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

April 30, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L066 - Tue 30 Apr 1996 / Mar 30 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO SPECIAL OLYMPICS SPRING GAMES

TAX REDUCTION

MARTIN STREEF

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

EDUCATION FINANCING

LEASIDE SKATING CLUB

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

TAX REDUCTION

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

TAX REDUCTION

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

VISITOR

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

ALCOHOL INDUSTRY

HEALTH CARE

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SPEED LIMITS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

TAX REDUCTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

ASSISTANCE TO CO-OPS

PUBLIC SERVICES

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

PAY EQUITY

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

CHILD CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO SPECIAL OLYMPICS SPRING GAMES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am honoured to rise today and congratulate the hardworking members of my community who will make possible the 1996 Ontario Special Olympics Spring Games.

Cornwall will play host to the 725 athletes and 200 coaches when the torch is lit on Thursday, May 2.

Athletes from across Ontario will participate in the disciplines of swimming, power-lifting, floor hockey and five- and 10-pin bowling. For months, the Special Olympics games coordinator has been actively promoting community involvement, and I'm pleased to say that Cornwall and area residents have responded with offers to volunteer their time as well as make financial donations.

Service clubs, the police force, the chamber of commerce, the amalgamated transit unions and many others have helped to raise the entire amount of money needed for the games, a first in Special Olympics history. However, to quote the chairman of the organizing committee, Brian Snyder, "All the money in the world couldn't put this together without the volunteers." Congratulations to the organizers and the more than 300 volunteers who will make the 1996 Special Olympics games in Cornwall a phenomenal success.

I invite all members of the Legislature and the public of Cornwall and area to come to Cornwall on May 2 to 5 to watch Ontario's finest athletes compete for gold. Best of luck to all the athletes.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today I rise to bring to the government's attention the replies I have received from hundreds of people in my riding, which reflect the response from many people I know across the province objecting to the Mike Harris agenda, specifically to the impact of his tax cut and the reason for his tax cut, the fact that services are going to be slashed and the fact that the benefits of those tax cuts are going to go to the wealthiest citizens in this province.

I want to read for the benefit of the government members just some of the quotes from some of the letters I have received.

One person in my riding writes, "It's more important to me to reduce the deficit than it is to get a tax break."

Another person writes: "I'm very sorry to see what is happening and what will result from the rash actions of Mike Harris' government. Ontario will no longer be a province representing dignity, compassion for the less fortunate, and even cleanliness...if we allow the Tories to continue."

Yet another writes: "I'm glad to hear you are concerned about the negative effects of the current Conservative agenda. As an ESL instructor in adult education I want to add my voice, and the voices of many, many adult immigrants. They are working hard to find their place, their work, here in Ontario, in Canada. At the level I teach, we are talking about nurses, engineers, doctors, accountants -- let us help them, keep them, so they can contribute to a strong, healthy, educated Canada."

That is typical of the responses I'm getting from people in my riding and I know throughout the province who are saying to Mike Harris: "Think again. The tax cut is not the way to go."

MARTIN STREEF

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to honour an outstanding young farmer in my riding, Martin Streef. Martin, who owns and operates Streef Produce Ltd with his family, was recently named Ontario Region Outstanding Young Farmer for 1996. He was chosen from among dozens of farmers from throughout this province. He and nine other finalists were judged in five categories, including progress in agricultural career; extent of soil, water, and energy conservation practices; crop and livestock practices; farm management and financial practices; and contributions to the community and nation.

His roots are in the agricultural area. He grew up on a hobby farm in Oxford Centre and began his career by growing five acres of fruit, vegetables and flowers. He sold his goods on Saturday mornings at a local farmers' market. At age 19 he founded Streef Produce Ltd with his brothers and partners. Today he is the president and CEO of one of the largest potato operations in Ontario. That operation is still a family affair. Until the birth of their son recently, Martin's wife, Olivia, worked in the sales department. Two of his brothers, Peter and Albert, handle sales. His brother John operates the potato crop and his youngest sibling, Jacob, grades, packs and ships produce.

When Martin is not busy in the field or doing paperwork, he finds time for the community as president of the Woodstock Optimist Club, a director of the Woodstock Big Brothers Association, a member of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association and an active participant in round table discussions with the provincial and federal agriculture ministries.

It is obvious that Martin Streef is an outstanding member of the --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired. Order.

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I would like to take a moment to offer my congratulations to the Hamilton Transway Minor Bantam Basketball Club for their recent performance in the Ontario Basketball Association provincial championships.

Utilizing the talents of girls from Hamilton, Dundas, Oakville, Ancaster and Flamborough, both the triple A and double A teams did extremely well. The triple A team finished first in the province and the double A team finished second, winning the silver medal. After working incredibly hard all season, both teams pulled it all together for the tournament, and these excellent results put the crowning glory on a highly successful season.

Mention must be made of the triple A team, who finished first in the province. The young ladies included Jessie Lamparski, Erinn Belot, Justine Pavaras, Jessi Tomasin, Angela Valvasori, Heather Gale, Natalie Downey, Marina Rusich, Paula Gale, Rachel Hart, Heather Angus, Cari Te Boekorst, and their coach, Larry Angus.

The second-place finishers in the province, the double A bantam team, included Shannon Coskey, Tara Boyce, Meagan Curtis, Vanessa Gogorza, Stephanie Thibault, Stephanie Kakoski, Vanessa Juzeans, Karen Zmirak, Amanda Fusina, Emily McNabb, Rachel Venner, Alannah Grady, Andrea Benvenuto, and their coach, Lorne Venner.

Congratulations to both teams; a tremendous effort by young ladies who worked very hard year-round and put it all together. They have made the region and this province very proud, and I'm sure the House shares congratulations for those achievements.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The government continues to say its tax break will not impact on the necessary services across the province. So isn't it interesting that I get a letter from the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education which was directed to the Honourable John Snobelen, Minister of Education and Training, wherein the board says to the minister:

"Your stated goal for boards to strive for vis-à-vis direct classroom expenditure and non-classroom expenditure is 60%-40%. According to the ministry's own figures..., our ratio in 1994 was 63.1%-36.9%. We have already exceeded the...goal" that you, as Minister of Education, have stated. If they are going to make cuts, obviously the cuts will be in the classroom.

What are the cuts this board of education is being told to look at? "We are...forced to look at eliminating our speech program for children with speech and language difficulties, and a special behavioural class for children who simply cannot function successfully in regular classrooms. We live in a relatively remote, underserviced area. Without our programs these children have virtually nothing."

The tax break is hurting all kinds of children across Ontario.

LEASIDE SKATING CLUB

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm pleased to bring to the attention of this House the accomplishments of the award winners and volunteer organizers of this year's Leaside Skating Club season.

In a club which features broad-based participation, discipline and excellence, all of this year's skaters showed themselves to be outstanding. Particular distinction was earned by Katie MacKenzie, gold ladies' free skate winner and bronze medalist at COSIC; Mary-Helen French, junior bronze ladies' champion and COSIC junior silver solo dance champion; Lenka Zemanek, junior silver free skate champion; Courtney Bulmer, silver artistic ladies' champion; Sara Buckley, preliminary ladies' champion; and Louise Westin, bronze artistic ladies' champion.

Winners of the Chuck Kiel Memorial Award were Mary-Helen French, Stacey Phoenix and Heather Vigna; winner of the Parnell Trophy was Dafne Gokcen; winner of the Ord Trophy was Lee Yoshida; and winner of the Don Wadlow Award was Yvonne Butorac.

Canadian Figure Skating Association gold medal status was achieved by Suzanne Bradwell and Katie MacKenzie.

The strength of the Leaside Skating Club is its volunteers, including its volunteer board of directors. President of the club this year was Liz French. Other board members were Dayle Snack, Marnie Phoenix, Uldis Zommers, John Piper, Kathy MacKenzie, Anne Bradwell, Michael Crowley, Patrick Devine, Ilona Gamble, Valerie Holland, Barbara Horman, Katy Lovrics and John McKinley.

Volunteers are the heart and soul of our community in East York. Another successful skating season at Leaside, culminating in the professional quality production of Musical Blades '96 last weekend, featuring all of the skaters of the club, proved that the East York tradition of active volunteerism continues to thrive in the field of skating.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): The family support plan was created to assist parents and children in collecting support payments owed to them by a delinquent parent and ordered by the court. Today, about 25% of such support payments are more or less recovered.

We know many single parents turn to social assistance when their financial needs could be met by spousal support. This should prompt this government to administer more effectively the family support plan and make it more responsive to those who depend upon it.

Instead, we have a situation such as the one outlined in the Ottawa Citizen's editorial yesterday, where a 1-800 line is the only number available to the general public. Unfortunately, there is rarely a person at the end of the line to answer questions or provide information.

About 15% of the case work in my constituency office deals with the family support plan. Single parents are calling my office because they cannot get through the 1-800 line. They cannot obtain information directly from the regional office.

Does the minister really expect service to improve if these regional offices are closed and the family support plan is centralized in Toronto? It may make great economic sense from this government's perspective, but we must question whether the persons dependent on the plan will benefit.

The point of the whole exercise, it seems, was to help custodial parents and children. Clearly this is not happening. I am calling on the minister today to take immediate measures to resolve this urgent problem.

TAX REDUCTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I too have been receiving a lot of mail from my constituents around the tax cut. I'd like to read from only two of those letters.

The first is from a person who says: "I work with seniors and the disabled, and the prescription drugs that most of these people use or take are vitally important to them. Without their prescriptions they would not be capable or productive. These people don't have enough money now, let alone after the cuts. Mothers have nothing. Children are going hungry every day. All the things Mike Harris is doing is making it worse. We can get out of this hole we are in, but we can't afford to hurt the people that will be hurt through these tax cuts."

The second one is from a single mother who talks about her difficulties in dealing with the welfare cut, but she says she is dealing with that; her real concern is education.

She says: "Last of all, the thing that scares me even more is that the adult education school I go to is threatened at being shut down. Students will have to pay tuition fees like college, and I can't afford that. I won't be able to get my high school diploma. What employer would hire me? What kind of jobs would I even get? I see education as the key out of poverty and far away from welfare, but as you know, my education future and dreams are being threatened by the tax cut."

We've received hundreds and hundreds of letters that tell personal stories like this, and all are claiming that the tax cut is destroying their opportunity to change.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Next month, Queen's University will offer the highest quality of business education ever seen in Canada with the launch of the new Queen's MBA program for science and technology. This is certainly good news for graduate education in Ontario.

Queen's also has a performance guarantee: It will loan qualified students the funds they need and students don't pay back a dime until they earn at least $50,000 a year.

It's good news for the taxpayer because the Queen's MBA program receives no government funding, and it's good news for Ontario's economy, because no sector is more vital to our competitiveness than science and technology. Queen's will develop the leaders of the future -- in the industries of the future.

As a Queen's graduate, I congratulate Ken Wong, Tom Anger, Dean Margot-Northey and the many others at the Queen's school of business who have worked so hard to make this exciting and innovative program a reality.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last week you were in Ottawa and while you were there you took some considerable pride in announcing there would be new kidney dialysis services provided in eastern Ontario, and indicated that in Ottawa and Cornwall a private sector, for-profit company would be allowed to provide that service.

Your government is currently negotiating with an American firm based in Boston to provide these services. The company's name is National Medical Care. Minister, National Medical Care is under criminal investigation in three separate US states.

My staff spoke with officials of National Medical Care today and confirmed the following:

In New Jersey, National Medical Care is under investigation for selling defective products and for its handling of customer complaints. Second, in Virginia, National Medical Care is under investigation for contracts between the company's kidney dialysis service and third parties who act as medical directors and provide other services. In Massachusetts, National Medical Care is under investigation for insurance fraud.

Minister, when did you become aware that the American company your government is negotiating with to provide kidney dialysis services to Ontario residents was being investigated for insurance fraud and selling defective products?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I and the ministry became aware after we made the announcement. I say to the honourable member that people shouldn't jump to conclusions on this, in that -- let me explain the process -- it was a sealed legal tender in which no politicians were involved. The information provided to the ministry by Dr Posen, the owner and proponent of the Canadian-owned non-profit independent health facility that's to provide dialysis services -- you're right, it was one of four in the announcement we made in Ottawa.

It wasn't until either later that day or the next day that someone said -- perhaps it was the next day when the Ottawa Citizen came out and said a Boston company by the name of the company referred to was going to run it and that Dr Posen would have it as a management team. Now, keep in mind that the employees will be Canadian, with respect to the nephrologist and the nurses who work there.

But nothing's been signed. Part of the process, as you know, is that the ministry in all cases -- I simply announced the leading contenders for the tender based on the information they provided; those were the ones I announced. Nothing's been signed, and you can be sure we are having and will be having discussions with Dr Posen about the information he provided my ministry and about what his intentions are in providing those services in the future.

Mrs McLeod: If you're suggesting that we shouldn't rush to conclusions, I suggest to you that you shouldn't be in such a rush to make announcements or to trumpet the cost-efficiency of privatizing our health care services.

You went to Ottawa and you announced these new services with a great deal of fanfare. I find it truly hard to believe that as a minister you held a news conference to announce this wonderful new plan without even checking out the company you were negotiating with to provide the service. This was not difficult information to come by. You didn't need to rely on a news report to find out about this. It took a simple check of US information services, which my staff made, and a couple of phone calls to confirm this information.

You are the minister responsible for making this announcement. Surely you would have done the investigation to determine that criminal investigations being carried out on this particular company relate very directly to the exact types of services National Medical Care is potentially going to contract to provide in Ottawa-Carleton: kidney dialysis services. You have a responsibility to explain how this could possibly have happened. Why did you fail, as minister, to do a proper investigation of this firm before the negotiations with them began?

Hon Mr Wilson: We had a number of people reply to the tender or the request for proposal, and based on the information that was provided, we took Dr Posen, who is a Canadian, who as an individual is a highly respected nephrologist, or kidney specialist, in the Ottawa-Carleton area -- we took the information that was provided.

But part of the process, as the honourable member knows, is the negotiations in terms of quality and price. All our independent health facilities are run by physicians, and where medical procedures are conducted the College of Physicians and Surgeons has responsibility for quality assurance.

I would caution the honourable member, because we went through this on Bill 26. There are 1,100 independent health facilities out there, all of them approved by previous governments. These are the first ones I've approved. They're run primarily by doctors doing diagnostic clinics, most of them, abortion clinics and that, and we've not checked the passports of the management team and neither did any of your governments. We don't know who the management teams are for those.

The requirements were that a Canadian non-profit corporation establish these, prior to Bill 26, and those safeguards are still in place after Bill 26. I dare you to say today that all 1,100 we have out there now are wholly managed by Canadians or that you're sure exactly who the financial backers for the 1,100 institutions are now.

We brought in safeguards in Bill 26 to ensure that, for the first time, this government could refine and further refine the requirements to be contained in the request-for-proposal process. As a result of finding out this information through a media report after we made the announcement, we are investigating this, talking to Dr Posen and making sure we get the highest-quality services at the best price, which is what he was to live up to in the request-for-proposal process.

Mrs McLeod: The highest possible services at the least price, with a company that is being investigated for shoddy services, a company that was being investigated and was being widely reported in the American press long before you made your announcement -- in February of this year, in October of last year. In July of last year, a correspondent reported that the Justice Department was investigating allegations about National Medical Care.

Minister, we are not talking about the other 1,100 independent health care facilities; we are talking about the one independent health care facility that you were about to approve. It is a direct result of Bill 26, Minister, because with Bill 26, in spite of all objections, you opened the door for US health care profit-making providers to come into this province. You took away the Canadian preference rule and that's why National Medical Care was even allowed to bid on providing kidney dialysis services in eastern Ontario.

You say they won the contract because they had the lowest price, but you assured the public that the quality would not suffer. We warned you that services would suffer if you allowed US profit-making companies into Canada, and now we learn that a grand jury in New Jersey is investigating this company for shoddy service.

Minister, you gave yourself unparalleled powers under Bill 26, powers to decide -- you and you alone -- which American for-profit companies would be allowed into the province of Ontario. There are no checks and balances on your decision-making power. You have a responsibility today to tell us, because Bill 26 was flawed, what you will now do, what steps you will take to make sure this never happens again.

Hon Mr Wilson: For an honourable member who in one of her earlier questions took pride in her research, her research is indeed shoddy. This tender was a matter of public record and was put out prior to Bill 26. These tenders were begun in September of last year. This particular tender would have been out in October, November at the latest, long before Bill 26 went through this Parliament.

Secondly, let's not leave on the record any falsehoods about Bill 26 with respect to this. The previous Canadian preference in the previous Independent Health Facilities Act, you know, or you should know, held no weight in law whatsoever. We cleared up Bill 26 to make sure that we could put further stipulations, tightening up, actually checking to make sure they are Canadian, which was not part of the Independent Health Facilities Act prior. At the end of the day, after Bill 26 went through, everybody except the Leader of the Opposition agreed that what we did was to tighten it.

I will say, with respect -- and all I can do is be honest, the way my parents raised me in Alliston -- that when I became aware that National Medical Care was involved with Dr Posen, who is a respected nephrologist from the Ottawa-Carleton region, who is the proponent of this, that his name, as owner of the clinic, was on the tender, when we became aware of that, we began investigating it, and that's what we're doing right now.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I had intended moving to the Minister of Education and Training with a question, but I'll give him a reprieve for today and stay with the Minister of Health.

Minister, I find it absolutely incredible that with all of those words, you haven't answered a very simple question: Is it true or is it not true that under Bill 26 you gave yourself as Minister of Health unprecedented powers, first of all, to allow any company, profit-making or not-for-profit, to come in as an independent health facility without a Canadian preference, and potentially even without a request for proposal, although I'm not suggesting that was the process followed in this case? Do you or do you not have the power to make those decisions?

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, today I fully have the power to decide whether it's a Canadian company or not, which did not exist in anything other than words. Under the previous Independent Health Facilities Act, anyone could set up a non-profit Canadian corporation as a front to run an independent health facility in this province. Bill 26 allows us to check beyond that to make sure they truly are Canadian, if that is the desire and the contents of the tender that we put out.

Secondly, with respect to the particular case that's raised here, all three names that appear in the tender document for this Canadian non-profit organization that is to run Ottawa-Carleton dialysis services are fully Canadian, respected physicians in this province, and my ministry and I had no reason prior to the Ottawa Citizen

article to suspect there was anything behind this with respect to American involvement. Once we found out, we immediately started talking with them and want to find out exactly what all the facts are in this case, and that's what we're doing now.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, it would not have required a great deal of effort on your part to determine whether or not the names in the proposals were Canadian. I'm sure it would not have taken a great deal of effort on your part to determine that the company which was being negotiated with to manage the service, to provide that service for that Canadian-based group, was in fact a US profit-making company, National Medical Care, nor would it have taken you much effort to find that this company was under criminal investigation in the United States for providing essentially similar services to what they were being contracted to provide in Ontario.

Did you make any effort to check on the company that was being negotiated with to provide these services in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, we checked with the company we were negotiating with, which was Dr Posen, who is a very highly respected nephrologist in Canada in the Ottawa-Carleton region. That is the company we were negotiating with. Where his employees were coming from, we were not at that stage. As far as I'm assured now, there are still Canadian nurses and there are still Canadian nephrologists. Where his management team was coming from, which I assume is one or two people, no, we did not check that. We were not aware of that.

Very clearly, the company we were dealing with is a non-profit Canadian company owned by Dr Posen. That is what the tender documents show and we took him on good faith with respect to those documents.

Mrs McLeod: Let me understand this, Minister. You've acknowledged that you, and you alone, as a result of Bill 26, have the powers. It is Bill 26 which allows the Minister of Health unilaterally to determine that independent health care facilities can be licensed in the province of Ontario without a Canadian preference. That is clearly your decision and you've acknowledged that in the House today.

You, and you alone as Minister of Health, are also accountable to the people of this province for the quality of the services they receive. Do you not feel that you have a responsibility to check not just the Canadian companies presenting the proposal but in fact the companies that will be managing and providing the services to Ontario residents? Have you no responsibility to ensure that this service will be of the highest quality, indeed that it is all aboveboard?

You are the only elected member. Are you suggesting that with the sole ability to decide who gets a licence, you feel you've discharged your responsibilities to Ontario residents by simply checking out the presenting Canadian company and leaving that responsibility to non-elected people to determine whether they are going to be able to provide quality service? Is that what you're telling us today?

Hon Mr Wilson: Nothing could be further from the truth. For the first time in the history of Ontario we brought in quality guidelines for dialysis services. That's what the request for proposal was all about. The preference of this government is highest quality at best price, in that order. You people let out tenders across this province with no quality guidelines as to what your performance measurements were going to be, what your expectations in terms of quality of medical services were going to be on behalf of the people of Ontario. You are very free to check the tender here.

The fact of the matter is, we put in extensive clauses for the first time on the quality that any company must meet.

We also can fully retain the right in Ontario to have Canadian preference if that's required, but I would remind the honourable member that this contract was done prior to Bill 26. Perhaps if we had had Bill 26, I would have been able to check fully the passports of everyone who might work at the clinic, if that's what the honourable member is suggesting.

I again remind the honourable member that for the first time we have brought in quality guidelines, that it's not just politicians with this responsibility but that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has a responsibility also to help us ensure quality assurance. We're very confident, with respect to the other dialysis services we've done around the province, that we are going to get very high quality or they won't continue to have their licence as an independent health facility. That is the bottom line.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. As we all know, this is tax filing day and these are mailbags with a lot of returns dealing with the issue of taxes.

The Premier has attempted to pretend that the government spending cuts have nothing to do with financing the proposed tax cut. As a matter of fact, today he told a reporter: "Well, of course...there's no relationship between the spending reductions or the new spending and the tax cuts. They're two separate policies." This communication spin by the Conservative government isn't fooling anybody in Ontario. Just as there's only one taxpayer, there's only one bottom line. This is part of the same package.

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: Obviously the Conservatives seem to be upset about this, but we want to present to the government 102,000 returns on a mailout where people have indicated that they want us to tell the government they don't want this tax cut at the expense of more expensive drugs for seniors and at the expense of food for kids or transportation for the disabled. The question really is, as we send these over to the Chair of Management Board for his government, will the government listen to what these people have to say? Will you recognize that your determination to have a tax cut means fewer services for people who need them, and will you change your position?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Take the sacks out.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I believe this government has a strong reputation for listening to the people of the province of Ontario. This government has kept the promises it made during the election.

I want to read just a short quote from the Premier. This quote was made one week ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon David Johnson: This quote was from a message one week ago. It says: "Tonight I want to announce more steps that will benefit hardworking people and their families. We're going to cut taxes for small businesses and new small businesses. The budget that we will introduce will include a modest tax cut targeted to the middle class. The full details of this tax fairness package will be outlined in the budget. We're on the side of the ordinary people and are very proud of that fact."

The Premier involved is Premier Glen Clark, the NDP Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: Maybe they should bring some of the bags to Glen Clark, the NDP Premier of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the members on this side come to order, please, and would the members on this side come to order, please. The leader of the third party.

Mr Wildman: Since the Chair of Management Board is interested in quotes, perhaps he would look at some of the comments made on the returns that he has received from people in Ontario. I'd like to read him a couple of those comments.

John Lukkarinen from Scarborough writes, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize...Mr M. Harris' 30% tax break promise is totally unrealistic at this time."

Mrs Dorothy Skakoon from Windsor writes, "A tax break would be welcomed but not at the expense of others -- that's blood money."

Mrs Olga McDaid of Thunder Bay writes, "I wonder if a tax break would cover all the user fees that will be imposed on the public with all the cutbacks?"

Obviously these people recognize that in Ontario, when you're talking about cuts to cut the deficit but at the same time you're bringing in a tax cut that will benefit the top 10% of money earners in this province far more than anyone else, they're going to pay for it in other ways. They're going to pay for it in fewer services and in more hidden taxes, or user fees.

The people in this province voted for this government's program. They promised a tax cut. They also promised not to touch health care, not to affect classroom education, not to cut agriculture and not to cut police services. In fact they've cut $2 billion out of health care and $400 million out of education, they've cut services and programs for farmers by 30% and they've cut police services.

The Speaker: And your question is?

Mr Wildman: Isn't it true that to keep your promise on the tax cut, you're breaking all your other promises with regard to safeguarding some of the most important parts of this budget and government services in Ontario?

Hon David Johnson: The answer to that clearly is, absolutely not. This government is living up to all its promises.

In terms of who is receiving the benefit of this tax cut, the leader of the third party will know that 90% of the taxpayers of the province earn under $68,000, so clearly the maximum benefit goes to people with middle incomes or low incomes.

As the ministers have indicated, this government is committed to protecting the health care envelope. The $17.4 billion has been protected, will continue to be protected. We made that promise during the election. We'll abide by that promise.

This government has committed to protecting classroom education. The amount of reduction, about a 3% reduction in spending across the province, permits school boards to implement the efficiencies and yet protect classroom funding.

It's the same with police. This government has exempted from any reductions the front-line policing. What has been reduced is the administration behind the scenes.

I believe the people of Ontario will say: "Right on. Administration costs should be reduced, but protect front-line services, protect education, protect policing." That's what this government has done.

Mr Wildman: It's obvious that this government is committed to trickle-down economics, which haven't worked elsewhere and won't work here.

Doesn't the minister recognize that the layoff notices in education haven't gone to administrators but have gone to teachers, teachers in the classroom, and that this government has broken its promise on the health care envelope? It is not a sealed envelope; in fact more has been cut than has been put back in, in terms of the transfers this minister says.

Doesn't this government recognize that the people of the province want balance? They want to see that you will meet your commitments with regard to education, health care, agriculture and policing. You're not doing it simply because of a commitment to meet a tax cut that means you're going to have to cut all these other services far more deeply and widely than you anticipated.

Can't you admit that you're making significant cuts to these areas where you promised not to, in order to meet the promise of a tax cut that will benefit, despite what you say, the top 10% of income earners in this province and not the rest of us?

Hon David Johnson: I clearly wouldn't admit to that, because it's not true. It's important that this government live up to all its commitments. People are looking for that in government, and clearly that's what we are delivering.

The reason Glen Clark in British Columbia is reducing certain taxes is the same reason we're reducing taxes in Ontario. The unemployment rate is too high. We need to stimulate the economy, we need to stimulate economic growth, we need to create jobs and we need to get people back to work. That's why we are introducing the income tax cut.

In the long run, with more people working, with more people drawing pay, there will be more taxes paid. There will be more income taxpayers, there will be more income tax paid, there will be more sales tax because those people will be buying. In the long run, this income tax cut will help this government balance its budget.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The so-called Common Sense Revolution states: "Historically, municipalities have responded to provincial funding limits by simply increasing local property taxes. There may be numerous levels of government in this province, but there is only one level of taxpayer." The document goes further and says this very specifically: that this government will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions it takes will not result in increases to local property taxes.

As well, during the election campaign the Premier went further and signed a taxpayer protection pledge. He promised he'd reduce personal income taxes by 30% and wouldn't raise any others, and he vowed he would resign if he broke any of his promises. The Premier seemed to understand at the time -- at least he led the people of this province to believe he understood -- the interrelationship of provincial funding and local government finance. The Premier included words in his election pledges to sooth concerns over the property tax.

He made people believe his numbers worked and that he could make the necessary cuts, implement a tax cut and balance the budget without affecting property taxes. Do the minister and his government still stand by those words?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We certainly do. I can name municipality after municipality coming out this year with no tax increases whatsoever. We're working very closely with the municipalities. They're more than prepared to work with us to reduce costs through efficiencies, probably a word you haven't heard very often.

The city of Toronto, no tax increase. Metro, 1% to build a subway -- good move. North York, no tax increase. Municipalities right across the province, no tax increase. They're working with us, something they didn't do with you.

Mr Kormos: As a result of this government's cuts, municipalities and school boards across the province are being forced both to cut services and raise taxes. The cuts are so deep that they're not choosing tax hikes instead of restructuring or tax hikes instead of service, because they're doing all three.

Examples: Sault Ste Marie, a 3.75% increase, at the same time raising user fees, your hidden taxes, for parks and recreation services and senior centres, and cutting transit services; York region, an increase of 1.4% in order to maintain police services; Peel school board, 1.7%; Simcoe county board, 3%; Sudbury school board, 5.9%; Sudbury separate school board, 4.5%; Waterloo County Board of Education, 1.9%; Metro separate school board, 1.5%; the Windsor school board is contemplating a 3.9% tax hike.

These guys don't want to admit it, but these property tax hikes are a direct result of their need to create fiscal room for their tax cut, for their tax break for the richest in this province. This minister said he was going to work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions they take will not result in increases to local property taxes. What has he done with respect to these municipalities?

Hon Mr Leach: It's absolutely amazing that a party that raised taxes 33 times and just battered the hell out of municipalities would have the audacity to get up and talk about tax increases of 1% or 2%, and most of those are with school boards. The tax increases by municipalities this year will probably be lower than any other year in the last decade, and they're working with us on restructuring because they realize that municipalities have to work more efficiently and more effectively and must restructure.

There are 35 separate restructuring programs under way at present, as of today, involving more than 100 municipalities. They realize the problems your government got us into over the last five years. They know they have to work with us to get rid of the deficit and get tackling the debt. They're prepared to work with us, and we're working with them.

Mr Kormos: That's pure horsefeathers and this minister knows it. It's been pointed out day after day that one of the problems with this government's so-called plan is that because of the spending cuts they're going to need to finance this tax break for their rich friends, user fees and property taxes are going to go up.

At the same time that this government has whacked municipalities and school boards with huge cuts to transfer payments -- that's what they've done -- the government has maintained that it won't affect services. We hear that over and over again. They've been very specific about their claim that the cuts to school board transfers will not affect classroom education, that they have to protect police services, so that municipalities and school boards have to take the cut, not impact the level and quality of services and not raise the property tax.

Look what happened to the Sudbury Board of Education. Just last Wednesday they voted to increase the public school portion of property tax by 5.9%. In defending his decision, board chair Ernie Checkeris stated: "What do we do? Do you want us to kill children's education and screw up a whole generation?" As reported in the Sudbury Star, Mr Checkeris "insisted administrative and staffing ranks have been pared to the bone." So you're asking the impossible.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): And the question is?

Mr Kormos: The minister is asking the impossible. How can you maintain that this income tax cut, this tax break to your rich buddies, will create jobs when the cash you claim to be putting in the hands of Ontarians is being eaten up with these property tax increases, the ones I've been citing to you today?

Hon Mr Leach: I find it really amusing sometimes. They sit over there and they say we cut social services spending by 20%, so there's no money to spend, it's going to hurt businesses. Then when we say we're going to reduce taxes and give money to spend, you say that's bad too.

Mr Kormos: Why have property taxes gone up?

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.

Hon Mr Leach: Which position do you want to take? Is he finished asking the question, Mr Speaker?

We're working with municipalities very closely. We've had more meetings with AMO. They agree with the actions this government has taken.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): How about the user fees, Al?

Hon Mr Leach: The user fees are an excellent way for municipalities --

Mr Kormos: What about the property taxes going up?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the members come to order, please. Will the minister wrap up his answer.

Hon Mr Leach: That's the most hypocritical position I've ever heard.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. This morning the World Wildlife Fund of Canada handed out its national report card. The report card marks each province on its efforts to protect natural areas. Ontario scored an F. In contrast, and I find this a particularly interesting contrast, Alberta scored a B, the second-highest mark in the country. Minister, what's your explanation for your government's failing grade?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my friend opposite for the question. This is normally an area that my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources would be happy to respond to, but I'm pleased to answer on his behalf.

The protection of natural areas and sustainable management of this province's resources is a concern for this government. The Ministry of Natural Resources is drafting an action plan for completing Ontario's system of protected areas. This plan will provide comprehensive criteria for designating new areas, and once this plan is in place, we will move forward.

We will meet its campaign commitment to provide an action plan, and I would like to note that this plan was started by the previous government, but the document failed to address properly the World Wildlife Fund's desire to balance environmental protection and job creation.

Mr McGuinty: In 1989, Ontario was further ahead than all the other provinces in the protection of its natural areas. In fact, Ontario was the very first province to commit itself to meeting the goal of establishing a network of protected areas by the year 2000. Your party made an election promise to have a plan for just such a network in place by December 1995. Four months later there's still no sign of that plan. Not only have you missed your own deadline; your commitment in even making a plan is now suspect.

Minister, when specifically will you be releasing your plan to protect Ontario's natural areas?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I would like to emphasize the fact that I think it's important we do not go forward in a piecemeal fashion. We are working on our action plan.

The other thing I would like to note is it's important that we have some decisions made with regard to boundaries. Certainly the first nations would be concerned about this, and there are some mining concerns that need to be addressed as well.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If I may have the indulgence of the House's time, we have a visitor in the gallery today, Mr Mel Swart, a former member for Welland-Thorold. Welcome, Mel.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, you will be aware, I hope, that the board of directors of the Association of District Health Councils in the province passed a motion last week regarding their concerns about your recent partisan appointments to local district health councils. The association sent you a motion calling on you to end your political interference in appointments.

The association has researched and documented the direct involvement of your political office in the appointments process and has found that a total of 23 parachuted appointments have been made in eight district health councils. You have ignored the legitimate, non-partisan recommendations made from district health councils in Ottawa-Carleton, Essex-Windsor, Brant, Waterloo, Simcoe, Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton and Sudbury. You've ignored recommendations from those district health councils.

Will you do the honourable thing and rescind those blatantly partisan appointments and start listening to the local associations that know better what's best for their community than you do sitting here in Toronto?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm aware of the letter from the Association of District Health Councils of Ontario. I'm also aware that the world doesn't exactly operate the way the honourable member suggests that it does in terms that every organization out there and every person who is on an advisory board to the government is necessarily non-partisan.

I'd be happy to give you the litany of names of very partisan people whom you appointed, as government, to the district health councils. You undid 20 years worth of non-partisanship, true non-partisanship, in our district health councils in Ontario, because district health councils were started as advisory boards 20 years ago by the Conservative government of the day to be truly the eyes, ears and conscience of local communities and to not take partisan shots at the minister through the local media, as we see very often in his own area, and they are indeed partisan shots.

Having said that, the record is clear: 80% of the DHCs' appointment recommendations to this minister have been approved by this minister and this government, a record better than the previous NDP government's with respect to accepting the advice of district health councils in this province.

Mr Laughren: I will not call the minister a liar, but what he just said is simply not true.

The Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council is a very good example of some of the most blatant political involvement we've ever seen in our community. The chair of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council, in a letter addressed to you, states: "In recent months, our council nominated 12 people for appointment and three for re-appointment after having rigorously followed the process set out in the information guide for appointments to DHCs. Council members are concerned that you have chosen to disregard their nominations. Further, council members are concerned that political affiliation now appears to be an important criterion for appointment."

This isn't happening in just one district health council; it's happening in at least eight across the province. The district health council says that you are undermining the community confidence, and that's exactly what you're doing, because I can tell you that in Sudbury your appointments are a joke. You must, you simply have got to, if you're going to restore confidence in the district health councils across this province, restore legitimacy and integrity to the appointment process. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Wilson: If the honourable member doesn't have confidence in his constituents who have been appointed to his district health council, you, Mr Laughren, are Chair of the standing committee on government agencies, boards and commissions, and if you don't have confidence in your own constituents, many of them put on your district --

Mr Laughren: It won't wash, Jim, I know my contituents better than you do.

Hon Mr Wilson: You tried this when I was up there and it didn't fly, Mr Laughren. These are excellent people, recommended in many cases by the medical society in Sudbury. They're your constituents and those of Ms Martel and Mr Bartolucci, and if you don't have faith in your own good people, and all of them non-partisan, haul them before the legislative committee, which is your right, and challenge their qualifications in a public committee, and stop taking cheap shots at these good people who are volunteers and not paid a penny for their efforts.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I was flipping through the newspaper the other day and I ran across a rather startling article, I think it was in the Toronto Star, concerning the Ontario teachers' pension plan.

If I understand the facts correctly, and I must admit the facts were somewhat difficult to understand -- frankly, they were overwhelming -- it appears that the previous government, in its attempt to keep a lid on the escalating deficit they were dealing with, which they were generating, cut a deal, it seems, with the Ontario teachers' pension fund.

It looks like this deal would say, all right, the government will let that pension fund off the hook, and I think the terminology was "holiday," although I'm not exactly sure what that word means, for yearly contributions to the pension fund if the province agreed to pick up a tab to the tune of an $8-billion deficit in the pension plan at that time, a deficit I was led to believe was created by questionable investments in the fund.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mr Sampson: Could the minister help me out and help my constituents out who have been calling me on this item, and advise as to whether this deal was indeed a done deal and what kind of financial mess has been left to the taxpayers of this province by the previous government sitting over there in this Legislature?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I agree with my colleagues who just commented what an excellent question the member for Mississauga West has raised today. The honourable member will know that I too have heard questions from my constituents because of recent media stories.

My constituents, and I'm sure yours, are concerned not only that they have recently read they are on the hook for an unfunded liability for sick leave gratuities for about $1 billion, but that because of the actions of previous governments in 1989 and 1992, some of which the member has alluded to, the taxpayers are on the hook for a liability with the pension fund of over $8 billion. Not only will the taxpayers be paying for this next year, but their children --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The members of the opposition might want to hear this. The children of our taxpayers will be paying for this unfunded liability, because this will be paid out over the next 34 years, because of a deal arrived at by the previous governments.

Although we've heard some people talking about the draconian effects of a reduction, of a request that boards find savings next year of under 2%, about $233 million, next year the taxpayers of Ontario will contribute almost $1 billion to this pension fund because of those arrangements made by previous governments.

Mr Sampson: I'm still shocked. I can't believe these numbers. I cannot believe what the minister has been telling us.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Talk to Bill Davis; he did it.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Where's Bill Davis?

The Speaker: Order. I can't hear the question.

Mr Sampson: I'm still shocked and so are the residents of my riding. I cannot believe we're expected to pass this debt on to my children and my children's children and my constituents' children. This is over and above the $100-billion debt we were talking about before. It's now $108 billion and growing every time we look at what this previous NDP government did. What can the minister possibly do to relieve us of this burden?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know that not only is the member shocked but many people are shocked when they find out that not only is the province on the hook because of these arrangements for over $8 billion but the $1.2-billion experience gain that the fund has recently developed can't be used to satisfy that because of the arrangement made by previous governments. Indeed that is shocking.

One of the other things I think is shocking is that members of the opposition -- both parties -- and members of teachers' unions often quote the cost of education without including the cost of pension, without including this normal cost of compensation. I'm surprised by that. In our announcement a couple of weeks ago about our own compensation, this government recognized that pension is part of compensation. Maybe it's time the members of the opposition take that into account when they quote education dollars, and the same with the unions representing teachers. One of the things we can do is to recognize these contributions.

ALCOHOL INDUSTRY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since assuming office last June, you have had meetings with the Association of Canadian Distillers as well as representatives of individual distilleries, including Hiram Walker from my community, Corby and Seagram. The representations made to you and your colleagues were to the effect that the taxation on distilled spirits is unfair relative to other forms of taxation on alcohol. You've been exploring the whole alcohol industry.

Have you made recommendations to the Minister of Finance with respect to this and is your government prepared to deal with the concerns that have been raised by the association, especially with respect to the jobs that could be lost if we don't?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I really appreciate the contribution the distilled spirits industry has done for the province of Ontario. Particularly, Hiram Walker in Windsor is one of the largest distillers in the world. Past governments haven't recognized their contribution.

In talking with the distilled spirits industry, I have said to them that as we go through the restructuring of our retail system, we will be considering issues like the distribution of taxes and markups with regard to all different products, and said to them very clearly that I recognized there perhaps wasn't an even playing field with regard to that sector of the alcohol industry.

Mr Duncan: You are no doubt aware that there have been some disagreements between the federal and provincial jurisdictions, and the federal government is looking for provincial agreement around the whole issue. Last week, in correspondence and meetings, the federal Minister of Finance indicated a willingness, if a jurisdiction like Ontario takes the lead, to look at the whole issue.

The Minister of Finance also wrote to me on June 30 and indicated, "In preparation for the upcoming budget, I will be reviewing a number of taxation issues, including the level of taxation on alcohol products."

Minister, the industry is really at a desperate stage. Indeed, last week Hiram Walker indicated a concern that it will close if this issue isn't addressed relatively quickly. Would you, with the Minister of Finance, agree to try to fast-track this and meet with the Minister of Finance to see if we can come up with some arrangements to try and protect the jobs that are left in Ontario, recognizing that since 1984 there have been over 8,000 jobs lost in the industry?

Hon Mr Sterling: You know, our government is going to bring forward a budget next week where we have promised some tax cuts. Unfortunately, our federal government has done the exact reverse.

I find it strangely ironic that the federal Liberals would meet in Windsor last week and start talking about tax cuts to distilled spirits. We've heard about promises about scrapping other taxes in Canada and in Ontario, and I don't know, when federal Liberals get together and start talking about scrapping taxes, whether they're serious or not. Were we not going to get rid of the GST in the province of Ontario and Canada? Isn't that what the Deputy Prime Minister of this country said in the past? She said she would resign if they didn't scrap the GST. Has she resigned?

If the federal Liberals would like to drop the amount of taxation that they are taking on distilled spirits, I would welcome that kind of leadership. I would welcome leadership on the part of the federal Liberals to decrease taxes, not increase taxes, as both the provincial and federal Liberals have done time and time again. It's time for the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The question has been answered.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. We have learned that because of your government's cuts to the health care system, cancer patients may no longer be assisted with transportation to where they have to get their radiation treatments. The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has been told to expect a cut in its budget this year. That means they will have to find about $1 million somewhere. They plan to reduce their budget in the transportation area and in the next few years will completely phase out funding to the Canadian Cancer Society to provide transportation services, despite the fact that the Cancer Act in

section 5 requires that they provide those transportation services.

I'd like to ask the minister if he feels it's now time to put an end to the big lie that you're not cutting health care services in this province.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I can only assure the honourable member, as I have on many, many occasions, that the health care budget was $17.4 billion when we arrived in office; it's $17.4 billion today and it will be $17.4 billion each year going through the next election, as was our commitment to the people of Ontario in the last election campaign and in the Common Sense Revolution when we wrote it in May 1994.

I can assure you that that fact will be once again reconfirmed in Mr Eves's next economic statement or budget, that is, we have fully sealed the health care envelope. You've not been able to find, having just gone through an estimates process with the opposition parties here, any evidence contrary to that. The budget is fully sealed at our commitment.

With respect to the reduction in transfers to the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, yes, we did announce as part of the November statement and we more recently, in filling out the details of that statement, did announce a 5% cut. We do not want to see a cut in front-line services and we are making it very clear that they must find that 5% in administration, as we've done in the Ministry of Health, and they're not to cut front-line services. I thank the honourable member for bringing this point to my attention.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, my point of order is based on standing order 13(a), which reads as follows: "The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum...." Also, 20(

b) says, "When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt such member...." I feel, as do a lot of members on all sides of this House, that the decorum in this chamber is deteriorating to a point of absolute disgust for us as members.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's all because of the Tories.

Mrs Marland: You see what I mean? We have received from you at least four letters asking us to restore the decorum. I am standing in my place today, Mr Speaker, to ask you to review the tapes of the proceedings in this House so far today and to tell us if you accept the proceedings in this House as a standard of decorum that you're proud of.

The Speaker: The member has made her point very well. I suggest that all members are guilty of the same offence. I would say to the honourable member that she should raise that issue in her caucus next Tuesday, and I would ask all chairs of caucus to raise the issue in their caucuses. Perhaps that would be the best way to solve the situation that we have.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker, on this point of order: I must say I concur with the member for Mississauga South on this issue. In fact, as caucus chair, we were discussing this in the Liberal caucus this morning in our place. I would like to ask this Speaker if he would consider being strict with the questioners -- and that's us in the opposition -- but also with the responders in the government. I think if each of us on both sides would try harder to place our questions more succinctly and the answers in turn would come back to us more succinctly -- and we'd ask for your assistance in that -- we could have better decorum in this House.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise in support of my friend the member for Mississauga South and point out that while there have been many interruptions from all sides of the House, I was quite taken aback by the reaction on the government side when I tried to place my first question. I would really like all members on that side to take that into account and remember that all interjections are out of order.

The Speaker: I'm very pleased that the issue has been raised and I'm very pleased that the other members have taken the time to realize the problem that we have. I will certainly do my part to try to make question period a better place for all.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Hamilton Centre has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the minister without portfolio, Workers' Compensation Board, concerning his report on the WCB. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Attached is a petition signed by 67 superannuated teachers of Ontario, district 13. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, superannuated teachers of Ontario of district 13,

"Could much more readily accept the government of Ontario cuts if they were more equitably focused, rather than targeting the most vulnerable of our citizens;

"Would much prefer a comprehensive attack on the deficit, instead of a singleminded focus on expenditures only, which in our view jeopardizes the future of education, reduces the quality of health care, reduces the supervision of our environment, attacks the wellbeing of our poorest citizens, many of whom are children, puts affordable housing at risk and increases costs for seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes."

They recommend "a focus on our unemployment, which is a provincial disgrace, by making loans more accessible for new businesses, eliminating payroll taxes and possibly reducing the length of the workweek."

They recommend "an immediate study of employment as it will look in the next generation, and the preparation of a plan which promotes full employment in as short a period of time as possible. This would do much to eliminate the hopelessness which is rampant among many who are not wealthy Ontarians."

I submit this petition to the House.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly against the changes the Harris government wants at the WCB. They want to regain the fair benefits that were agreed to in 1915.

I affix my name to the petition.

SPEED LIMITS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, hereby apply to the Ministry of Transportation to have the speed limit on Highway 7 east from Television Road to Drummond Line in Otonabee township reduced from 80 kilometres to 50 kilometres for safety reasons."

I affix my signature to it.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition from people out at St James Town in regard to the government's plan to scrap rent control. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents;

"Therefore

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

I have signed the petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition signed by 444 students from Orangeville District Secondary School objecting to the cuts by the Dufferin County Board of Education.

I wish to file this with the Legislature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): A petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7 and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

This petition is signed by a number of constituents from across the riding of Kent.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by 253 residents of Ontario. It is addressed to the Premier, and it says:

"I'd like to tell you that it's more important for me to provide prescription drugs for seniors than it is to get a tax break. It's more important to help a person with disabilities to get work or feed a hungry child than it is to get a tax break.

"Mr Harris, stop the cuts. Keep your tax break. We want the kind of Ontario we're proud to call home."

I support the petition, and I affix my name to it.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition with 30 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the OPP detachments of Wasaga Beach, Bala, Alliston, Shelburne, Midland, Barrie, Orillia, Bracebridge and Huntsville report 1,068 traffic collisions in the month of November 1995; and

"Whereas November 8th and 15th were peak snowfall periods and MTO services were not in full production; and

"Whereas there is a large population from these towns that travel to jobs in Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga that need roads plowed and sanded 24 hours a day due to shift work; weekdays and weekends during heavy squalls off the Great Lakes. In addition, the winter tourism industry to these areas draws approximately 100,000 weekend drivers; and

"Whereas the provincial government spending has reduced Ministry of Transportation services of no snowplows during 12:30 am to 4:30 am;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide sanders and plows 24 hours a day for the following well-travelled routes:

"County roads 18 (Airport Road), Simcoe 10, and highways 50, 27, 400, 26, 10 and 24."

The petition is in the proper format and I affix my signature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): A petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7, and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

ASSISTANCE TO CO-OPS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition that comes from many co-op members. They're very concerned about the federal government devolving their responsibilities away from co-ops and passing them on to the provincial governments. This petition is to the Legislature Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend, and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I support this petition and sign my name to it.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition signed by a number of residents in Oxford county expressing their concerns with the privatization of public services in Ontario.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of residents of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirits sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in the stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn the sale of liquor and spirits over to private liquor stores and retain the LCBO for this purpose."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in agreement with its contents.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

I add my name in support.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here. It's addressed to the Ontario Legislature and it's signed by over 600 people from eastern Ontario.

"Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7 and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

I have affixed my signature to it.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition and a number of letters signed from women in the town of Hearst.

"Since the Pay Equity Act was supposed to be reviewed this spring, I urge you to support the reversal of Bill 26 amendments to proxy pay equity.

"Please send me a letter stating that your position is in reversing Bill 26 changes to pay equity."

The resolution goes on to say:

"An extra $1.50 would have meant a real difference to my life: more money to pay for food, clothing and rent, more money going into community businesses. As a taxpayer, more money would have gone back to the government to help pay down the deficit. Finally, I would have received a fair wage, even though I work in a mostly female workplace."

These letters and petitions are signed by a large number of women from the town of Hearst, Mattice and the surrounding area, as was the other one I presented earlier on the changes to the WCB from a number of men and women from the town of Hearst.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I will add my name to that petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature in support.

CHILD CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very short petition here, but I hope the government will take it very seriously because it deals with a serious issue. It's a petition in support of family resource programs.

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas.

"We urge this government to make its budget reductions in areas where children and families will not once again be the target of cuts.

"Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care which includes parents caring for their own children and the care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

I've affixed my signature to same.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 39,

An act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act and the Public Vehicles Act and to make consequential changes to certain other Acts / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission des transports routiers de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les véhicules de transport en commun et apportant des modifications corrélatives à certaines autres lois.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As the previous day came to a close, I had a few more comments I wanted to make on Bill 39. The heart of this bill leads to complete deregulation of the bus industry in the province of Ontario. We know what's going to happen when complete deregulation of the bus industry comes. Communities in northern Ontario, small towns in southern Ontario are going to be devastated when you have the disabled, the seniors, the students who are not going to be able to have the bus service they need to get back and forth from universities and colleges, and some of them use the bus on the weekends to get back and forth from their workplace.

The government is saying in their comments, "Well, if you're concerned about safety, we're going to address the issue of safety," but we all know that when you deregulate an industry, whether it be the airline industry or the trucking industry, larger carriers will come in and put the squeeze on the small carriers, and the small carriers as they start losing money will cut corners, as we saw when the Liberals and the Tories in Ottawa deregulated the trucking industry. We see transports driving with no brakes, we see tires falling off the transports, and this is what could happen to the busing industry.

We know that the highways are not going to be maintained any more, so if you deregulate the bus industry and the small communities have to rely more on private vehicles, and at the same time the Ministry of Transportation is giving pink slips to about 1,200 workers from the Ministry of Transportation, this is not going to help to repair the potholes that we have building up all over Ontario and especially in northern Ontario.

Although we don't see the potholes on a day like today when a severe storm has hit and closed down the highways, closed down the schools -- and we're almost at May 1 -- eventually, as the sun comes out and melts the snow there, we'll see the frost heaves and the potholes. With 1,200 workers less with the Ministry of Transportation, we don't have a winter maintenance program now that is sufficient and we're not going to have a summer program that is going to be sufficient to do the maintenance that is required.

Deregulation on Bill 39: We know it's going to lead to complete turmoil in some of the communities. The previous speaker from the county of Perth: I raised the issue yesterday that I don't know why a lot of the Conservative backbenchers are not speaking out at their caucus meetings and saying, "Look, for the few dollars that are involved in giving a tax break to the wealthy and the upper 10% people in the province, why are we going to lose our buses in these communities?" Some of these communities are Conservative-held ridings, and they don't seem to care about the seniors, the disabled, the students who are going to be hurt out there.

We can go on and on about the disasters that are going to happen as a direct result of this particular bill. What I would ask is that before the bill receives third and final reading, there are public hearings and that the government would reconsider its decision, change its mind, and say, "Well, okay, we've hurt enough people in these small towns already by laying off 2,200 MNR employees, we've given notices to close to 200 Ministry of Northern Development and Mines employees" -- I mentioned earlier the Ministry of Transportation employees who are getting laid off.

It is hurting the tax base of these small communities very seriously, and they don't know where they're going to turn. In the town of Cochrane, which is about 80 miles from Kapuskasing where I live, the 4,500 people who live there have been looking for a meeting with Premier Mike Harris and Chris Hodgson to discuss the issue. Why move 40 or 50 jobs 65 miles down the road to another community and devastate the tax base in the town of Cochrane?

I guess the nice weather has taken Mike and Chris out on the golf course, because they don't show up in the Legislature. In the town of Cochrane, the mayor and the town council can't get hold of them. They haven't answered their phones in the last two weeks. I've said almost every day in the Legislature: "Give this town the courtesy of five or 10 minutes of your time. Explain what you're doing; explain that you have to devastate some of these communities, whether it be deregulating the bus industry, whether it be the cutbacks that are happening in health care, education, government employees.

Sit down and explain to the mayor, the town officials and the chamber of commerce, who are very angry." I don't blame them for being angry when people don't answer their phones.

The original notice, a fax letter, went out saying: "This is what we're going to do. We're going to pull $2 million out of the town of Cochrane and devastate it." Now we know that a lot of communities like Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing and Hearst are in danger of losing the regular bus service that comes in. When you lose your bus service, that affects the stores; it affects the businesses.

I go to get my car repaired at the garage, where they'll say: "We're going to order a part. That part will be in tomorrow. It'll be coming in on the bus." If buses don't stop in these small communities, what do the garages do? What do the farmers do in Mitchell, Monkton, Stratford, in all these communities in southern Ontario where I was born and raised? They're going to be devastated by having to spend the extra money, the extra cost that's going to be involved in getting parts.

Farmers depend on local bus service to get timely delivery of parts they need for their machinery in the spring or fall, for seeding, and for sawmills and industry throughout northern Ontario.

In addition, students, the disabled, seniors who don't have cars -- some of them don't have drivers' licences -- look forward to getting out on the bus, using that service. Now we have a Conservative government in Ontario that is saying, "We don't care about that particular service that's being delivered."

They don't care about people who are hurt or injured on the job and receiving workers' compensation payments. They're going to reduce them. Last year they attacked the women and children who are receiving welfare by cutting those.

The spinoff effect is on corner stores, which are the life of small communities. People don't have the money any more and cannot buy the services there. Losing the bus service that goes into those communities is going to be completely devastating.

I got a call at noonhour today that in addition to roads being closed in northern Ontario because of a severe snowstorm -- we hope it's the last snowstorm of the season, but it probably won't be -- schools being closed and the highways being closed, we have had a major derailment, where seven freight cars jumped the track, and it looks as if not only is the track closed but Highway 11 is closed. This happened very close to a school yard. I just wanted to relay to people across Ontario, as we're speaking on Bill 39, some of the events that are happening.

Down here the weather is different. I joke that while we're still shovelling snow in the north, down here they have another hardship because they've got to rush and get their lawnmowers ready to cut the grass. That's the extreme, about five or six weeks' difference in the season.

As I said on the last day I was speaking to this, I hope the Conservative caucus raise this at their caucus and do not act like a bunch of trained people who are going to clap their hands when they're told to and do exactly what Mike Harris tells them to do. It seems like that's the way.

I can recall a number of years ago with Jonestown, Rev Jones was there and he said: "Either you drink the Freshie or you'll get shot. You have a choice." So most of them drank the poisoned Freshie and the rest who refused to drink the Freshie, they shot.

I don't know if this is the fear the Conservative caucus has of Mike Harris, but there's got to be some fear in their minds. Why else would they just agree to allow their small towns to be devastated as a result of government cutbacks and the damage being done as a result of this particular legislation which will lead to complete deregulation of the whole bus industry?

With that, I will wrap up my comments and wait for another day as more legislation comes forward.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions or comments?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to rise and comment on Bill 39, the intercity bus deregulation.

Comments were made a few days ago in the House by the member for St Catharines who went on to name a bunch of the communities in my riding: Blackstock, Orono, Nestleton, Brooklin, Port Perry and Newtonville. I'm surprised the member would attempt to alarm these people.

This bill recognizes that in the past 10 years many of the 400 communities have indeed lost bus service. The current legislation allows for operators to discontinue service with a minimum of 10 days' notice. Furthermore, I'm convinced that the minister has made every opportunity to work with communities and small entrepreneurs within those communities to be able to establish a not-so-regulated environment.

In conclusion, I would make the comment that in transportation issues, as I read through the changes being made, safety is almost the most important and central factor to the decisions being made.

I just want to straighten out and comment to the member for Cochrane North. I recognize that small communities will have to -- some of the entrepreneurs will now have an opportunity to provide a service that's appropriate for their municipality. I believe the communities I represent will be better served by the entrepreneurial spirit that exists in each of our communities.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to make a comment in respect to this policy.

It is true that there has been and will continue to be significant change in the transportation sector, including the motor coach industry, but what Bill 39 intends is that the traditional cross-subsidization of previous Ontario government policy -- that cross-subsidization required that the major motor coach operators like Greyhound and Voyageur Colonial, if they were going to be licensed to operate on the significant and profitable routes along Highways 401 and 17 and 400, were going to be required to provide some level of service in the low-volume, unprofitable parts of rural Ontario.

A fundamental aspect of Bill 39, which I think is objectionable, is that the government for whatever intention seeks to remove the requirement that has historically been there, that if you are a major player like Greyhound and Voyageur, for the right to operate on the profitable routes, you were going to be required to do business on the lower-volume routes.

The big winners in this policy contained in Bill 39, a policy that will abandon that cross-subsidization, are the big corporate players like Greyhound and Voyageur, and the real losers are those small communities -- at least in my part of east-central Ontario. I don't speak for Durham region but I can tell you, if we alleviate the requirement, remove the burden, or remove the requirement for Voyageur to cross-subsidize routes like the ones through the eastern part of the province, there will be no service.

Voyageur and Greyhound win, and they win big; small-town Ontario loses, because many of these routes are simply not viable without cross-subsidization.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to comment on the speech made by the member for Cochrane North because he's 100% right on this. The issue is that you have a number of Tory backbenchers who go to their caucus meeting on Tuesday morning and are told by Mike Harris and the Minister of Transportation that they have to blindly follow this blanket policy of complete bus deregulation and come into the House and do as they've been told by their masters. That's what's happening in this House. At a time when people are cynical about politicians, I believe that kind of action adds to that cynicism.

There are plenty of Tory members in this House, some 85 of them, a good majority of whom represent ridings that are going to be negatively affected by this decision by this government, and they are coming into this House and saying, "Mr Mike, Mr Al, I'll do your bidding and I will not speak out on behalf of my constituents." I warn you all, this will affect you.

The member for Cochrane North is 100% right. Smaller communities that don't have the volume are going to get negatively affected. That's going to be the result of this policy. Those communities with large markets will not be as greatly affected -- no question.

We say to you from the NDP caucus, we're prepared to work with you at looking at how we can make changes to bus regulations so that we can free up the market maybe a little bit more in those areas that have larger population bases that can support the increased competition. But in those areas where you don't, I'm saying there is going to be a price to pay and that is going to be that the people in those areas, the people you represent, aren't going to have the bus services necessary.

I know the member from Etobicoke's going to get up and he's saying there are 400 communities that lost services under deregulation as is. The point is, and he knows full well, that the cross-subsidization issue deals far more with the issue of being able to deal with keeping bus services in place in communities that need them than you would have without the cross-subsidization in bus regulation.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Not to be pre-empted by the member from Cochrane, let me just explain the situation as I see it. Obviously, from the two-minute comments made by the members opposite and both members from Cochrane, they're not letting the facts get in the way of their decision.

The fact is this: Those people in the more than 400 communities who had their bus services discontinued think they were very important. You may not think that, by saying that by cross-subsidization they're important runs that we're going to keep on the road. Those over 400 communities that lost their bus service -- hey, guess what? -- they thought that was important and they've lost them.

Furthermore, when they talk about cross-subsidization, right now you can maintain your contract once a month. All you have to do is run a bus once a month during tourism season and you keep your contract. What kind of bus service is that? Once a month. If you're going to leave town, you just have to make sure you leave on the right day or you wait 30 more. That's the kind of service you're asking to maintain. The status quo isn't working.

I appreciate the fact that some on the other side of the House don't think these changes are perfect, but --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: On that side of the House, to the left. But the fact remains, I've heard nothing concrete. You're prepared to work with us. Well, other than slamming the piece of legislation that's come forward, I've heard nothing that would convince me they're prepared to work, prepared to put their positions forward.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Like you worked with us, Chris; that kind of partnership and cooperation.

Mr Stockwell: I think we did put our positions forward. It was called the Common Sense Revolution, to the member from Hamilton. If you weren't so arrogant and pious in government, you would have taken that seriously and maybe you wouldn't have been decimated quite as badly as you were.

I say to the members opposite, don't let the facts cloud your judgement, because that's what you keep saying. It's the same merry-go-round. Over 400 lost. You'd only have to maintain a service for providing a bus once a month and these people can opt in and out as they see fit. The argument I hear from Ontarians is, "The status quo doesn't work; we need to address the issue; here are our changes," and you keep telling us, "Maintain the status quo."

Applause.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane North has two minutes to respond.

Mr Len Wood: I don't know why the members are clapping for the member for Etobicoke West. When you devastate small communities in northern Ontario or farming communities in southern Ontario, it's nothing to clap and laugh and joke about. We're talking seriously about the disabled, the women, the children, the elderly people who are going to lose their bus service.

I want to thank the other members who made comments: the member for Cochrane South and the members for Renfrew North and Durham East.

The real heart of this bill is deregulation, and it's part of the government's agenda to reward its friends at the expense of the public. It's not the students who are benefiting from this bill, it's not the seniors who are benefiting from this bill, it's not the rural communities in northern Ontario or southern Ontario that are benefiting from this bill. The only ones who are benefiting from this bill are Mike Harris's friends and some of the rich bus industry in Ontario.

It's not too late for the Conservative caucus to change their line. I mean, Sheila Copps promised during the election campaign that she would get rid of the GST or she would resign. Mike Harris has said that if taxes go up, he will resign. It's not too late to change their minds, be honest with the people and help some of the communities.

Mr Stockwell: Hey Len, you said you'd eradicate food banks. You said you'd have government-run auto insurance.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Len Wood: The member for Etobicoke had his two minutes to respond, and he still feels it's okay for Mike Harris to damage and hurt the small communities by deregulating the bus industry and pulling the industry out of these communities. I'm sure the Tories are going to have to go back home and they're going to have to explain why they supported a bill that is going to devastate their communities as far as where the buses stop and deliver the services.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the subject of intercity bus deregulation. I believe this initiative of the Minister of Transportation is long overdue. As chairman of the Red-Tape Review Commission, I am not going to get into some of the specifics, because they have been adequately explained and exposed by our members on both sides of the House. But I'd like to suggest some reasons why we should consider deregulation, principally because regulation has many manifestations.

It's not just the law or the written regulation; it's hearings, licences, permits, guidelines, permission, reports. All of these things add cost, they discourage initiative and they stifle innovation.

We are deregulating because we believe the free market will provide needed services economically. We are deregulating because as Conservatives we believe that less government control encourages private sector efficiency and innovation.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association made a presentation to our commission and they pointed out a study, that it costs Canadians over $48 billion to comply with regulations. Ontario's portion of that is estimated to be $20 billion. If you take 10% of that alone, $2 billion, and divide it by the average industrial wage, you will find that it's costing Ontario approximately 55,000 lost jobs. So regulation kills jobs.

We feel the changes in Bill 39 satisfy our government's concern that regulation is costly. We feel that regulations are not always effective in achieving their stated goals, and we believe that regulations, as typified by the regulation of the bus industry, have often been counterproductive and achieved objectives that weren't contemplated; in fact, that are directly opposite.

You've heard it stated that over 400 communities have already lost their bus service, and I would like to point out to the members from the north that the north does not have a corner on lost transportation. Just a few names: Petrolia, Wyoming, Oil Springs, Watford, Strathroy, Dunnville, Wainfleet, Camden, Thedford, all communities within easy reach of my residence in St Catharines, have been without bus routes.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Killaloe.

Mr Sheehan: Right. What about Killaloe and Rainy River?

The town of Beamsville, for example, is on a main run, so-called, but it hasn't had bus service for the last two years. Grimsby doesn't have bus service, Lincoln, none of them, and they're right in the heart of this thing. If the regulated process was such, then certainly the run by Gray Coach or the new PMCL line coming from St Catharines-Toronto should be able to subsidize little drop-ins to Beamsville, Grimsby etc, but they do not. That's the regulations that have been in place.

We think Bill 39 will encourage business and entrepreneurs to spot some opportunities, to see that the removal of these regulations will provide them with an opportunity to make -- I don't want to say this out loud -- a profit by providing a service to people who need this service. We have been sitting in a regulated market since 1920, and there's no doubt that regulation has reduced initiative and competition.

The changes in Bill 39 will encourage these entrepreneurs to recognize the opportunity and to capitalize on this open market. Who says we have to have a 39-seat bus? Why can't we have a van? Why does the bus service have to run all the time on a regular circuit? Why can't they do it like they do in the paramedic or Paratransit system, on a demand basis? Perhaps it will encourage some semi-retired or early retired people to earn some extra money and keep contributing to their communities.

There's a story about a young fellow in the University of Western Ontario who made a very nice little living operating a weekend shuttle service between London and Toronto. This is the kind of activity that we think will help. This is the kind of activity that we think will provide better busing service for these isolated communities.

You have to understand that this government is committed to safety and health and that all of these considerations are taken care of in other acts that are on the books. I urge you to vote for this bill. Bill 39 is a productive piece of legislation and it will help the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Bisson: I'm going to take the opportunity to respond to a couple of points the member makes. First of all, he makes the comment about new operators coming into business and being allowed to make a profit. Somehow or other the Tories think people in the opposition, specifically from our party, are opposed to that. Quite the contrary. The economic system runs on the basis of somebody being able to make a profit, and that's the whole point here. If you can't make a profit, you don't operate a business. It's very simple economics.

The point we're trying to make is that when you talk to operators who are presently running a system of buses, various kinds of buses in rural communities and smaller communities, they're able to make a profit because the market is so small that they're given basically a monopoly -- and there's nothing wrong with a monopoly in that case -- to run a bus service up and down the highway picking up service in some of the larger areas, but in exchange, they cross-subsidize those better routes for routes that have less profit. This is the whole point.

If you move away from regulation in those communities that have those bus services in place because of regulation and because of the licences that were granted to private operators who have a monopoly in that area, they're not going to be able to run those bus services because there won't be a buck to be made. Why would any businessperson with any common sense run a bus service if he or she can't make a buck? That's the point here. In exchange, what the government did years ago was put in place bus regulation.

They said, "We're going to allow the private sector operator to operate a bus service up in this area, and in exchange for getting a licence in those areas where he can make a few extra bucks because of the monopoly, he will cross-subsidize those fares with those communities that can't get bus service because there's just not enough of a market to warrant it."

That's what the whole idea of bus regulation was all about. So if the member is saying this is all about profit, I'd say go back and take a look at it again, because you can move away from regulation in areas of large market, but if you move away from that in smaller communities, we're going to get stuck with no bus service at all.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): On this debate I have to support the member for Lincoln. As he's pointed out, regulation is costly. Not only would I support him because he's a fellow caucus member, but because what he speaks of is through his experience on the regulation review committee.

Regulation is costly. Currently, the situation is not working. Individuals have the ability to maintain a bus service, and to capture a market, they can provide service as little as once a month in order that during the summertime or when peak periods come by, they can capitalize on charter services in those areas and provide other services,

whereas what this legislation does is give the local communities the ability to determine their own service and have the potential to provide that; not only that, they can also give local employment, which is an economic stimulant to the local community, not only through employment but through the purchase of goods such as gas or whichever they may decide to support as well.

We can only emphasize that this is a potential for the smaller communities. We constantly hear and we constantly bring up the fact that over 400 communities in the province of Ontario have lost service, and that is with the system the way it stands right now. It's not working. This is April 1996; deregulation comes out in 1998. That gives us ample time to review the situation that is coming about and we can see what's going to take place then.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I would just say in response to the member's intervention in the House and his speech earlier that speaking to deregulation is the question of market forces and what impact they have. The fact that he mentioned that there might be some operators to take up some of these routes would be obviously a good thing, so that in other words, it would be incumbent upon the marketplace to determine where these services would be provided, and that would be done on the basis of demand. That would be done without regard for underserviced areas, without regard for the kinds of considerations we've given to underserviced areas in the past.

The member is hoping and the government is hoping that these areas would be serviced even if they're not profitable. We have great concern with that. As well, this initiative by the government, this bill, would speak to a half-baked deregulation -- it's not the full deregulation that was talked about earlier -- so we don't know what the real impact would be of finally deregulating the entire industry.

There are all kinds of reasons to be concerned about the way in which this approach is moving forward. We don't know what the impact of any of these measures will be on these small communities; we don't know what the impact will be for those people who need these types of services -- students, farmers, small business people reliant on bus service to deliver their parcels from one community to another. The list is endless in terms of the requirements of small communities. I think the government owes it to the rest of us to at least indicate clearly that it understands what the impact will be out there in those communities.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to compliment the member for Lincoln on his speech to this place today. I think it's insightful and offers some answers to the questions that have been developed in opposition.

I want to just dispel one myth that seems to pop up rather regularly in the opposition benches. The thought is that when deregulation kicks in, profitable runs will no longer subsidize unprofitable runs and the operators can then pull out of the unprofitable runs. Let me be very clear about this: They can right now. They have the capacity to pull out of unprofitable runs. They have exercised that capacity 400 times in the last 15 years. They can continue to exercise that option in the future if we maintain the status quo. Let's make no bones about it.

There's no middle ground; there's nothing that isn't understandable. Very simply, they've opted out of over 400 runs in the past 15 years. On 10 days' notice --

Mr Bisson: So you're going to proceed.

Mr Stockwell: Let me finish. On 10 days' notice, to the member for Cochrane South, they can opt out of any other run they like. So this idea that's being proffered by the opposition, that by partial or full deregulation you're going to cut loose the unprofitable runs and they won't be there any longer, is poppycock, bafflegab, opposition blubber. It doesn't make any sense. They've had that option. They've exercised that option and the option has accrued, over 15 years, over 400 times. One last get it through your head: If we deregulate, it makes no difference; on 10 days' notice, they're out of there, as it is today.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lincoln has two minutes.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks to Mr Stockwell. I'd like to point out to the member from Cochrane that we understand the concept of cross-subsidization. The communities I mentioned are not on any profitable runs, nor are they likely to move anywhere near close to any profitable runs, so there is no opportunity to cross-subsidize and provide them with service. The facts are, they're out of service and they're not likely to get it under the present process.

This is a process that will encourage other people to provide alternative ways of providing this service. It was the subject of the gentleman from -- what's the name?

Interjection.

Mr Sheehan: Business will go where the opportunity is. This will just permit business to go where the opportunity is, and maybe the people of Ontario will get some service they've been doing without for the last 10 or 20 years.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cordiano: Let me just continue with that train of thought with respect to what this government is proposing. I want to deal with that in just a moment.

To start a discussion on this bill, my intervention is really to start to understand why it is that we cannot fully support or embrace this bill as it has been proposed by the government. The reason for that and why we are putting forward opposition to this bill is because the government has come forward with a half-baked idea about deregulation and, furthermore, has not laid to rest any of the concerns that we have with respect to those underserviced areas.

If the government came to this Legislative Assembly and the minister brought forward impact studies or reports, some analysis which was done and information and evidence available to us to determine that these communities would not be adversely affected by the impact of this bill in the way we've described -- and I want to deal with that in just a moment, but I think it is clear that this government is flying on automatic pilot, without understanding what the full impact of this bill will be.

So I say to the members opposite and the minister, if he's listening from afar, why not deal with the measures that could be brought to bear on this? Why not do a full impact study, or impact studies, in those communities? Let's determine what the real impact would be upon those communities and then let's come back and determine furthermore that this is the appropriate way to move.

The members opposite cannot stand in this House and say: "Well, we know that this is a better measure because what we've had before really didn't work. It hasn't worked; we've lost routes in 400 communities." I say to the member who brought that forward that the reason some of these routes were eliminated -- there was the Ontario Highway Transport Board which could have been appealed to by the operators to suggest that they were losing money on these routes and could therefore grant permission to stop service on these routes. There was a process in place and there had to be a hearing before this board.

After this measure is brought in and we get partial deregulation under this bill, operators will no longer be required to do that. The board is no longer directly accountable to the minister. The board will be made up of representatives from the industry. In fact, the industry will be self-regulating in this fashion.

As a result of that, the operators could eliminate these unprofitable routes much more easily than they could under the present board, before this bill was brought in, so it's not true that these routes were eliminated that easily. There was a process that had to be followed and the process was very clear, and only then could application be made for these routes to be eliminated on behalf of the operator. It was a much more difficult process to achieve the elimination of those unprofitable routes.

Imagine what will happen after this bill is enacted. There'll be no stopping, no limit to the number of unprofitable routes that will be eliminated. Instead of 400, we may have thousands of routes that will be eliminated. Consequently, it will be far worse. Contrary to what the previous member said in his speech, it will be a lot worse.

The bill will adversely affect those communities. People will feel the impact of this. Let's not fool anybody here; let's not have the government fool anybody here with respect to the service that will be eliminated in those small communities. The fact is that this bill has not been thought through properly. At the very best, the government should admit this. Pull back the bill, let's have those impact studies and let's determine what the real consequences will be for those communities so that people will be fully aware of what they face. Currently, that's not the case.

Furthermore, the government does not plan to have hearings on this bill in committee. I think that's also a disadvantage for people. The public will not have a say in those communities, and I think people would want to have a say.

Protection for small bus operators who currently run those routes will be lost as well under this bill. Furthermore, there is no reciprocal agreement with Quebec and Manitoba, but the bus operators there will be free to come in and poach those routes, compete freely against our bus operators in Ontario, so we'll have those kinds of problems to deal with. The government has not dealt with this basic problem. I can't for the life of me understand why this government would move forward without protecting our bus operators from the poaching that may take place from those other jurisdictions.

We will likely lose some of our profitability, and Ontario-based bus operators will lose some of their market share to those competitors. It is inevitable; it's quite clear that this will happen.

This is not full deregulation, and we don't know how far this government will go. They have pointed to the fact that this is an interim measure, that there will be additional measures down the road, and not knowing fully where things may end up in their final form, where the industry might reasonably know the direction the government is going in and the direction that deregulation will take it throws the industry into confusion. I think those are fair questions to ask, and all this should be dealt with through committee hearings so that we get a much clearer picture, so that those communities across Ontario will know what the full impact is.

I said earlier that bus service is not only relied upon by students who travel to and from school; there are seniors who in most cases have no other choice but to use bus services and other people travelling across the province to see family or visit the doctor in other cities across Ontario. There are some very good reasons why people need bus service across this province, and I don't think the government has made the case to the point that deregulation will make for a more efficient marketplace in all those small communities.

Where there are large enough populations in communities where that is the case, you could probably show with an economic model that private operators would have the profitability levels to make those routes efficient, and therefore deregulation probably could be accepted in those areas. In locales and communities where you don't have those efficient numbers, where you don't have large enough numbers of people living, I don't see how you can make this work.

The member repeats, "The status quo is not acceptable; we're going to move to another model." That's like giving up the car that you know, that maybe needs repair, that needs to be brought up to speed in terms of maintenance, to buy some other car that is a lot older, and you have no knowledge of what shape it might be in once you get in it and drive it off the lot. We're giving up something without knowing what we're getting in return, without really knowing what we're buying into here. All we're asking is that this government make provision for determining what the real impact would b