenants in the province of Ontario have. You have a flawed piece of legislation. You have a piece of legislation that doesn't address any of the issues you say you're addressing. Yesterday in this House you said that your bill will increase investment in housing in Ontario.

I'd like to quote from the Lampert report, your own report, which says: "The majority of landlords and landlord groups that appeared before the committee concur: Scrapping rent controls alone will not encourage the building of new rental stock.... The New Directions policy will not create new housing."

You have said you're protecting tenants, that you're going to create investment, yet in your own words you're eliminating rent control. In the words of every major group in this province that develops affordable housing, there will be no new housing stock. Will you admit now that you're not only not protecting tenants, you're rejecting tenants and doing nothing for affordable housing?

Hon Mr Leach: Nothing could be further from the truth. We are protecting tenants, as we said. The existing rent control formula, the rent control formula that was developed by the previous government, will remain in place. That is a 2.8% rent cap this year, as long as they remain in their existing accommodation. Once a tenant moves, the landlord would have the ability to negotiate a new rent with a new tenant, and as I said, on any new construction there will be no rent controls.

You're absolutely right: Will the change in the Rent Control Act promote new construction? By itself, it will not. But with all the other favourable steps this government has taken, it will.

Mr Duncan: We would submit that the only formula in this bill is a formula to intimidate tenants and force them out of their homes or jack up their rents so high that they can no longer afford to live there. By government's own statistics, in this province, particularly in our large urban centres, many more people pay more than 30% of their income than can afford to. Minister, your formula is a formula for leaving them unprotected. Your bill will not -- not -- create investment.

How do you propose to this House and to the vulnerable tenants in this province that you will protect their interests once there's no rent control? Many groups have said, Lampert included, that the market will not bear the current rental rates, that rents can go up as much as 3000%. Laugh, Minister; it's your report that said that.

Why don't you admit your bill is flawed, that you're abandoning tenants, and get back on track in this House with a bill that will protect tenants in this city and right across Ontario?

Hon Mr Leach: I do find that quite humorous, to say that rents are going to go up 3000%. Get serious and get real. If you want to talk about it, the Todd report found that most rent control units are close to market levels right now. Keeping rents artificially controlled protects units, not tenants. We want to protect tenants.

Now he's going to say it affects low-income people. Let's quote Mr John Sewell, that leader of democracy, who said: "Many people assume that rent control is there to protect lower-income tenants in the units they rent. It's the upper-income tenants who get the most benefit from rent control."

The changes we're making in rent control will protect tenants. It will also generate investment in new buildings. It's something that has been long overdue. Your party recommended that the same changes, or many of the same changes, to the rent control bill take place in your little red book.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. In Tuesday's budget, the Minister of Health claimed that the Conservative government is spending more on patient care. He tried to pass off the cost of laying off nurses and the cost of shutting down hospitals as funding for patient care. On the same day, he axed the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel, the body which is supposed to help laid-off health care workers find new work in the health care system. On Thursday we found out that you actually cut patient care in this province in order to find the money to pay for the physicians' agreement.

Minister, with the patient care budget being cut and with 11,000 health care workers losing their jobs in the year, why did you do away with the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): That's the most bizarre question in the world. First of all, he gives no example of cutting patient care, but he says money to doctors so they can look after patients isn't patient care. OHIP money is patient care. Doctors use the money to render services to patients. They're a significant part of the health care system -- news over there.

With respect to HSTAP, there's not one reason in the world why HSTAP should dissolve given that we've asked it to move to highest quality, best price and be one of the many brokers out there that hospitals can use part as of this $2 billion extra money from the treasury to help them restructure. Highest quality, best price. If HSTAP is as good as they're telling you they are, as good as they're telling me they are, there's not one reason in the world why they shouldn't continue to be in business.

Mr Hampton: The minister continues to try to miss the point, and the point is this: There is no new money in the health care system for patient care. You're taking money from elsewhere in the system and using it to pay for the physicians' settlement. There is no new money; a significant portion of that money will come from other areas of the ministry which would have devoted their funding to patient care.

You can't use money required to lay off nurses for patient care, you can't use money required to shut hospitals for patient care, and you can't use money required to increase doctors' incomes for patient care. The money can only be used once; it can't be recycled three times.

The point is that out of all this, out of all your cuts, literally thousands of health care workers are losing their jobs. You've also done away with the one body that could connect laid-off health care workers with new opportunities in the community sector or elsewhere. How are you going to coordinate this? How are laid-off health care workers going to find new jobs elsewhere in health care when you've destroyed the body that was supposed to do that?

Hon Mr Wilson: I agree with the honourable member that we're going through a period where the health care workers in this province, like other provinces, and like Britain and Australia and the rest of the world, need our understanding, but to give a monopoly to one agency called the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel is an insult to every community college in this province, every university, every educational institution, every private sector training group, every consulting firm that offers retraining and educational services in this province.

To give a monopoly to one agency might have been your style of government, for whatever reasons you had, but this government, when there's $2 billion to be spent on restructuring above the new level of health care of $17.8 billion -- a record for this province to be spent on patient services. The fact is that we're saying to HSTAP, "There's not one reason you can't become as competitive as community colleges, as competitive as private sector agencies, to help broker retraining services in this province."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, the issue here is the coordination and the registry of jobs. That's the important issue. Last month alone 1,134 health care workers were laid off from hospitals in Ontario, and over 10,000 have been laid off during the last year because of your budget cuts and because you made hospitals put them in place before you got to restructuring. We're talking about real people here, people like Debbie Linton from Windsor, who only agreed to her severance package because she was assured that HSTAP would be there.

These employees need the job registry. They need a coordinated effort to find them jobs in the other sectors that are opening as a result of restructuring. What you've done is to destroy their opportunities. They want to know where the retraining money is in your restructuring funds. They want to know where the coordination is and where the registry is going to be. They want to know, do you really have a plan or are you just flying by the seat of your pants in terms of this, the way you are with everything else in health care?

Hon Mr Wilson: We're working very closely with the Ontario Hospital Association to make sure there isn't just one agency that 208 hospitals have to buy their services from, but that everybody else who is in this business has an opportunity --

Mrs Boyd: The employers; give it to the employers.

Hon Mr Wilson: I don't think one agency can handle the hundreds of millions' of dollars worth of retraining and educational costs --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: If HSTAP takes the opportunity to compete with all the other agencies out there, there's no reason it wouldn't be the number one choice of hospitals. We're talking about freedom of choice for hospitals to facilitate their employees moving to the new jobs being created in health care as the system expands and as we put new money into the system.

The registry, I agree with the honourable member, is an important part. We've already said that will be preserved. It doesn't have to be just in the hands of one agency. There are other ways to ensure we have a province-wide registry so that all people have access to it.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. On February 21 your Minister of Transportation said that the problem of wheels flying off trucks and killing people was "a very serious problem that shows no signs of improving and one that can't wait any longer." He said, "The dramatic increase in truck wheel separations and the seriousness of this offence has prompted me to move forward on this matter alone."

That was February 21. The minister then introduced a truck safety bill on Monday, February 24, saying he wanted it passed by Thursday, February 27. You have now spent the last three and a half months sitting on that bill while the wheels keep flying off trucks.

Premier, you've got a majority. You ram legislation through this House all the time. Can you tell us why in February truck safety was a big priority for your government and now, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter? Where's your bill?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am sure the minister would like a chance to respond, or perhaps the House leader. But let me tell you something on behalf of this government and this cabinet and this caucus and this minister. Nobody has taken a more aggressive stance than this minister has on truck safety, leading Canada, leading jurisdictions, I would argue, across North America. Nobody has done more than he has done.

Yes, there was a window where we could have had that bill debated. Both opposition parties, as I recall, wanted hearings. Both wanted hearings. Now one has said they don't want hearings and the other has said they do. But there was a window in the previous session, even though that session was for other purposes, to deal with one part of an extensive, comprehensive truck bill. You turned that down. You refused that offer.

Now we are faced with that bill, plus a comprehensive bill to be introduced shortly that will require hearings, and we accept that process. So this bill will become law when --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much, Premier.

Mr Hampton: We just got an admission from the Premier that all the nonsense, all the bragging back in February is just that and nothing more: a bunch of hot air. You came forward with a half-baked bill, you and the minister went out and told everyone about how much you care about truck safety, and you've done nothing, absolutely nothing. You've had three and a half months when you could have brought this bill forward and had it passed, and you've done absolutely nothing about it. It was a bunch of hot air we heard.

I am going to give you another chance, Premier. We'll debate the bill today. We'll debate the bill tomorrow. You bring this legislation in and we'll debate it and we'll get it through the House. If you care about truck safety, bring it in the House now. Bring it in today.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to say, on behalf of the minister and the House leader, that you had a chance to move forward. You had a chance to work with us, to work in cooperation, to do one piece of the truck safety bill, and you refused it at that time. Let me say I'm not imputing motive. I think your argument at the time was that it needed hearings, needed thought.

You've called it a half-baked bill. I don't think it's a half-baked bill; I think it's a very serious bill, and I don't know why you would refer to it as half-baked. But you asked for hearings and we accepted that advice. We said, "Yes, we will have hearings."

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask the opposition members to come to order. The leader of the third party and the member for Cochrane North, please come to order. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: You asked for hearings. This is not a government that jams through any legislation. If you want hearings, we have hearings. If you want debate, we have debate. You're getting your way.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, and I think the record will show, we've probably had more hearings and more debate on legislation than any other government on record. But I want to say this: We had two sessions with two breaks. We had the session of January, February and March, and then we had the spring session. We have two truck safety bills. We had an opportunity to separate them out. We lost that opportunity -- for whatever reason; you wanted hearings then -- but we still have an opportunity and time we believe to debate one comprehensive truck safety bill. This bill will be included in it as we were not able to get it through in the last session, and we will have hearings as you wish.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The Premier is trying to tell us his is a government that doesn't jam things through this House. We're starting to feel like burnt toast, you've jammed so much stuff through this House. Come on, give your head a shake. We've seen you on Bill 103, we've seen you on Bill 26, we've seen you on Bill 7, we've seen you on a whole bunch of legislation hijack democracy in this House and jam all --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Listen, Premier, you're the government. You're the person who decides when legislation gets called in this House. That's why you were elected. That's the majority you have. I'm going to ask you once again, really simply, the same question I asked the Minister of Transportation yesterday. We asked on Thursday and we asked yesterday for unanimous consent to deal with the legislation forthwith. Will you accept that we have unanimous consent in order to deal with this very important legislation today?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the voters in 1995 concurred with the former Premier's daughter that you were toast and why you were toast, and it's the policies that you brought in over the previous four and a half years that explain why you as a government are toast.

Secondly, let me say this: We had a legislative window to do two truck safety bills this spring, one in the first session, one in the second. We lost that opportunity. We regret that. Clearly, for whatever reason -- and I accept the fact that you wanted hearings on it -- your leader thinks it was a half-baked bill. Your leader says it's a half-baked bill. He didn't like it and you wanted hearings on it. That's fine. Now we will have hearings on that and we will have hearings on a more comprehensive truck safety bill, and we will do that in this session. That will be introduced and debated at that time.

That's a logical way to deal with legislation. I thank you for your offer of support to deal with the large bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Premier as well, because he's the person with the ultimate power in the government. In the past several months, for instance, people have been killed or injured on the highways of this province by flying truck wheels. In February, you will recall, with a good deal of bluster and fanfare, your Minister of Transportation called that press conference and said he wanted to proceed with legislation to deal with the matter.

At every House leaders' meeting I have brought forward the issue of Bill 125 and asked the government when it wished to deal with the legislation dealing with truck safety. Your government has refused to call the bill for processing.

Today you want to debate a bill ending rent control in Ontario, much to the distress of seniors in this province and other vulnerable people. You have three years left to kill rent control. The truck wheels can kill people today, any hour, any minute of any day.

Premier, you have an undertaking from both opposition parties, a public undertaking, that this bill will pass extremely quickly. Will you call this bill today for consideration and passage in this House?

Hon Mr Harris: Aside from the fact that most agreements we've negotiated as House leaders have not been lived up to by one party or another, and I can appreciate from the Liberal viewpoint that it's mostly been the New Democratic Party, what we are interested in now, having lost the window for one piece of truck safety, is dealing with the comprehensive bill. That will be introduced shortly. I accept your commitment to deal with the whole bill in a comprehensive way. I accept, as the House leader and the minister have, your desire to have hearings. We will do that.

In the meantime, let's get on with getting construction going, let's get on with protection for tenants, let's get on with some of the other legislation. We will deal with truck safety, as we planned to do, this session.

Mr Bradley: Premier, clearly your Minister of Transportation is embarrassed. He's forced to make up stories in the scrum outside. He's forced to give less-than-desirable answers in this House. Clearly he wants to proceed with this legislation. Every party in this House wants to proceed with this legislation. People are beginning to believe that some powerful interests opposed to this legislation have gotten to you and you are now preventing the Minister of Transportation from proceeding with this bill.

Premier, people could be killed on the highway today, any hour, any minute of this day. This is a danger to the people of this province. The opposition is prepared to pass this bill today in the Legislative Assembly, and yet you for some reason seem to want to withdraw that bill, to not proceed with that bill, but to move forward with other legislation that you have three years to pass. Premier, will you follow what the member for Windsor-Walkerville has suggested yesterday, that we proceed with this bill immediately, that we pass this bill and that we deal with truck safety in this province in the interests of all parties and all people in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say this: You had 10 years, five years in your party, five years in that party, when you did absolutely nothing. You have private members' hour where you refuse to bring anything forward. You had an opportunity in the last session. You had an opportunity to bring it forward and deal with it. You had an opportunity to deal with it quickly. You refused. You said you wanted hearings; we said: "Yes. We understand why you like hearings. We know that." So now we're here with one session and we have two bills. This isn't the only bill.

We have two bills brought forward by probably one of the most progressive ministers of transportation, certainly in the last 11 or 12 years around this province.

We are asking for your cooperation for this bill. We are asking for your cooperation with the comprehensive bill that will contain this. We are asking for your cooperation with the hearings. We're asking to get this legislation through the Legislature and on with it this spring. But don't come back here after --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. New question.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. The national forum on health, the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice and countless other research studies have presented compelling evidence that the number one determinant for poor health is poverty.

I was sorry you weren't in the press room this morning to hear the Street Nurses Network relate real-life cases concerning seniors, the disabled, single-parent families and youth, showing how your government's cuts to social assistance, subsidized child care, affordable housing, addiction services and home care services are plunging those unfortunate people into increasingly poor health. Minister, these cases illustrate that your government's policies are making the health status of vulnerable people more and more precarious and the costs of your policies are shifting social costs into the health system.

You tell us all the time that you want to improve the health system. How committed are you to improving the health of individual Ontarians, not just the efficiency of the health system?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): One of the greatest determinants of health is the opportunity for employment and to have a job. This government's record is extremely good in that area and we're heading to more jobs for the people of Ontario. Second, we've managed to do that in a way by protecting priorities, the priorities we took to the people in the election in 1995, and we have stuck to those priorities and exceeded our funding levels in health care.

You left this health care budget at $17.4 billion. We're up to $17.8 billion in operating dollars and $2 billion more to get us through the restructuring and fully protect and enhance patient services. Today, for example, we announced $25.1 million -- Mr Palladini and I were up at Villa Colombo -- for community-based services. That brings up to $54 million in home care services in the last 20 months, new money put into the home care services, much of what the people at the press conference for street people talked about today.

The fact of the matter is that we're putting unprecedented new money into expanded services in Metro Toronto and right across the province. Our reinvestment strategy is working, and rather than talking about --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister.

Mrs Boyd: That is scant comfort to the people we heard about this morning: the elderly woman who's all alone and confined to bed who gets two hours of service a day; the native homeless man who can get expensive acute care in a hospital when he self-mutilates, because of the pain in his background, and gets expensive addiction counselling when he's in desperate straits, but can't find a place to live and can't get enough food to eat; or about street youth whose potential is disappearing.

One of the nurses made a very clear comment, and I think she's right. She said: "Nowhere is the absurdity of Band-Aid approaches better exemplified than in this government's approach. Real common sense tells you that living in poverty and fear and isolation is hardly compatible with being healthy."

Minister, the policies of all these other ministers are impacting on your ministry. Will you commit today to look at these suggestions from the Street Nurses Network which tell you that your job is not just to improve the efficiency of the health system but to work with these other ministers to improve the determinants of health.

Hon Mr Wilson: If the honourable member truly believed in the five determinants of health, then I ask the honourable member, why did you rack up a $100-billion debt in this province which restrains the ability of government to respond?

We've set priorities. Other governments threw up their hands when they were faced with such problems. They threw up their hands. We said, "No, we'll set priorities, we'll get the books in order and at the same time we'll pump more money into health care," and that's what we're doing.

The previous government --

Mrs Boyd: You've abandoned the vulnerable.

Hon Mr Wilson: I don't need any lectures from this member. They kept talking about $23.5 million in a community investment fund. You didn't flow one dollar to help mental health services. We flowed the $23.5 million. It's all gone out now and there are new case management services --

Mrs Boyd: It was announced two years ago.

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, you did a great job of announcing it; you didn't flow one dollar, not one single dollar.

How can you have a $100-billion debt in the province and not spend any new money on community mental health, no beefing up of home care services, not one new nursing home bed added to the system in 10 years? You tell me what you did with all the money when you racked up $100 billion. It sure didn't go into services for people.

BOOK PUBLISHING

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last Tuesday in the budget the Minister of Finance announced a number of tax credit and tax reduction programs; in fact, there were 20. One of the programs he announced was a specific tax credit program for the book publishing industry. Minister, will you share with the House and the people of Ontario the reasons for the creation of this program?

What Mr Eves's program will do, and what his announcement last week said, is it will reward those publishers who invest their money in the development of first-time Canadian authors. That's good sense; that creates jobs.

Mr Pettit: I'm always pleased and I know the people of Hamilton Mountain are always pleased to know that taxpayers' money is being used more wisely, especially after the fiscal farces performed by the two previous governments.

Minister, can you explain to the House some of the expected results of this initiative and some of the reaction you have received from the publishing industry?

Hon Ms Mushinski: We expect that the tax credit announcement will encourage 60 to 70 Canadian-owned, Ontario-based publishing firms to publish the work of about 300 first-time Canadian authors this year. In fact, Margie Wolfe, who is the president of the Organization of Book Publishers of Ontario, said: "It will help us to introduce the next generation of Margaret Atwoods and Michael Ondaatjes to Canadians and readers throughout the world." Jack Stoddart, the president of the Association of Canadian Publishers, said about the budget, "The tone of the speech indicated that they're looking to create new industries and the new credits should generate new publishing business in the province."

That's what Mr Eves's budget was all about, creating new business, creating new jobs.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns new policy that the finance minister has been making in east Parry Sound. I'm delighted to report to the health minister that in recent days I've been to that wonderful community of Burk's Falls. I'm here to proclaim the good news of Burk's Falls, where he, Jim Wilson, and more importantly his colleague the Minister of Finance, the local member, Ernie Eves, have reopened Burk's Falls Hospital. I'm delighted. I'm absolutely delighted that in the realm of the Minister of Finance we have a very clear exception to the hospitals policy that's been imposed on the rest of us in Ontario.

My question is, having proclaimed the good news of Burk's Falls, will the people in Arnprior and Barry's Bay, in Winchester and Walkerville, in Petrolia and Meaford, have the benefit of the same kind of small-hospital policy that you, and more importantly your colleague the number two revolutionary, Ernie Eves, have happily applied to the east Parry Sound community health centre?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I've already answered this question many times. Burk's Falls, prior to the NDP coming to office, and while your government was in office, Mr Conway, had 15 beds. It was considered a small hospital. It's still on the books today as a small hospital except the NDP took all the beds away.

The case has been made. There was a community task force put together in 1995-96, I believe. It once again, for the umpteenth time, recommended that half a dozen beds should be back into that community to service people who have no other real alternatives. The doctors asked for it and the task force asked for it, so we're simply putting six -- they're not full-fledged hospital beds; they're a transitional type bed -- back into Burk's Falls. It makes good sense for rural Ontario.

Mr Conway: I've read the answer you provided two weeks ago and let me tell you, I'm not allowed by parliamentary rules to tell you what I thought about your answer to Ms Boyd. I've been to Burk's Falls in recent days. I know exactly what you and the Minister of Finance have done. I, for one, applaud the local member because he told you and your Health Services Restructuring Commission to go to hell.

What I want to know on behalf of the people in Barry's Bay and Arnprior, and yes, in Petrolia and Walkerton and Meaford and Port Colborne and all of those other small hospitals and their communities, are they going to be allowed the kind of treatment that has saved Burk's Falls Hospital?

Ernie Eves has said he's not going to accept your process and your policy, not just in terms of small hospitals in east Parry Sound, but I might add in home care policy. He told you where to go with your CCAC in Parry Sound, and he was right there too. So for all those other small communities from Arnprior to Petrolia, from Barry's Bay to Meaford, it's Burk's Falls or bust. Will they get the same treatment from you and your pal the Minister of Finance?

Hon Mr Wilson: No area of the province is outside the jurisdiction of the Health Services Restructuring Commission. That is very clear in the law.

Secondly, this member has a lot of gall. His government, when they were in office, sent 34 district health councils out there to do some 60 studies with absolutely no benchmarks, no policy, no policy guidelines, for rural Ontario, so no wonder the NDP came in and closed the hospitals and took all the beds out of Burk's Falls, because there was no rural health care policy.

For the first time we have set up an expert panel. That policy will be ready soon and the commission and others looking at voluntary restructuring, as we see in parts of the province, will for the first time have some benchmarks, some policy guidelines, and we won't have DHCs out there in 34 different places doing 34 different things. That's good news for rural Ontario, it's good news for Burk's Falls and it's good news for --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Following up to the Minister of Health from the previous question, I would like to ask the minister, is he aware -- I suppose he is -- that Women's College Hospital released its response to the health sector restructuring commission yesterday? Its response illustrates once again the flexibility this institution is willing to bring to the issues posed by your government's cost-cutting machine.

Women's College Hospital has put forth yet another possible solution, and it's a good one, to maintain a critical focus on women's health which achieves the cost savings you require.

Minister, will you intervene, like you have for the Minister of Finance, like you have for rural areas, like you have for Montfort Hospital, and save Women's College Hospital?

Hon Mr Wilson: Mr Speaker, the honourable member would be asking the honourable member to break the law, and you should rule that out of order. That is not allowed in a Parliament. You are not allowed to coerce another member into breaking the law. The law is clear that this commission is at arm's length.

Women's College has put forward -- I saw the media reports too; I don't have a copy of their proposal, but they're welcome to send me a copy of their proposal. Women's College is doing what it should be doing during this period of time, along with other hospitals. It's responding to the interim direction from the commission and the commission will make the final determination.

Ms Churley: I wonder if the minister is going to send in the police and have me arrested today for breaking the law, for asking the minister to defend women's health in Ontario. That's what I ask the minister to do today, and you can no longer hide behind this commission. More and more evidence is showing up every day about that. You have intervened all over the place, I think for good reason. The same principles apply here.

Minister, we are talking about women's health, and women make up 52% of the population. The evidence is there right in front of you. There are differences in drug treatment, diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and a treatment related specifically to gender. These differences have been ignored far too long by the medical community. You now have the potential, if you let the commission go ahead with this, to destroy the potential for further research and clinical procedures as have been pioneered by Women's College Hospital.

Minister, will you -- and I ask you again; I am not breaking the law -- save Women's College Hospital? Because the women of this province will not put up with your --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The premise I believe of the honourable member's question is -- she asked the question, "What have you done for women's health?" Well, the question could be asked, "What did you do for women's health?"

The honourable finance minister announced last week $6 million for a new women's health institute. That grows to $10 million. It's what the interim recommendations of the commission have recommended. Those are significantly more research dollars for women's health programs than have ever been put in place in this province or any other jurisdiction in Canada.

On March 8 the vice-president of research at the University of Toronto, who is cross-appointed to Women's College, said, "If the province accepts Thursday's recommendation by the Health Services Restructuring Commission to earmark $8 million to $10 million annually for research on women's health issues it would represent a significant improvement in the area." So said Cecil Yip, vice-dean of research in the school's medical facility.

"You are seeing an expansion in terms of research on women's health," Yip said. "It's about five times the amount they have ongoing there at Women's College right now. It will be really boosted" --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the minister responsible for natural resources. Recently, at the 17th annual Kiwanis live release walleye derby --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Riverdale, come to order, please. Member for Riverdale, I warn you to come to order.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have to take the chair.

The Speaker: Then you'd better come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is nothing sacred? That's what I ask. Member for Quinte.

Mr Rollins: Recently, the 17th annual Kiwanis rural walleye live release fishing derby was held in my riding in the beautiful Bay of Quinte. Despite the brutal weather, over 5,000 people registered for that weekend. Anglers in that area of the sports fishermen play a significant role in the economy of my riding. Could you please tell me, Minister, what you're doing with the fees you're collecting from the many anglers in the Quinte area?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Quinte for the question. It is an important question. But first, I'd like to express our appreciation to the tournament organizers. We're pleased they had such a successful tournament, enjoying the fishing opportunities in Quinte.

The member raised a good question that for years anglers and others have asked, that the dollars they spend for licences and other fees go towards wildlife and natural resource management and fishery improvement in this province. Past governments have said this was impossible. As you know, the Mike Harris government has made it possible. They've created a special purpose account to collect all the fishing fees to be used for fish and wildlife management inside the province. This was a commitment we made in the 1995 election and I am pleased to say that we've honoured it and it's working quite well.

Mr Rollins: I know that you collect significant revenues from these fishing and hunting fees. What types of programs are you funding with these dollars?

Hon Mr Hodgson: It's very important that we hear from people who are involved in the outdoors, the people who hunt and fish. For that reason, I created the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board comprising 11 individuals throughout the province to give advice on how this money should be put to good use and how we can improve our programs within the Ministry of Natural Resources.

We've already put the money to good use and a number of their recommendations have been followed, including putting in more money than ever in the province's history to the community fisheries involvement program, commonly referred to as CFIP, and the community wildlife involvement program, referred to as CWIP. These programs support dedicated individuals and groups who are active in areas such as fish culturing, stocking projects, spawning bed restorations and stream projects. We've also increased the stocking of chinook salmon and rainbow trout in Lake Ontario and have re-established the Ontario coho program, which was cancelled back in 1991.

We are active in a number of other areas, as well as working to promote a new interest in fishing and conservation throughout Ontario. I thank you very much for the opportunity to inform the House.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health, although with some trepidation because I really would rather have the Minister of Finance, who seems to be more effective in terms of dealing with health matters in this province.

I'd like to ask you, Minister, about your record as the putative Minister of Health, particularly towards the people who work in the health system in this province. In your actions in enacting the Harris hospital cuts, another $435 million this year, you personally, abetted by the Premier, have laid off thousands of nurses and health care workers. Now, after having done that, you've taken away the only labour adjustment program that they have.

Today, you need to stand in your place and explain to Ontarians how you are disrespecting nurses. Right in Nurses Week, you've taken away the one labour adjustment program they have. You've stolen that from them. You need to stand in your place today and say how much money you are going to put towards retraining, which you guarantee, and who the nurses and the health care workers that you've unemployed, that you've sent pink slips to, turn to for help.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It's interesting. I started Nurses Week by having a round table with the nursing associations in this province, hosted Monday morning by the registered nurses' association. They presented me with a framed poster commemorating Nurses Week and we had nothing but a positive hour and a half together, including a discussion on HSTAP.

They agreed that there shouldn't be one monopoly, that with the amount of change that is occurring in the system there should be a number of avenues open for both employers and employees to receive these benefits and the retraining allowances and yes, a central registry.

I don't know where the honourable member is making up these fears. They are not coming from the registered nurses' association, the nursing home association, the non-profit homes association. I will get the list of the 15 or 16 groups represented. This morning I met with region 3 of the Ontario Hospital Association, which is all of the Metro Toronto hospitals, at a downtown hotel -- a packed room, extremely positive. They were very appreciative of the finance minister's and the Premier's understanding in terms of setting aside huge amounts of money for restructuring.

Mr Kennedy: It's almost with regret that I follow up that question because that is such a sad answer in the face of the concerns of people in this province. It doesn't in the least start to address what people like Phil Walke are feeling. Mr Walke accepted a severance deal on March 26 from Sick Kids' Hospital. Sick Kids' Hospital is a hospital on which you personally enacted a Harris hospital cut of $26 million. You precipitated his unemployment. He was given this letter and in this letter it said he would have access to a labour adjustment program, which you've just cancelled.

When he tried to find out about what to do next, he called your office. Your office didn't know what the plan was and told him to contact the OHA. The OHA didn't know what the plan was and told him to call your office.

Mr Walke and 2,000 people are stuck in the system now, but more important to the people of Ontario, they want to know why you're disrespecting nurses and other health care professionals. What are you going to do for them?

Hon Mr Wilson: The Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel has every ability in the world to stay in the business it's in today. It has to recognize that there are other agencies out there. It has to recognize that many of the large hospitals are equipped to purchase these services directly from community colleges and they don't need to spend money on middlemen or middle layers of bureaucracy. They're quite efficient. They know what their employees want and need. They're closest to their employees. They'll work with their employees. The hospitals can do that very directly. Hospitals are very large institutions. A lot of them don't need a broker to access services.

To have a monopoly is never healthy. Hospitals have said that. The nursing home association has said that. All of the contracts, all of the letters of intent that are held by people from HSTAP will be --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent for the government to call forward Bill 125 so that we can debate this very important legislation today.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is seeking unanimous consent to call forward Bill 125 for debate today. Agreed? No. I heard a no.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that Mr Fox and Mr Young exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business; and that the House will commence at 11 am on Thursday, May 15, to discuss ballot item number 77 only.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Dispense? Carried.

PETITIONS

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "Whereas improper catch and release methods of sport fishing have long-lasting effects on any given body of water; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing netting during spawning season, which destroys spawning beds; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing any size of fish to be retained; and

"Whereas sport fishing of Lancaster perch and other breeds in the greater Cornwall area greatly benefit local tourism, fishing and the overall economy and will continue to do so if managed properly;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Ministry of Natural Resources to impose a seven-inch size limit on fish allowed to be kept, not allow netting during spawning season and also to reopen closed provincial parks in the area to encourage tourism and ensure vibrant long-term sport fishing in our area of eastern Ontario."

I fully agree with this petition and I affix my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from Pauline Johnston from the Grey Women Teachers' Association.

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control of schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and failure to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

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

"Whereas improper catch and release methods of sport fishing have long-lasting effects on any body of water; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing netting during spawning season, which destroys spawning beds; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing any size of fish to be retained; and

"Whereas sport fishing of Lancaster perch and other breeds in the greater Cornwall area benefit local tourism, fishing and the overall economy and will continue to do so if managed properly;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Ministry of Natural Resources to impose a seven-inch size limit on fish allowed to be kept, not allow netting during spawning season and also to reopen closed provincial parks in the area to encourage tourism and ensure a vibrant long-term sport fishing economy in eastern Ontario."

It's signed by 350 constituents.

LONDON PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition here that's signed by more than 50 outpatients from London Psychiatric Hospital, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the outpatients of London Psychiatric Hospital, declare our protest over the closure of London Psychiatric Hospital. We protest the closure of the London Psychiatric Hospital because it represents once again taking away from the sick, poor and defenceless while the rich get richer.

We believe that the closure of the London Psychiatric Hospital will be traumatic for patients, as it is unknown if this transitional period will be done in such a way as to maintain quality patient care. We worry that the government will not put in place community programs and are only concerned with slashing beds and programs, not in building up supports.

"We specifically protest the closure of London Psychiatric Hospital because of our doubts that an alternative to the well-run outpatient department at London Psychiatric Hospital will be as good or will ever present itself. At present, we receive inpatient treatment when needed and for the length required. We worry that this will not be available to us.

Will there be needless suicides because of bed shortages or the push to move people out of the hospital prematurely? One is left to wonder what is the primary motivation of the commission in closing psychiatric hospitals: money saving or patient care. Sad to say, but money appears the overriding concern and not the individual patients and concern for their lives."

I am pleased to affix my signature.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas 42% of all driving fatalities are alcohol-related;

"Whereas 565 persons died in alcohol-related crashes in Ontario in 1993, the most recent year for which statistics are available, and more than 26,000 drivers were charged with impaired driving in the same year;

"Whereas 63% of the total convictions for drunk driving in 1993 involved repeat offenders;

"Whereas every year drinking and driving costs Ontarians $1.3 billion in personal financial loss, medical expenses and property damage;

"Whereas the existing measures and penalties have failed to deter chronic impaired drivers from reoffending;

"Whereas driving is a privilege, not a right, and chronic impaired drivers have failed to take their driving responsibilities seriously;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact Margaret Marland's private member's bill,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Impaired Driving), 1996, or similar legislation, as soon as possible."

I'm happy to lend my support to this petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to it.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm pleased to present a petition forwarded to me by the United Steelworkers of America over the signature of Harry Hynd, the District 6 director, as well as Brad James, the organizing coordinator. It contains not only a petition but hundreds of letters signed by Steelworkers from all across Ontario and throughout District 6. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government added

section 14 to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, as part of Bill 7, the anti-worker bill, allowing employers to ask the Ontario Labour Relations Board to disregard the democratic choice of employees who seek union membership to better their working lives; and

"Whereas hundreds of employees of Burns International Security services in southwestern Ontario voted overwhelmingly to join the United Steelworkers over seven months ago; and

"Whereas Burns is using

section 14 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to deny collective bargaining to over 1,000 working men and women by wasting time in long hearings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board instead of sitting down at the bargaining table with their union, the United Steelworkers;

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

"That the Minister of Labour take immediate action to repeal

section 14 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and allow working people the chance for a better life."

I proudly add my name to these petitioners.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): "Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hereby sign this petition.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition signed by some 470 residents of Etobicoke.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are residents of Etobicoke who hold as of major importance the education of the young people of Ontario;

"Whereas we are committed that the control and accountability of the education system and the determination of educational priorities remain at the local level;

"Whereas we hold that Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, completely disregards the rights and opinions of the people of the province of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel that the Education Improvement Commission is being given sweeping powers that not only make it unaccountable for its actions, but also place it and its members above the law;

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

"Please cancel the proposed legislation to disband local boards of education, and cancel all plans to take away from local boards of education public accountability, determination of educational priorities and the power to raise education taxes through property taxes. Please disband the Education Improvement Commission with its arbitrary powers immediately in order to restore to this province the true democracy that the people of Ontario hold so dear."

I agree with the sentiments and have attached my signature.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition from the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government will introduce legislation to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and distribute a discussion paper about changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas the expected changes include erosion of the right to refuse unsafe work; workers will be forced to apply to their employer for WCB benefits and employers will decide if the claim is valid; reduction in power of the joint health and safety committees; and eliminate compensation for certain injuries and diseases; and

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Act is a vital protection for all workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act has prevented untold numbers of accidents and saved thousands from illness and diseases;

"We, the undersigned, therefore demand full public hearings throughout the province of Ontario on the Workers' Compensation Act proposed changes, and no changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, workers' right to refuse and joint health and safety committees."

I add my name to theirs.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have thousands of petitioners who have signed their names here. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the government of Ontario's cutbacks to public education."

The petitions also include a poem to the Minister of Education, which reads:

"Roses are red

"Violets are blue

"It's our $31 million

"It doesn't belong to you.

"Protect school programs, fund them adequately and keep public education public."

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The campaign to save TVOntario is carrying on at a remarkable rate and we have been getting petitions from all across the province, including the town of Pickle Lake in northwestern Ontario. I want to acknowledge Mr Ted Davies for putting together this petition. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVO is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVO continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

I thank Mr Davies and I'm happy to sign my name to this petition.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of privilege, Speaker: There was supposed to be a late show tonight between me and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He has informed me that neither he nor his parliamentary assistant can be available tonight and has asked that we move it to Thursday. I seek unanimous consent to move the late show requested by myself from tonight to Thursday to accommodate the minister's schedule.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Unanimous consent? Agreed.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Cochrane South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning highway maintenance contracts. This matter will be debated today at 6 o'clock.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Essex South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning assistance to flood victims. This matter will also be debated at 6 o'clock.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS DES EMPLOYÉS

Mr Sheehan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 131,

An Act to provide rights and freedoms to employees with respect to membership in trade unions or employees associations and representation by them / Projet de loi 131, Loi prévoyant des droits et des libertés pour les employés en ce qui concerne l'adhésion à un syndicat ou à une association d'employés et leur représentation par ceux-ci.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Would the member like to say a few words about the bill?

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): This is a modern piece of legislation that recognizes the challenges our workforce will face in the next millennium. It will prepare our labour market for the modern world. The bill is about restoring rights to workers. I believe workers have the fundamental right to choose how they are represented in the workforce.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Shame. Shame on you.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Sheehan: The act will facilitate new job expansion by allowing employers the flexibility to hire more staff.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 96,

An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies / Projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Fort York had the floor yesterday.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I am very pleased to continue the debate on Bill 96,

an act to protect tenants. The Tenant Protection Act it's called. It's a bit laughable, of course, because as everybody who came to the hearings last year knows, this is

an act that protects landlords, not tenants. There ought to a law against a bill that pretends to say one thing and does, in effect, in substance, another. Somebody ought to be able to outlaw such things, because you can't say governments lie or this minister lies or somebody else is lying. You can't say that. It makes it complicated for those of us who want to say it, because when you look at the substance of these bills, or many of these bills, the propaganda of the title says one thing but we know, as I will exfoliate this terrible onion, that it will show otherwise.

Today we heard the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing respond to a question with respect to his landlord protection act. He still maintains, they both maintain that this is a bill that's going to help tenants. In fact, the Premier said he needs to move on with the business of this House because he wants to get on to protecting tenants; he said that. That's why I say there ought to be a law against such things, because I would want to be able to say it isn't true.

Let me start, because I touched on this theme yesterday, with respect to the goals that M. Leach introduced in this House. These are the four goals. He said, and I may not have gotten all the words, but this is more or less the intent: To protect tenants was one of his goals, or at least the Premier's goal; to create a climate for investment; streamline the administration; and another one has to do with improving maintenance. I want to tackle each and every one of them.

The first one is creating a climate for investment. Yesterday I spoke about the fact that this bill will do nothing to stimulate the building of new housing, especially for those who can least afford it. I talked yesterday, when we had this discussion, about how many of the people who came in front of that committee last year when we had the hearings said this bill will do nothing to build new housing. Even the developers said that.

Developers came in front of that committee and I asked a question to a number of them because I was very concerned about whether we would have housing to house those who are being pushed out of the market by Conservative- or Reform-minded politics. I asked them, "Would you be building affordable housing?" Many of them said no; in fact, all of them said no.

I said, "If you are not building housing for those who can least afford it, and the government refuses to build housing for those who can least afford it, who's going to be building housing?" A number of developers who were there in front of the committee said: "That's not our business. Our business is not to worry about those who cannot afford existing housing or those who might in the future not be able to afford anything that might come on the market." It was none of their concern.

That's the problem we social democrats have with that point of view. The market does not take care of people in need; we know that. But Tories, Reform-minded Tories actually believe that the market can take care of the needy. That's where the falsehood comes into play, because they know the market cannot take care of those needs, but they constantly espouse the ideology that the market will in fact do that. We know it can't.

In British Columbia the Social Credit Party, a party that I believe is now virtually extinct, as I hope this party will become in the near future, pretty much advocated the same thing. Steve, this is what your friends said, because Social Crediters are by and large like you folks on the other side.

The Deputy Speaker: You shouldn't address the member by his first name. You address the member by his riding.

Mr Marchese: Through you, Speaker. Thank you very much, Speaker, for your intervention.

In 1983, this is what some of the Social Credit politicians said as they were about to rid themselves of rent control: "It's a renters' market. We move out of that field and as time goes on, new development will take place to fill the need for rental accommodation because landlords and developers are not bound by legislation as to what they can charge. As a result, there will be a reasonable vacancy rate in the future as well as now."

It goes on -- these are Social Credit people, very much similar to Tories in this Ontario Legislature -- and this person says: "The people out there want to be able to provide for themselves. The people in BC are hardworking people and they want to provide for themselves. But because the government has got involved in the marketplace so many times, it has destroyed the initiative of the people so today they don't know what they should be doing. This government has to get out of the marketplace so that these people can provide for themselves."

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a very important issue, rent control. We heard the Premier this afternoon talk about why it was necessary to get this piece of legislation through, but the government is not maintaining quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: The then consumer and corporate affairs minister in British Columbia -- the Social Credit Party all the time -- said:

"It is fair to say that this government identified this particular time as a window in which we could move to let the marketplace work and allow renters the opportunity to have available to them rental accommodation and have competition, as opposed to government intervention, in the marketplace. The competition of the marketplace will determine what price a person pays for an apartment. That's the way it should be."

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): You're getting it. That's the way it should be.

Mr Marchese: Monsieur Villeneuve, welcome. Nice to see you again today.

"The marketplace should be allowed to work. Behind the thrust of this bill and many other pieces of legislation we've brought before the House is this key, the fact that government has been too involved in the past."

Doesn't that sound familiar, Monsieur Villeneuve?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: You're getting it. It took you a while, but you're getting it.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): They like Socreds, though.

Mr Marchese: They love Social Credit because they're like kin, they're like cousins. They must feel sorry that the Social Credit has virtually become extinct. They should realize that the logic the Socreds applied, which is very much similar to the logic this government is applying now, didn't work. It didn't work.

It says here: "The BC minister responsible for rent control in 1983 asserted that `these deregulatory measures will ultimately result in new real estate development, more jobs and continuing healthy availability of rental accommodation.'"

I want to ask the fine, honourable members on the other side, who are listening attentively, to listen to this. Steve, thank you for listening.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): No, we aren't.

Mr Marchese: John, please.

"A dozen years later, British Columbia is home to the lowest vacancy rates and some of the highest rents in Canada."

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It also has the highest number of immigrants.

Mr Marchese: The what? The elimination of rent control did nothing --

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Fort York, address the Chair.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, I know you were busy talking to other members. I'm always addressing other members through you. I'm not sure what you want me to do.

The Deputy Speaker: You were exchanging remarks with the member for Scarborough East, which is not allowed. Address the Chair.

Mr Marchese: At the moment, I am speaking to them. I wasn't exchanging anything with them.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Fort York, you know too well.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker, for your kind interventions. We find it helpful from time to time.

I bring up this point to show several things. First of all, the Social Credit Party, now extinct, tried to do in 1983 what you are now doing: rely on the marketplace. You, who mythologize this wonderful marketplace to solve the human needs of our society -- it failed the British Columbians in 1983, and you fine, honourable people are trying to do it again to tenants in this province, all because you want to sit in the laps of the landlords as they pat you on the back to thank you for being kind servants to their needs.

It is a disgrace. It is the most pitiful thing to witness in this province. Your policies, tried by British Columbia's Social Credit, have failed. Your policies have failed through Mulroney, have failed through Thatcher, have failed through your friends in the US, and you continue to practise and espouse failed ideas. You continue to mythologize a marketplace that's failing a whole lot of people out there.

Your marketplace ideology has thrown one and a half million people out of work. That's what your party is all about. That's what your market is doing to people. Your market is downsizing everybody out of the workforce. You are doing it because you want to diminish the role of government. Well, I ask you to get out and let somebody else govern if you have no stomach to govern. That's the kind of politics you people espouse; you want less government intervention, to the extent that I say get out of the way.

If you don't want to govern and you don't want a healthy role for government to build housing for those in need, get out of the way, let somebody else do it. Don't stay in government to destroy essential needs the people have, and housing is an essential need. The garbage you espouse around creating a climate for investment didn't work in British Columbia and it won't work here.

The member for Nepean smiles -- I'm not sure -- in consternation about the things I say. This is factual stuff we speak of; we're not dreaming this up. Mr Lampert, the economist they hired, that Mr Leach hired, tells us that getting rid of rent control, which is what Bill 96 does, only takes $200 out of the $3,000 gap the private sector has to build per unit, so this isn't going to help their friends. Mr Leach now admits: "You're right. That's why we need to do more."

But do you know what "more" means? More means what they got in the 1970s and 1960s, when governments virtually gave away land or interest-free loans or countless other subsidies. There's a long list of subsidies governments gave to the landlords, to the developers, to build. I tell you, when these fine, honourable Tories create this climate of investment, this crisis in housing, they're going to give away so much money, my money and our money, to get the developers to build housing for their own profit. These developers are going to come, hat in hand, saying: "We supported you, Tories. Now we want your support. If you want us to build, this is what we need."

Once governments stopped the housing subsidy that was given to them, these developers stopped building. That's why we haven't seen any development: not because of rent control but because the subsidies of government stopped. Then they started complaining about competition from the government, that they couldn't fill all their units because governments were competing with them. That's what these fine, Tory, honourable members say in the House and in committee. It's pitiful, and then they have the nerve to talk about protecting tenants.

That's why I dealt with yesterday and continue to deal today with the issue, which is an issue in literature all the time, of appearances and reality. The appearances of the bill talk about protecting tenants and the reality is quite different. I want to move on to that theme of protecting tenants, because this objective is not based on fact. I want to read to you the existing law which gives tenants greater protection and the current bill which erodes and diminishes the protections of tenants. At the end of the list, I'm going to ask my Tory friend from Nepean to see whether he thinks he's still helping tenants.

Existing law: Tenants can apply for rent reductions based on decreased costs of property taxes and utilities. The current bill: Tenants can apply for rent reductions based on decreased property taxes only.

Existing law: Tenants can apply for rent reductions due to reduction or withdrawal of services in the past six years. The current law proposes that tenants can apply for rent reductions due to reduction or withdrawal of services in the past one year, not six.

Tenants can apply, under the Rent Control Act, for rent reductions based on inadequate maintenance over the past two years. Tenants can also apply to court, under the LTA, for an order against a landlord who is not maintaining the apartment or keeping it fit for habitation. The current bill says tenants can apply for rent reduction based on landlords not maintaining an apartment or keeping it fit for habitation within one year of the problem occurring.

Under the Rent Control Act, the act introduced by the NDP and law then, all tenants "shall" be added as parties to rent reduction applications if the issue affects all tenants in the building. In this bill, it says tenants "may" be added as parties as the new tribunal considers appropriate; it may, it shall not add all parties to a rent reduction application.

The existing law says all above-guideline increases must be analysed and approved by the rent officer. The current bill says the landlord and tenant can "agree" to above-guideline increases, limited by the 4% cap, without applying to a tribunal, but allows for a five-day cooling- off period.

You're beginning to see that there's a whole long list of these things where the rights of tenants are diminished under this bill, but the Premier and M. Leach continually say this is a bill that protects tenants. Today the minister talked about this very issue I dealt with just now, which is that the landlord and tenant can agree to the above-guideline increases. He said -- M. Leach I speak of -- they can negotiate a price.

Imagine negotiating a price with a tenant. I, the owner of a house, say to somebody, once they move out of an apartment and go to another one, "I want 10% more." The poor senior says, "Oh, but I can't afford it." The landlord says -- because they're negotiating now -- "Well, I need 10%, because I've been getting so much money less for the last many years that I really can't afford to keep you any more unless you pay up." The poor senior says: "But I really can't afford 10%. What are we going to do?"

The senior is trying to negotiate when the landlord has all the power. What is the senior in that situation to do, or a person with a disability or someone with a few children who barely has the skills to survive because of the condition that person finds himself or herself in and he or she is being asked to negotiate a fair market price with a landlord?

Speaker, I urge you to pay attention to these issues, because these other members are not. They're saying they're trying to protect tenants. How do they get away with it? That's why I say there should be a law against such things, that they should utter such falsehoods and get away with it.

The rent registry, current law: Remember, we brought in the rent registry because people moving into an apartment didn't quite know what was up, what people were paying before them, what conditions they were buying into. So we created a rent registry to allow people to know what they were getting into. The rent registry allows all tenants to check with the minister as to legal rent and services included in that rent.

What does this government do? It says, "We no longer need it." They eliminate the rent registry because it's no longer necessary. But if you listen to M. Leach and M. Harris, they will say they're trying to move on with this bill to protect tenants. Fellow people who are watching this program, is this not laughable? More than that, is this not tragic, that M. Harris and M. Leach could stand and utter such nonsense and falsehoods?

Monsieur Villeneuve twists his head as if he doesn't understand. Tenants can apply under the current law for rebates of illegal rents and illegal charges going back six years.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: You are almost out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York, just be careful in your choice of words.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Yes, he is borderline.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm just asking you to be very careful.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Speaker. Under the current bill, tenants can apply for rebates of illegal rents going back one year, not six years. Do you see the gradual erosion of the rights of the tenant, how they're being whittled away? Do you see that? Any observer watching this program and listening to the differences between the current bill and this so-called Tenant Protection Act -- there's nothing for tenants. Any neutral observer will be able to see it, unless these fine Tory sheep are blinded by what is being presented to them. I'm not sure.

It goes on, and I've got a few more things here. Capital costs will no longer be limited to those that are necessary. We would see a return to the days when tenants pay for marble lobbies and other luxury items. There is a provision disallowing the pass-through of capital expenditures that are "unreasonable or of no benefit to the tenant." This would appear to be a much easier test for the landlord to meet.

Costs no longer borne will no longer be withdrawn from the rents, as was the case under our bill. That means tenants will pay in their rent, for example, for a new fridge while continuing to pay for the old one. So that provision called "costs no longer borne" is eliminated by this act and by these fine Tories who speak of helping tenants.

There is more. The Tories are getting rid of orders prohibiting a rent increase. For short, the acronym is OPRI. OPRIs -- just to repeat it for the sake of those who are following this, orders prohibiting a rent increase -- freeze rents, prohibiting all increases when landlords have committed a property standard violation. This would reduce the incentive to comply with property standards. The Tory downloading on to municipalities also means they will have less money to put into enforcement.

This provision, orders prohibiting a rent increase, is gone under the current bill. This provision was there and intended to protect tenants against landlords, bad landlords, who obviously were not doing what it was necessary to do by way of property standards violations. When you get rid of the orders prohibiting a rent increase, you are literally permitting a landlord to continue to violate property standards.

In relation to this, the government says they will have, as they charge this responsibility down to the municipalities, greater fines against landlords who commit property standards violations. For that you need property standards officers. You need people to go around and supervise these problems, people who go around addressing these very violations. But these fine, honourable Tories have already cut, in the last two years, 40% of municipal funding that went to them. The download of greater responsibilities will mean that municipalities will have less money to put into issues of this kind of enforcement, not more.

While this government says, "Don't worry, we appreciate the fact that there are violations or may be violations; we're going to give more powers to the enforcement officers," what are powers if there are no people to enforce them? What are these powers and what do they mean if you don't have people to enforce them? They're meaningless, except on paper. On paper it appears as if you've given municipal officers greater power. But they've got no money to be able to hire people to enforce these violations. I find it objectionable that this government could continue to claim they're doing something for tenants when they're not.

The third issue has to do with maintenance. This issue I just addressed was connected to maintenance. In committee the minister and some of his landlord friends talked about billions of dollars' worth of maintenance that has to be done to the buildings because they're in such bad shape. What do they do? They blame rent control for this.

The tenants and many of the organizations that came in front of our committee said this to me and to the committee members who were listening: "What happens to that guideline increase that landlords get as a matter of course, that unquestioned guideline increase? Isn't that supposed to go into maintenance? And how do we prove that these landlords have put money into maintenance of these buildings?" There is no way of proving that.

But the point was clear: Landlords should have been putting money that comes to them under the guideline increase for general maintenance, and they haven't been doing that, because if they had, those buildings would have been kept in shape and in such a state that you wouldn't have any complaints by tenants.

"What happened," said many of the tenants, "when so many of these landlords, under a Liberal regime -- where rent skyrocketed anywhere from 10% to 110%? What happened to that money? Where did it go? Why wasn't that money put into the maintenance of those buildings? How could that money just have disappeared?"

As these landlords allow the gradual disintegration of their buildings, years later they come back to a Tory government that will finally listen to them and say: "M. Leach, we need your help. The buildings are falling apart. We were ruined by the NDP because we couldn't raise rents to the extent that we wanted and rent control was ruining everything." So they came to M. Leach, who had a kind ear to these problems, and they espoused the same garbage the other people do as well. You hear both of them. Leach is saying: "There are $10 billion worth of repairs that need to be done.

Rent control was the culprit, so we need to get rid of it." So you see that these people are in cahoots with each other. You know that. You know, because had they been putting the money they had been getting steadily under those Liberal years of rent review, not rent control, into repair, we would not be facing the problems of disrepair now.

It comes at a time when they have a perfect government that will listen to them, because it is pro-developers; not necessarily pro-development but pro-developers and pro-landlords; nothing to do with tenants. There is no protection for tenants here at all.

There's one thing as well, another item having to do with the anti-harassment unit. They beefed up this anti-harassment unit that we've got and they said, "We are well aware that there are some landlords who are likely to push some people out, because they know that as soon as a tenant leaves and goes to another unit, they can charge whatever they want." The same applies when somebody moves into that unit that was vacated. The government is fully aware of this and, knowing that, they have increased the fines for anyone charged with harassment. So the government, on paper -- this is where the theme of appearances and reality comes into play again -- says, "We are going to increase fines."

But in reality, a lot of the seniors who came in front of our committee said, "We don't have the energy, we don't have the knowledge, we don't have the resources and the stamina to pursue a problem with the landlord when we are harassed by that individual." To take a landlord through this new tribunal would take forever. In the past and in the future, it would still take a long time to deal with a landlord who's abusing some senior, some person with a disability or some poor individual in that apartment.

They are keenly aware that this anti-harassment unit is not going to work for most people, because a senior who finds himself or herself very vulnerable, in a situation where they have to deal with a landlord on a day-to-day basis, where they rely on them for essential services, is not about to confront a landlord to deal with the problem. They would rather move first than have to deal with that problem. It's a greater emotional stress on that senior or person with disabilities or a person who's vulnerable to deal with a landlord on an issue of harassment than to just move out, so they would move out.

That's what would happen. The appearance of the bill is that you're doing something great to help out anyone who might be harassed, but the reality is very, very different.

I want to be able to quote a few people who came in front of our committee last year, because I think their quotations or at least their concerns should be here on the record. I know Mr Gilchrist is very keenly interested in this. That's why he's talking with a group of people about this. I'm about to read to him what the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations had to say:

"The Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act exist to protect tenants and to provide diverse housing options for Ontario citizens. Seniors are especially dependent on these protections. We have spoken to many seniors who now live in fear that this government is turning its back on the people of this province. Therefore, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations urges the government of Ontario to seriously consider the social impact on Ontario citizens before any amendments are made to the original statutes protecting tenants' rights."

Another individual, Ms Gwen Lee, from Hamilton, United Senior Citizens of Ontario, said this: "Seniors would be protected as long as they don't move, but seniors do move for reasons such as when their family moves and their support system is no longer there; when their spouse dies; when they become disabled; or to be closer to doctors, hospitals, shopping etc."

Another individual from Thunder Bay, the place where the Premier comes from, Marilyn Warf --

Interjection: No. North Bay.

Mr Marchese: North Bay. Sorry. Close to that area. I'm sure Marilyn Warf wouldn't want to be misrepresented by me in this regard.

Mr Christopherson: Nor misrepresented by him.

Mr Marchese: Or by the Premier. She is being misrepresented by him on a daily basis. This is what she had to say:

"Access to affordable housing has always been a problem for persons with disabilities, because their income is usually 60% to 70% lower than persons without disabilities. The potential is great that this legislation will cause a major housing crisis." She represents Persons United for Self-Help in Northwestern Ontario.

These are the kinds of voices we heard and these are the kinds of voices that some of the members dismissed yesterday as just being some few activists, or dismissed them as some few NDPers trying to fight this government. These are real people, part of real organizations, with very serious concerns about what this is going to do to them, what this bill will do to them.

This government on a daily basis says they do not like advocacy, and we remember what they did to the Advocacy Commission: They repealed that in a couple of weeks. They hate advocacy and they hate advocates and they drool at the thought of their elimination. They have systematically done so.

The Advocacy Commission was set up to protect vulnerable people, seniors, people with mental illness, people with disabilities, and this government says: "We don't need that. Families will take care of their own, so we're going to get rid of the Advocacy Commission."

When we pointed out that much of the abuse sometimes is committed by family members, they scoffed at that and said we were trying to say that somehow families couldn't take care of their own. That belies the facts, and the facts are that family members sometimes, if not often, in issues of abuse are hurt by their own.

But they got rid of that commission, they got rid of the advocates, and with this too they have cut, if not eliminated, funding for a number of advocacy groups trying to help out tenants. They're gone. We have heard from a number of organizations across Ontario where they deputed in front of our committee and said, "The government has cut funding from us." Why? Because they're trying to advocate for tenants who are about to be whacked by this government.

What does this government do every time there are some bills that are about to hurt a whole sector of the population? It pulls the planks from the floor. Who are these planks? In this case, advocates who are trying to help out people who are very vulnerable. They say, "We don't need advocacy and tenants don't need advocates, because we are about to pass a bill called Bill 96 and it's going to protect tenants." But I showed you that there is nothing in this bill that is intended for tenants, nothing at all. This bill is about landlords and this bill is about helping to transfer money from those who can least afford it to those who make a great deal of money.

Remember, yesterday I quoted J.J. Barnicke, a fellow in real estate, who pointed out that people investing in apartments have done very, very well. There's 10% to 15% profit annually. They're doing okay. They don't need the help of these Conservatives. They're doing fine on their own. Why would they introduce a bill that is about to whack 33% of the population who live in apartments? We're talking about 3.3 million people who live as tenants. We're talking about people a third of whom earn less than $23,000; $20,000 to $23,000. A third of them earn less than $23,000, and those who earn more than $23,000 can't be wealthy.

Certainly many choose to be in apartments, I will grant you that, but most live in apartments because they can't afford a home. I can tell you, most of them would love to own a home. Most people in this country would love to own a home, but they can't afford it. That's why they rent, and that's why governments exist: to protect them against the abuses of bad landlords. This government, Tory, Reform-minded, is saying, "We've got to get out of the way," like they did in British Columbia in 1983. The Social Credit, Reform-minded politicians got out of the way in 1983. Did they help the situation any? No.

It's statistically proven. There's a great deal of evidence. Everybody knows that in British Columbia nothing was solved by passing this down to the marketplace, allowing landlords to do what they want. Yet this government is quite willing and drooling at the thought of replicating the mistake, as if they've learned nothing from the past. What can you say of a government that can learn nothing from the past? On what does it base its foundation? If it bases its foundation on things that have failed, how can the future look except bleak for those affected by these bills?

I tried to find a few things that I might speak to that obviously help the tenants, and that's why I referred to the anti-harassment unit. That's one of the few things that are supposed to be good, because it increases fines for those who are caught, if they're ever caught, committing a violation and harassment against the tenant. On paper it's good, but in practice it doesn't happen. We know it doesn't happen.

The other issue of maintenance: We know that you have beefed up the enforcement fines around violations, but we know there are going to be very few enforcement officers. We know because when we were in committee we heard that there are very few, and those few officers sometimes were not very helpful to the tenants. You should hear some of those sad stories being told to us about their history in association with some of these enforcement officers where they didn't get any help; in fact, they were getting the wrong type of help from these so-called enforcement officers.

The only two little things that are there to provide some assistance and relief to tenants are virtually of no use, but this government, through M. Harris and M. Leach, flaunts this bill as a bill that protects tenants. That's why I referred to Shakespeare yesterday, because one of his famous lines that I recall speaks of this issue: "Fair is foul and foul is fair." The bill appears to be fair, but it is foul, and it is foul although it appears to be fair.

That theme of appearances and reality is universal. It has lasted throughout the centuries and it continues in this theatre, in this place, with this government, because this is theatre by this government. It's propagandist in nature. It attempts to tell the poor people out there there's something in it for them, and we know there is absolutely nothing for them except a whole lot of abuse and a whole lot of whacking, because tenants are going to be whacked by rent increases they cannot afford.

Those tenants are poor working people, disabled people, seniors whose incomes have dropped over the years and people displaced by you, you who have fired literally 20,000 people. I'll bet at the end of your term you will have let many more than 20,000 go, people who have fallen victim to your policies and victim to the marketplace you're trying to defend.

I know the tenants are going to write to this government and they're going to say to this government, "We will defeat you in the next election." I can only pray that will happen.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The member for Fort York makes very interesting arguments in light of the fact that it was his government's rent control legislation that actually had an adverse effect on tenants in this province. This bill, I am pleased to say, is going to give protection to tenants; their bill simply delayed the implementation of rent increases.

I can give you a very good example of a building in my riding, on Seneca Avenue, as a matter of fact, where the rent appeal hearing took three years. When the decision was rendered against those tenants and in favour of the landlord, they had three years of back rent increases to pay. For almost all of them, without exception, it was an impossible increase. It was an impossible amount of money for them to pay.

We hear all the time from the opposition parties about how money-gouging etc the landlord or the property owner is, and I'd like to tell you that the landlord of those two buildings on Seneca Avenue in my riding sat down at a public meeting which I organized with the residents of those two buildings, and although he had been given a court order awarding him that retroactive increase, he agreed to keep them in the building without paying it retroactively because they simply couldn't afford it.

With the kind of legislation the New Democratic government had at that time, there was no protection for those tenants. This legislation does protect the tenants where they are today at the rents they pay today, and they shouldn't be afraid of it.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to comment on the fine speech by the member for Fort York. I am quite amazed, however, this afternoon that we are discussing housing issues. I know the people in Algoma-Manitoulin believe that housing issues are important, but they would believe, and I know they would believe, that talking about Bill 125, about doing something about the flying truck wheels in this province, is something that needs to happen now.

As a matter of fact, we thought it should happen in February. We remember when the Minister of Transportation, with much fanfare out at a truck inspection station, said, "We're going to pass this bill." Our party said: "Bring it in here. Let's go, let's do it, let's have this bill before the House and we will pass it. We will even give it unanimous consent so we can give it third reading in a day."

That's what we were talking about, so I'm surprised. I know my constituents would be concerned about the housing issues. I know that people throughout the riding would think this is an important issue to discuss. But they think on this day that we should be talking about wheels and tires that kill people on our highways and that we should do something about it --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I gave you a chance. I thought you'd come back but you're still on the same issue. It's a rent issue, it's not a transportation issue. It's a housing issue. You said you'd come back on housing. That would be fine with me.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm sure this is directly related to the housing issue because we should not be talking about housing today. You know that. I'm sure that most members in this House want to be giving second and third reading to the truck safety bill.

Mr Christopherson: I'm very pleased and proud to stand and comment on the remarks of my colleague, our critic for housing and municipal affairs, the member for Fort York. I think he delivers some of the most impassioned, articulate, clear-thinking addresses that this House has the benefit of hearing.

When you hear the member for Fort York talk about the impact on seniors and on the disabled and on the most vulnerable, you're hearing from a member who knows what he's talking about. When he talks about this government's dreadful record attacking the rights of the most vulnerable by eliminating, with pride yet, the Advocacy Act, a piece of legislation that provided protection for the most vulnerable, the member for Fort York does it because he understands very clearly that there is an agenda at play here and in every piece of legislation this government brings forward there are clear winners and clear losers.

There's no balance or fairness, and in this case it's tenants lose, owners win. Their pals win. Again, many of those who are renters are among the most vulnerable.

My colleague from Fort York, Rosario, mentioned Gwen Lee from Hamilton. I know Gwen very well. So do all the people in Hamilton. She's one of the strongest voices for the rights of seniors and the needs of seniors, and the plight of seniors in many cases. She has clearly said that this legislation, not what is called tenant protection, attacks tenants' rights and leaves tenants vulnerable. I would ask this government to listen to Gwen Lee and all those other advocates who are speaking for the most vulnerable as has my colleague from Fort York.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It was interesting to hear the address made by the member for Fort York, a very impassioned presentation. He was asking to listen to voices, and certainly there is another side to this. There are other voices that come through and those happen to be from the lan