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

June 5, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L083 - Wed 5 Jun 1996 / Mer 5 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

JIM MURRAY

EDUCATION

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

TAXATION

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

RED TAPE REVIEW COMMISSION

VISITOR

SPEAKER'S RULING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

OBSTETRICAL CARE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

CROWN LAND CAMPING FEES

ONTARIO WOMEN'S DIRECTORATE

AGRICORP

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

CHILD CARE

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM LEGISLATION

DÉCHETS TOXIQUES

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

ONTARIO HYDRO

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

RENT REGULATION

MANDATORY INQUESTS

RENT REGULATION

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

RENT REGULATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES CIVIQUES, DE LA CULTURE ET DES LOISIRS

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM), 1996 / LOI DE 1996

GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE, DU COMMERCE ET DU TOURISME

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ÉNERGIE

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF HEALTH), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRIES OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AUX MINISTÈRES DU SOLLICITEUR GÉNÉRAL ET DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

OPPOSITION DAY

RENT REGULATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Our region of Ontario is extremely distressed by the recent closure of Phillips Cables in Brockville after 75 years in business; 335 workers have lost their jobs since Phillips decided to sell its building wire business to an American firm and shift the remaining production to plants in Italy and the United States.

The company's chief executive officer, Carl Painter, emphasized that the decision to close the plant is not tied to the performance of the plant's employees, who agreed to a four-year wage freeze in 1991 and made other concessions to keep the plant alive.

The Harris government has vigorously claimed that its policies, its changes to social and labour and other legislation would cause business operations to remain and expand in our province. It was presumed that the exodus of plants would end. It has not.

The government does not hold out much hope to these workers and their families in the Brockville community since it does not have a job creation plan. Where are the programs to assist the workers, many of whom have worked for Phillips for their entire working careers?

This government has abandoned its promise made in the Common Sense Revolution to create 725,000 jobs. The government's own figures in the budget predict that the unemployment rate will be higher in each one of the next two years, by 8.9% next year and 8.8% the year after. Going by these numbers, in 1998 there will be 6,000 more people unemployed than the day the Mike Harris government took over.

We hope the government will reconsider the abandonment of this key promise and offer hope to the laid-off workers of Phillips Cables and all of Ontario's unemployed.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Yesterday's announcement of the so-called automobile insurance reforms lacks so much, but in particular what they fail to do is to address a crisis that's been brewing in the brokerage industry for some time now. It's the dirty little secret of that industry, and you know exactly what I'm talking about, Speaker; I know you do.

What's been happening is that private auto insurance industries have been cherry-picking, high-grading, and how they do it is they cut brokerage firms free. We've got brokerage firms in this province -- they've called me -- who have only one insurance company left that they can sell for. Of course, the government requires that they disclose who their companies are. That brokerage firm, once it is disclosed that they only act for one company, maybe two, is out of business.

They might as well shut the doors, because the private sector auto insurance industry in this province has not only been running rampant and footloose and fancy-free, picking the pockets of drivers and innocent victims; they've also been beating up on brokerages.

For a government that purports to have any interest in small business to permit brokerages, especially in small-town Ontario, small, family-run businesses, small businesses, to continue to be victimized by a voracious private sector auto insurance industry is unconscionable. The fact that these brokers, as they should, have to disclose who they act for is going to shut down the biggest chunk of small-town brokerage firms and leave the profits for only the biggest and the best buddies of this government.

JIM MURRAY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I consider it a tremendous privilege to make this statement. Mississauga recently honoured Jim Murray with the Gordon S. Shipp Memorial Award for citizen of the year.

Jim Murray's dedication to community service has been unwavering for nearly 30 years. Despite the demands of his career as vice-president of J.J. Barnicke, Jim has found time for a wide range of community service. Jim's earliest volunteer activity centred around the Scouting movement, followed by the Kinsmen Club of Mississauga, where he served as president and vice-president. Through the Kinsmen Club, Jim initiated the Mississauga Canoe Club building project.

Other organizations that have benefited from Jim's volunteer efforts include Counteract, Peel Regional Housing Authority, Living Arts Centre, Bethesda Concert Series, Cyclos Theatre Company, Credit Valley Hospital, Mayor's Gala, Peel Museum, Mississauga Sports Council, Don Rowing Club and Mississauga News Christmas Bureau Fund.

Jim Murray said of Gordon Shipp, for whom the award is named: "Gordon Shipp was one of the finest men I ever met. He set an outstanding example for people who wanted to contribute to their community." Jim, if Gordon was still alive, he would say the same about you.

On behalf of the people of Mississauga, congratulations for this much-deserved honour. Like your father, former reeve and mayor "Chic" Murray, you have made an outstanding contribution to our great city for which we will be eternally grateful.

EDUCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): This government's education priorities are all mixed up. In a Mike Harris educational system, dollars and cents are obviously more important than reading, writing and arithmetic.

Yesterday, during the debate about this government's priorities in relation to Ontario's education system, the Minister of Education and the member for Niagara South stated that the reading and literacy levels of students entering and exiting our secondary schools are in a deplorable state. Indeed, the minister stated that today our grade 9 students are reading and writing at a grade 4 level.

What is the study that he is referring to? This flies in the face of testing that was done last fall on a province-wide basis that showed us that 93% of our grade 9 students were at a satisfactory or better level in their reading and writing.

Naturally, we should all be concerned with continually improving the capacity of our students. What is the government planning to do about this?

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yesterday I asked a question to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding fighting fires in my constituency and all across the north. I'd like to summarize briefly what the issues really are:

Fire crews fighting forest fires without radio contact having to come out of the bush to use a telephone to contact their supervisor.

Fire crews not being fed for over 24 hours.

The equipment that was formerly kept at the Gogama fire base airlifted from Sudbury to Timmins and then trucked back to Gogama.

The complete and utter lack of coordination of staff and equipment.

The inadequate staffing levels that necessitated a radio operator being sent from Timmins, and rehiring of surplus staff in Gogama.

Helicopters not arriving when scheduled to pick up equipment and fire crews.

Helicopters unable to transport fire crews and equipment because the refuelling stations are not operating.

The constant shifting of equipment and fire crews from location to location because of a computer projection of fire behaviour.

Believe it or not, this could be worse. The fire situation this year is much better than last year. So far, there have been few big fires. The fires around Gogama and Shining Tree have all been small to medium-sized. What would happen if a really big blaze occurred? This government has been very lucky that the fire hazard has been so low. Since they can't handle the fires we've had so far, I'd hate to see what would happen if a real disaster was to occur.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to commemorate Canadian Environment Week, which runs from June 1 to June 9, and World Environment Day, which is today, June 5.

Canadian Environment Week is dedicated to promoting environmental awareness among Canadians. The week provides an opportunity for concerned Canadians to focus on environmental issues and to help conserve and protect our country's natural heritage.

World Environment Day, which is celebrated every June 5, was established in 1972 by the United Nations Stockholm Conference on Human Environment. It is expected to be celebrated in more than 100 countries around the world, and is meant to focus global attention on environmental action and awareness.

This government is committed to action and tough standards that ensure the protection of the environment for generations to come. We are committed to ensuring that the spirit of Environment Week and World Environment Day is preserved.

Air quality throughout Ontario, and especially in the hard-hit GTA and Windsor-Quebec corridor, continues to be an important issue. We continue to take a tough stand against acid rain. The province has established a 52% reduction in emission levels since 1986. These are just a few of the initiatives that we are pursuing to ensure that Ontario is the standard for environmental protection.

On this day and this week, I urge all members of the House and all Ontarians to make activities that preserve the earth part of their daily lives.

TAXATION

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today in Windsor, 17,000 signed coasters which read "Stop Unfair Taxes" have been given a sendoff here to Queen's Park for the finance minister, Ernie Eves. This issue is about jobs -- the jobs at Hiram Walker & Sons Ltd. This government has the opportunity to save those jobs with a fairer tax to consumers, licensees and distillers.

Tom Racovitis, president of the Essex county branch of the Ontario Restaurant Association, says: "Our customers are appalled at the amount of tax charged for beverage alcohol," and fully support us in our initiative to get the Ontario government to change these discriminatory tax policies.

Mr Eves, in his speech to my Rotary Club in Windsor, acknowledged that this is a significant problem. We need more than an acknowledgement; we need a solution, and Ontario taxes are the lion's share of taxes.

Mr Eves, you say you're interested in creating jobs. How about starting by saving some -- the jobs at Hiram Walker & Sons Ltd. Look forward to 17,000 signed coasters being delivered, as we speak, in an empty barrel to our finance minister, Ernie Eves.

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I absolutely must draw the attention of the House to an

article in today's Toronto Star, headlined "Environment Minister Won't Ride City Buses."

Yesterday the minister appeared at a conference on smog prevention, and those of us who were there hoped she would announce measures this government intends to take on this serious health issue. But no, not only was she not forthcoming with any strategy at all; she stunned the forum with the news that she wouldn't ever take the bus, certainly not in Toronto and not even in her own home town of Guelph -- too inconvenient, apparently.

I think those who take public transit -- who don't, by the way, have the luxury of a limousine and driver -- would agree with the minister that there is, to put it mildly, much room for improvement of public transit. But what does this government do in response? It cuts back funding for public transit.

If the minister thinks public transportation is inadequate, it is her job to raise these concerns at the cabinet table and demand improvement. It is her job to encourage, not to discourage, the public to take public transportation.

The minister continues to crow about how people will want government, as she articulated, "out of their face." I'm sure the people of Ontario are getting tired of that mantra being used as an excuse for inaction on the part of this government to protect their health. People are dying. Smog kills.

The minister should set an example. I'm sending her over this bus token, and I encourage her to take "the better way" to work tomorrow.

RED TAPE REVIEW COMMISSION

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): As chairman of the Red Tape Review Commission, I am pleased to announce the release of our interim report today. Copies of the report have been mailed to the members this afternoon.

The commission is a catalyst for achieving an important part of the government's agenda and to fulfil promises made in the Common Sense Revolution. Our role is to review all laws and the process for establishing and applying them. While carrying out our work, we're ensuring that the environment, public health and safety and community values are not compromised.

Government regulation is everywhere and growing. It's choking business activity, job creation and investment. The interim report tackles that challenge.

The ultimate goal of the Red Tape Review Commission is to design a test, or a knothole, if you will, to ensure new laws and regulations are necessary, efficient and not barriers to growth. Our report contains an interim regulatory impact test which will be used until the final report is presented. The test will be called the Less Paper/More Jobs test. We will work with ministries and the business community over the next six months to perfect this test.

I'm pleased to note that eight ministers are introducing legislation which will simplify and streamline the government process. All these activities help make Ontario a good place to invest and create jobs.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to advise the House that we have Mr Bob Mitchell, a former member for Carleton, in the east gallery.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Upon review of the circumstances around the point of order raised yesterday by the member for Oriole (Elinor Caplan), I must remind all members that it is not for the Speaker to determine the factual merits of any statement made in this House.

It is, however, the responsibility of the Speaker to ensure that no member accuses another of uttering a falsehood.

All members are honourable members and should be treated as such.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It is my pleasure today to inform the House and the people of Ontario about my ministry's

part in cutting the red tape that businesses and individuals face in government services.

Today I will introduce a legislative package, the Government Process Simplification Act (Ministry of the Attorney General), 1996, that signals our recognition that we in the justice system can help to create a business-friendly climate for Ontario. We can help to create an environment in which companies and individuals find government services working for them rather than against them, to make it easier for them to conduct their affairs and keep jobs in the province.

Under the able direction of the Red Tape Review Commission, we have prepared a list of changes to 14 statutes to simplify processes and improve the administrative efficiency of many of our services. This will translate into faster, easier access for business, individuals and their legal representatives.

These amendments will directly reduce the legal costs and other costs of doing business, both for companies and for individuals. They help this government fulfil promises made in the Common Sense Revolution to turn back the years of overregulation and remove the barriers to economic growth and job creation.

Three main program areas are affected by our ministry's efficiency proposals: the office of the public guardian and trustee, the Assessment Review Board, and the more than 70 tribunals that operate under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

I would like to highlight some of what our legislative changes will accomplish.

We will make simple amendments to the procedures of the Assessment Review Board to make more efficient use of hearings and promote better customer service.

In terms of the public guardian and trustee, our amendments start to break down some of the complex procedures that abound in that office and make it more accessible. This will benefit the wide range of clients who use these services: vulnerable adults, executors and private trustees, charitable institutions, shareholders in dissolved corporations and beneficiaries of estates, to name a few examples.

We've increased the public guardian and trustee's flexibility to make decisions around the sale of property belonging to persons who have died without a will.

In other cases, we have made it easier for beneficiaries of smaller estates to receive deceased clients' property from the public guardian and trustee without going through the expense of getting letters probate through the courts.

With the Statutory Powers Procedure Act we have put on the table a number of efficiency amendments suggested by the tribunals themselves through their organization, the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators.

I commend the members of this society for their proactive work in this area. They consulted with the heads of tribunals, with their main clients and with other stakeholders about changes that could be made and forwarded their proposals to us. This is a fine example of how government, the business community and the public can work together. We need this kind of partnership to facilitate job creation and improve both government services and employment prospects for Ontarians.

My ministry's legislative changes support our vision for a modern, leaner, more accessible and more effective justice system.

As I have noted on other occasions outside this House, Ontario's competitiveness in the global marketplace is directly linked to the speed and affordability of its justice system. We in the justice system are proud of being able to do our part through the Government Process Simplification Act (Ministry of the Attorney General), 1996, to keep Ontario attractive for new and existing investment.

It is truly an honour to be able to support the work of the Red Tape Review Commission. I personally would like to congratulate its chair, Frank Sheehan, the member for Lincoln, for coordinating this effort and I would like to thank the people in my ministry who have worked closely with the commission members to better respond to the needs of business and individuals in Ontario.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I am pleased to inform members of the legislature that later today I will table proposed amendments to the acts governing the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Science North and the Ontario Heritage Foundation. These measures will reduce legislative barriers to efficient business practices, streamline operations and eliminate red tape.

The amendments proposed by my ministry will enable the boards of Science North and McMichael Canadian Art Collection to appoint their own CEOs. They will permit the McMichael board to remove the CEO if necessary. They will make the Science North board responsible for determining the salaries of the CEO and staff. They will allow members of the Science North board to serve more than two terms if desired by government.

They will make the board of the Ontario Heritage Foundation all volunteers and will enable the foundation to reduce the minimum size of its board from 21 to 12 at the board's request.

The proposed amendments bring the business practices of these agencies in line with established practices governing other government agencies. In part, they are the result of consultations with the ministry's cultural agencies on the barriers that hamper their ability to operate competitively, efficiently and cost-effectively in the course of conducting day-to-day business.

In short, we are cutting the red tape and better focusing our resources on serving our customers and all taxpayers. We are working with the Red Tape Review Commission to make government more effective.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Later this afternoon I will be introducing the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Government Process Simplification Act. This legislation will eliminate redundant procedures and reduce regulations that are an unnecessary burden to business.

The Government Process Simplification Act will amend three acts administered by my ministry. These acts are:

The Motor Vehicle Repair Act: This act will be amended to eliminate reference to regional ministry offices in signage, repair orders and invoices, and the regulation-making power concerning size, form and style of signs. The regional offices have since been closed by the previous government, and other more effective options are now available to consumers seeking information or lodging complaints. These amendments simply eliminate excessive regulation concerning the types of signs to be posted.

The second act we will be amending is the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. It will be amended to eliminate the regulation-making power requiring registered motor vehicle dealers to be bonded. The bonding requirements are no longer necessary because of the existence of the motor vehicle dealers compensation fund. The fund, which is industry financed, compensates consumers when dealers are unable or unwilling to meet their financial obligations.

The third act we will amend is the Consumer Protection Act. It will be amended to eliminate the registration requirement for itinerant sellers at the provincial level, as it has not been effective, while licensing at the municipal level has been more effective. While itinerant sellers no longer will be required to register, they will still be required to fully comply with the provisions of the ministry's Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act.

We have worked in cooperation with the Red Tape Review Commission, headed by Frank Sheehan, MPP, to review the ministry legislation to make it easier to do business in Ontario. These changes will eliminate redundant regulations yet maintain necessary protection for our consumers.

I encourage all members to support this bill when introduced.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I rise to inform the House that I will introduce legislation later today to eliminate red tape in the operation of some our tourism agencies and in the regulation of tourist establishments.

A number of our agencies and tourist establishments operate under legislation that requires that fees and forms be set by regulation. We will amend the Historical Parks Act, the Ontario Place Corporation Act, the St Clair Parkway Commission Act and the Tourism Act to simplify the process for setting fees and prescribing forms.

This is consistent with recommendations of the Red Tape Review Commission to reduce barriers to economic development and job creation.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): My ministry is moving forward on the commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution and the speech from the throne to reduce red tape.

On Monday, I announced a series of proposed improvements to Ontario's environmental legislation that will help us meet our commitment to providing maximum environmental benefit for the taxpayer's dollar.

Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental management, reducing barriers to economic renewal and competitiveness, and creating jobs are fundamental principles that this government will continue to act on.

Today, I am introducing proposed amendments to cut red tape and provide for more flexible operations of the boards that administer the following acts: the Consolidated Hearings Act, Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Energy Board Act, Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Red Tape Review Commission for its assistance in our regulatory review process. We will continue to work with the commission to find solutions that are fair, effective, and provide clarity and flexibility.

I would also like to thank my parliamentary assistant, Dr Doug Galt, for his tireless work in overseeing this review.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Later this afternoon, I will table the Government Process Simplification Act (Ministry of Health), 1996. As part of a greater package of amendments from eight different ministries, this bill is the first step in decreasing red tape for business and institutions in the health care sector.

The economic and social cost of regulation continues to rise. We must improve government efficiency and remove roadblocks that hinder businesses and the institutional sector from competing in an increasingly competitive market.

Under the direction of the government's Red Tape Review Commission, my ministry will reduce red tape by eliminating the requirement for cabinet approval for routine decisions by institutions, repealing obsolete and redundant statutes, and getting rid of unnecessary regulation-making powers over administrative fees and special forms.

This bill will amend or repeal 19 statutes administered by the Ministry of Health. We will eliminate the need for some government approvals of routine decisions or actions by businesses or institutions, Lieutenant Governor approval of bylaws, and the regulation-making power to prescribe some forms and fees.

We will also repeal the Cancer Remedies Act, the Hypnosis Act and the War Veterans Burial Act.

These amendments can be added to the growing list of ministry accomplishments in reducing red tape.

Since July 1995, we have eliminated the need for ministry approval of hospital bylaws, simplified hospital budget reporting, replaced previous bureaucratic and intrusive consent laws with the Health Care Consent Act, simplified drug submission and review regulations for faster processing, and replaced the plan to create 100 multiservice agencies by streamlining home care and placement coordination programs into 43 community care access centres.

By making these amendments to Ontario's health laws, not only will the ministry become more efficient, but the health care sector will be able to better serve Ontarians as a result of these changes.

We are being very careful to preserve the regulations that protect our health care system, while cutting red tape that discourages economic growth. We are also striving to make fundamental changes to prevent the creation of red tape in the future. We will ensure that the new rules make good sense and are fair, efficient and necessary.

Our commitment in the Common Sense Revolution is to reduce red tape. This is just the beginning the Ministry of Health's efforts to make the business of health care simpler. Over the summer we will continue to work and consult to bring further red tape reduction measures to the Legislature this fall.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the Legislature on the actions of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in reducing red tape for both government and business operators.

As part of our government's red tape review goals, I am pleased to inform the Legislature that later today I will table my ministry's Government Process Simplification Act. This act includes two components which will help reduce barriers to economic growth and job creation.

First, our government will repeal the Canada Co's land acts of 1922, which deal with mineral rights to more than 571,000 acres of land from Windsor to Ottawa. The repeal of these acts will remove the complex and lengthy process that landowners must go through to obtain clear title and mineral rights to their land, which are currently held by the crown.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines receives, on average, 75 mineral rights applications every year. The current process of handling the documentation required by the crown involves four ministries and can take anywhere from three to five months. The new measures will transfer the mineral rights to the registered owners of the surface rights, thereby reducing uncertainty and saving time and money.

Secondly, I am presenting an amendment to the Mining Act which will eliminate the requirement to license refineries. Our mining legislation currently requires refiners of gold and other precious metals to obtain a refinery licence from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

This administrative burden provides no significant benefit to either my ministry or the mining industry. Approximately 54 licences are currently held, and they must be renewed every year. This amendment to the Mining Act will eliminate the need for business to renew the refinery licences and will reduce administrative costs incurred by this ministry.

These amendments demonstrate my ministry's commitment to working with the Red Tape Review Commission to reduce government barriers to business and to create jobs.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Later today I will table the Government Process Simplification Act (Ministries of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services), 1996. The bill will amend five acts: the Anatomy Act, the Coroners Act, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act.

The amendments we are introducing today may not change the lives of Ontarians, but they will make it a little easier and a little less expensive to run the ministry, and that does benefit all Ontarians.

The changes contained in this bill are the sorts of things that should have been done years ago, at least in the last 10. For example, under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, all licences expire and must be renewed on March 31. That means we have to hire temporary help to process the pile of paper that comes in the door all at once. The amendment will see licences expire throughout the year, depending on when they are issued, similar to drivers' licences, which makes a lot more sense. Not only will it save money, but it will mean better service to the individuals seeking licences.

Similarly, we now need to get what is called a removal warrant if we want to transfer an inmate from one jail to another, something we do 22,000 times a year. Technological improvements to our procedures are being introduced that will allow us to simplify the process we use and transfer documents electronically. We are therefore deleting the requirement under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act for a written warrant and letting our superintendents get on with their jobs.

This legislation demonstrates our commitment to remove unnecessary or obsolete regulations and to work with the Red Tape Review Commission.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A lot of us were expecting a statement today of major importance, and we find that the really important items will be coming later, of course, in the dismantling of each of the ministries of this government.

A lot of the minor changes that are made nobody's going to object to. They're routine, they're changes which can be made, with computer technology and so on. But the government's real agenda is the dismantling of all protection for consumers and others in the province of Ontario, leaving the best to those who are the most powerful, the most wealthy and the most influential in the province. They are the people who will be applauding not only this statement but down the line.

Many of the regulations established by Conservative governments in the past and by other governments were established to protect consumers, to protect the environment, to protect those in the field of justice. If some of them are archaic, a century old, something of that nature, people are not going to object.

But we must look at the real agenda of this government. The members on the other side see government as evil because government can protect individuals, because government has the opportunity to provide equal opportunity for people in our province -- not equal outcome, equal opportunity. This is something that vested interests, powerful interests, will be interested in and applauding today.

The real fear is not so much about what we see in these statements as about what is to come. When there's a mention of 1,000 regulations being looked at -- many of those regulations were established for very good reason: to protect health, to protect safety, to protect the environment, to protect consumers. The people who will object, as well as the general population, are going to be good business people, good business people who are protected against bad business people.

When you have the majority of people in this province in business doing a good job, trying to live up to the regulations, following the legislation of the province, they will be concerned when they see that you are watering down the regulations that their perhaps less ethical competitors will be looking at and taking advantage of. What you're doing is bringing the standard down across this province rather than raising it.

We've already seen the gutting of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy. It simply won't exist by the time the summer is over. My friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will simply be the Minister of Commercial Relations, because there will be no protection for the consumer left in this province when he is finished with it; he may not even have the job when he's finished with it. Yet I can recall many Conservatives in the past who saw a need for many of the roles played by his ministry.

We are looking at the fact that you have already deregulated the field of busing and you are causing great problems in the future for the small communities across this province, small-town and -village Ontario, who are going to lose bus service as a result of worshipping at the altar of deregulation and having the government get out of providing some protection and assistance to those communities who require it.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is being gutted. The minister gets up and puts the best face possible on it, but he's losing his staff. One of the reasons some of the regulations are going to disappear is that you simply won't have even the staff or the resources to enforce them. I can just imagine the people in the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment today, a diminished branch, a branch that's being reduced, seeing even more regulations removed so that the polluters can have their way in this province.

There is going to be, I guess you'd call it, a checkerboard of quality of roads in Ontario as you abandon your responsibility for ensuring a good road system throughout this province.

What we have had from this government is an abandonment of its true role, of its proper role and responsibility. People don't mind some of the reforms that are taking place. You're going too far and you're going too quickly.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In response to the outrageous statement by the Minister of Health, which was nothing more than rhetoric, the reality is that he is not cutting red tape; he is cutting and gutting services. We heard not one word from him about care, about quality of care, about health care. What we have heard from him is $1.3 billion in cuts to hospital budgets, $225 million in user fees for the poor, for seniors and for disabled persons. We've seen cuts in chiropody services, feet services. Minister, stop the cuts.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In a way, I'm of two minds about this interim report and the statements made by the ministers. On the one hand, the work in itself has been sort of a make-work project for Tory backbenchers in that it appears that some of the regulations being eliminated are those that were inactive and unused anyway, so it really is a bit of smoke and mirrors in that sense. In a way, actually having to sit down and find these inoperative regulations was in itself a bit of waste and duplication.

On the other hand, we are very concerned about what the final report might bring, particularly since the government says that it will eliminate 1,000 regulations. Many of them will be ones that are inoperative, that don't count, don't matter one way or the other, they're just sitting on the books and they haven't been used for a long time. But there may also be, within that very large pile of regulations, some very important ones that were established by governments, Tory, Liberal and New Democrat, for very good reasons.

The government seems to misunderstand the purpose of regulations. Governments, I suppose this government thinks, just came up with regulations for the fun of it, bureaucrats wanted to produce more regulations that justified their existence.

But in fact, when it comes to travellers going abroad and being stranded overseas without a means of returning home when a company goes bankrupt, when it is a consumer that is not being given proper protection in regard to the purchase of a product that doesn't produce or do what it's supposed to do, when it comes to an auto dealership that may not be as scrupulous as others and may not in fact repair and provide the parts that a vehicle driver needs, these are regulations that should be examined very, very carefully before they are eliminated, because we want to ensure that consumers, the public, the environment and labour are protected.

That's why regulations were established in the first place.

If we're talking about changing so many regulations at once, is this sort of the second coming of Bill 26? Is the government going to try to sneak dozens of regressive changes past the public with little or no consultation?

The process that we've seen so far has been completely business driven. The parliamentary assistant, the member for Lincoln, in his press conference had to admit that there has been no consultation with the public. He said he could identify one call from labour, just one call from labour.

We're talking about changes that will affect workers' rights, we're talking about changes that will make it more difficult to ensure the protection of our environment, we're talking about changes that will hurt consumers perhaps, and yet labour, environmental groups, consumers groups, none of them were consulted, not one of them; they only talked to business. This government seems to think that business is the only group that counts, and as long as business agrees, then it's okay, even if it may threaten the general public and eliminate protections that Ontarians need in dealing with business.

Also there's the question of ensuring a level playing field. That's what some of these regulations are about. How are scrupulous business people going to be protected from the fast-buck artists and the con artists who will try to avoid doing what is right, will cut corners at the expense of scrupulous business people? How are we going to protect the public from con games and scams? How are we going to protect the environment from polluters? Will business be tempted, because there are some bad actors who are making a profit at the expense of the people and the environment, to follow suit because there isn't regulation and the regulations that are there are not being properly enforced?

I'm very concerned that this government may in fact be going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Efficiency doesn't mean letting the fox run the hen-house.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday in response to a question from my leader, the leader of the official opposition, you said, "We are doing everything we can, including, if the crisis is caused by the debate over the malpractice insurance, we fully restored that insurance." You went on to say, and I quote again, "We've asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to monitor this because it is responsible for the licensing of these individuals."

Your statements have proven to the province, to the women in this province, that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or how important this issue is. It's not about licensing, it's about patient care, and because of your policy decision to unilaterally scrap the malpractice insurance payments for Ontario doctors, women will not have the obstetrical services they need.

Last week I suggested you reinstate the malpractice insurance payments for doctors in Ontario until after Mr Dubin has concluded his report. That is a reasonable thing to do.

Do you not understand that it is women and their babies who may suffer because of your policy decision? You can fix this problem. Will you stand up today, put an end to this crisis, and announce that you are reinstating the malpractice insurance payments, called CMPA, for all Ontario doctors?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): First of all, it's the honourable member who doesn't know what she's talking about with respect to this issue. You have in yesterday's Sudbury Star an

article that says, "Doctors Expect Province to Give In." It goes on to quote Dr John Maloney, an obstetrician in Sudbury, who says very clearly: "We are not endangering public safety one iota. Any woman having an emergency will be looked after." The

article goes on to say: "A spokeswoman at Sudbury General Hospital, which handles the region's maternity cases, emphasized there is no immediate crisis. `The patients who are going to deliver over the next six months won't have a problem,' said Deborah Dunn."

We made it very clear that a crisis does not exist but that if services are withdrawn which would affect women as they get closer to having a birth, we will ensure that patients receive the care they need and deserve under our comprehensive and universally accessible health care system, publicly funded and administered.

Secondly, I did offer to fully pay the CMPA for obstetricians. We already did that in a 30% way on April 1 when we gave obstetricians and all of those delivering babies in the province a 30% raise through the fee schedule, which is the way prior to 1986 that government used to fund malpractice insurance. Most of our fees in the fee

schedule contain a portion for the malpractice insurance, and we're trying to return to that way of funding malpractice insurance pending Justice Dubin's report.

Mrs Caplan: Minister, you picked this fight. You have behaved like a bully. You do not understand the situation that you created. You unilaterally scrapped the malpractice insurance payments, and you did so against the advice of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

You have a responsibility to the people of Ontario and to the women of Ontario to ensure that they will receive the medical services they need. Don't wait for an emergency. Do not create a situation where the women of this province are forced to resort to emergency services. That is not in anyone's best interests.

You are not listening to the advice you have received. You say that you asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to monitor this situation. Well, they didn't wait for you to ask them. In fact, they conducted a survey because they were so concerned, and according to their survey, women have a right to be worried and scared because many, many doctors are going to stop delivering babies in Ontario because of your unilateral action.

Listen to the registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who told you back in December that patient care would suffer because of your actions. He believes you should reinstate the malpractice insurance coverage at least until Mr Dubin has reported. Listen to the women of this province who are asking you to solve this problem. Listen to the people of this province, but listen to those who know.

Minister, you have a responsibility. As a first step, will you stand in your place today, admit you were wrong, and reinstate the malpractice insurance payments for all doctors in this province so you can begin good-faith negotiations?

Hon Mr Wilson: When the previous Liberal government, in 1986, decided to pay the increases in the malpractice insurance above the 1986 base rate -- so they would pick up all future increases -- they forgot to put in place at the CMPA, which is an almost $1-billion fund sitting in Ottawa these days, any accountability. This isn't an insurance fund. It's not regulated by any government.

We've said for many, many months that we believe the physicians of this province, rather than pointing their guns at the Minister of Health or this government, should be pointing their guns at the CMPA board, which is made up of physicians, wholly owned by physicians, which has an approximately $1-billion reserve, which our actuaries tell us is more than enough money to cover any of the liabilities that may incur and that neither the government nor physicians needed to pay $48 million in 1996, a 20% increase over 1995, that there's more than enough money there.

Our position has been that neither the government nor physicians should be paying these obscene insurance premiums to an unregulated body in Ottawa with a $1-billion reserve.

The taxpayers of Ontario want accountability in all our systems, and we're asking doctors and the CMPA to put accountability in their system. Thank goodness -- I give the CMPA credit, and the federal Minister of Health -- we have agreed, along with all the provinces and territories, that Justice Dubin will look into this matter, and we will find out in September who's right and who's wrong. Our position is that doctors shouldn't pay $23,000 a year for malpractice insurance for delivering babies, and neither should the government.

Mrs Caplan: What everyone is saying to you is rather than acting unilaterally and scrapping the malpractice insurance payments, wait until you have the report so you know what the facts are. You have created these problems by your actions, which you took unilaterally without any data, without any information. All of us know you created this problem, you created this crisis, and you are the one who has to take responsibility for that.

You have not offered to reinstate malpractice insurance payments for all the doctors in this province. I know that and you know that. That is the truth. You have not offered to reinstate CMPA, which is the malpractice insurance payments for the doctors.

But the worst part of this is that you were warned, were told by the College of Physicians and Surgeons: "We believe that patient care need not be compromised had the appropriate steps been taken at the time the government announced its intentions regarding CMPA dues. The fallout from the government's withdrawal from CMPA support was predictable, foreseeable, and therefore preventable. The fact that nothing has been done to alleviate the impact on medical services to the public to say the least is unfortunate. With the dramatic increase in CMPA dues for obstetricians, many will opt to stop delivering."

The college warned you. You have done nothing. It's now six months later. Do the right thing. Stand up and announce the reinstatement of CMPA. You've got a report coming in September. Stop the bullying and get women the care and the services they need. Reinstate --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question's been asked.

Hon Mr Wilson: To say that we didn't discuss this matter with doctors or the Ontario Medical Association is a complete falsehood. I spent the first few months in office saying, "We've got to do something about CMPA." The Ontario Medical Association never responded. The CMPA never responded. In fact, the secretary of that association wouldn't return the calls of my deputy minister. The only way to get people to wake up to this issue was to withdraw the dollars on the table at the time.

Remember, this isn't a $23,000 hit all at once to these physicians in the higher premium brackets. They check off and they pay on a monthly basis. What we have said, and I think it's a victory on behalf of doctors, is that we're finally going to get, we hope, through Mr Dubin's inquiry, a full system of accountability in a very large insurance fund which right now doesn't have any accountability.

Let me tell you one other perverse thing that happens in this fund. The fund is supposed to be used for people and their families who win suits, malpractice suits against doctors, to compensate them for pain and suffering and loss. In recent years, the government has found itself in the perverse position at Medical Review Committee hearings or hearings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of paying for the lawyers on both sides of the table out of taxpayers' money.

The CMPA, using taxpayers' money, has in recent years been paying for the lawyers for the doctors on their side of the table and the Ministry of Health, OHIP as the plaintiff, also uses taxpayers' money. What a perverse position to be in and what a wrong use of a fund that is there to compensate innocent victims and their families, not lawyers, in the cases of disputes between OHIP and doctors.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, you plan a major upheaval of the property tax system across Ontario. You're reported this week in the press as saying that you're preparing to introduce legislation to give effect to this province-wide upheaval of the property tax system.

Homeowners in Toronto, apartment dwellers in Ottawa, farmers across rural Ontario, senior citizens province-wide, cottagers in Parry Sound, to name but five groups, want to know and need to know what the specific impacts of your major revolutionary change to the property tax system province-wide will be.

Minister, will you commit today to this House and to the people of Ontario that you will not proceed with your revolutionary change to the property tax system in Ontario without first making public the impacts of your change on all property owners in Ontario?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member opposite for his question. What I will commit to today is to bring in an assessment system that is fair to everybody in Ontario.

The assessment system in Ontario is broken. I think everybody agrees with that. There are some people being subsidized by other taxpayers; some are paying too much; some are paying too little. We want to bring in a system that's fair and equitable to everybody and we will be doing that.

Mr Conway: Three months ago today, your parliamentary assistant, the Rev Derwyn Shea, was quoted in the press as saying that as your parliamentary assistant he was aware that your officials were busily gathering the specific impacts of your major property tax change.

Given the fact that your own parliamentary assistant has said that work is well advanced on those impact studies, I ask you on behalf of the property tax payers across Ontario, will you commit to tabling those impact studies in this Legislature before you proceed with your revolutionary change which, believe me, is going to capture the interest and the attention of property owners from Toronto to Timmins and from Cornwall to Kenora?

Hon Mr Leach: The Liberal Party may think that fairness is revolutionary; I don't.

All we're trying to do, all we intend to do, is fix a system that's been broken, that the two parties opposite didn't have the courage to address all the time they were in office, and I think everybody agrees with that.

We are going to ensure that the people who have been subsidized by their neighbours pay their fair share, and we're going to ensure that those who have been paying more than their share get back to a system that is fair and we will do that.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear, Minister. You yourself have said in recent days that some people in Ontario, as a result of the Harris property tax plan, will see their taxes increased by over 40%. Your own parliamentary assistant has said that impact studies are being prepared.

Why will you not today commit to the taxpayers of Ontario that before you proceed with this revolutionary change you will release into the public domain the impact studies which your own department is preparing?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for his question. It's pretty tough to release impact studies when we haven't yet made a decision on the type of system we're going to implement. As you know, we've developed a panel to look at the options that are available to us and to report back as quickly as they can. As we have information that can be made available to the people of Ontario, we will make it available to the people of Ontario.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to return to the Minister of Health and the issue of obstetrical care. Minister, I've been listening very carefully and I know that all members of the House are very concerned about what we hear is taking place in the province and the fact that women do not have access at this point in time to this very important care unless they are already registered under the care of an obstetrician.

I have to say, in listening to your answers over the last few days, as you've explained what you've put on the table and offered the obstetricians, they sound like a pretty unreasonable group. I mean, it seemed like the CMPA was the issue that provoked this crisis.

You said on May 30 that you would give them a raise, including their full CMPA. You said on June 4 -- I'm reading these from Hansard -- that you're doing everything you can, "including, if the crisis is caused by the debate over malpractice insurance, we fully restored that insurance." You also said on June 4, "The record is clear that we offered to pay the insurance premiums, and then some, to the obstetricians of this province."

You've restored them, made them whole. Why would they be upset? So I gave them a call, and we spoke to someone who's involved in the group of people from the Ontario Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They indicated that in fact you haven't restored the full amount, that you've offered about a third of what the government would be paying in terms of malpractice, that you're doing that in parts and there's some possibility about the second

part coming after Dubin's report. Your officials also gave them 24 hours to respond and they said to you: "We're not a union. We can't speak on behalf of our membership in that way. We've got to talk to people and try and persuade them and see what the response is." "Twenty-four hours, give us an answer or it's off the table."

You've provoked this crisis, Minister. You've told things to this House that appear not to be totally accurate. I think it's time to be straight and to set the record straight with the women of this province so we know what the debate is, what the crisis is and where a resolve might come from.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I've been perfectly straight with the women of this province. I've also said that I would very much want from honourable members, including this honourable member, the names of any patients denied services and I'll personally make sure they get services. That's the commitment of this government. I don't know what else you can do.

We don't have a crisis right now. There's a lot of lead time before any withdrawal of services would have an effect on the women of this province, and therefore we're chatting with the Ontario Medical Association. I firmly stick by my previous comments about what was offered to the obstetricians' association and their response, which said it wasn't enough. I firmly stick by that. The numbers are available. They've been explained in press releases and press scrums. The numbers of what we offered are available, so there's nothing hidden there.

People can do the math themselves and figure out that obstetricians, with the offer we made last week, actually got a raise from this government, and I can't think of too many other sectors, including health care sectors, where raises have been offered this year so far.

Ms Lankin: I don't think that information is accurate. You continue in this House to say you have restored full CMPA, and the fact is that you haven't. At least the obstetricians didn't understand that. Maybe you should call them again and explain the offer. Maybe they didn't understand what the offer was, because that's not what your officials told them.

You also said to the women of the province not to be concerned, that you're calling the College of Physicians and Surgeons and asking them to have a serious chat with these obstetricians that they should live up to their responsibility to take on new patients. We called the college and the college has said, "No, we're not going to be having any serious chat because there's nothing wrong with a doctor refusing to take on a new patient." So that's not going to solve the problem.

You were warned about this. During the Bill 26 hearings we heard from obstetricians, from neurosurgeons and from orthopaedic surgeons and other high-risk areas that if you proceeded along this line, they were going to end up seeing members of their profession withdraw services. Well, the obstetricians have.

I have two questions for you, Minister. Have you been warned by the OMA that other physicians' groups, such as perhaps neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons, will consider actions similar to the obstetricians'? Secondly, are you involved in any discussions with groups similar to your discussions with obstetricians around this issue? What are you going to do to avert a wholesale crisis in the delivery of specialty care in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, the OMA denied having anything to do with this in the meeting we had two days ago, and we're meeting again this afternoon. I have written a letter today to the president of the OMA asking whether his organization condones this activity, because they have nothing to do with it and they don't agree with the action taken by some of their members. Perhaps it would be incumbent upon them, as responsible leaders in the medical community, to condemn or at least disagree with the actions of their members.

It's clear where this government stands, and we will not be held by blackmail by this group or any other group, given that we have gone to bat for doctors in this province. It's a very positive thing that we have done to try and bring some accountability on their behalf into the CMPA fund.

Other provinces have reacted differently. Quebec, for example, is thinking of getting out of CMPA and setting up its own fund because it got tired of dealing with the fund in Ottawa. They're going to withdraw their money, which will call into question the future of that fund and the availability to cover all of Canada's doctors, I would think, when one of the largest provinces threatens to pull out. We didn't do that.

With a lot of warning, discussion and media coverage we said we're very concerned about CMPA and couldn't get any response, so we took action which had the effect of the CMPA and the federal health minister and provincial health ministers agreeing to ask Justice Dubin to look into that, and we'll have his report in September.

I also spoke to the college yesterday and our lawyers had a little chat with them. They have an agreement that they have a responsibility to monitor the services provided or not provided and they will react to complaints, as is their responsibility, from patients who are denied services, if it comes to that.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question's been answered. Final supplementary.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): The other day you said you had contingency plans for communities in a crisis. You indicated that you could bring new graduates and new gynaecologists into communities where a crisis exists. The fact is that the Ontario Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says there are 144 vacant positions in Ontario already, and when they are completed, those physicians are allocated to communities across the province two years before they even finish their training. In my community obstetricians are not taking new patients, general practitioners today are not taking new patients and there are no midwives in Windsor-Essex.

Minister, what is your contingency plan for the women and families in Windsor-Essex today?

Hon Mr Wilson: There is no crisis today. This is a discussion that obstetricians are having with the government and that we're having with the Ontario Medical Association. Obstetricians in Sudbury, and I have every reason to believe them, say we're at least six months away from any effect on women in this province. I assure you we will continue to do everything during that period of time. We will certainly have Justice Dubin's report.

I said that if we're wrong about the CMPA -- we should be getting credit for going to bat for doctors in this province, but I guess when government was paying the endless bills on CMPA the doctors and a lot of other people didn't have any reason to worry about it. The government doesn't have endless, deep pockets any more. The previous government capped health care. We've gone above that cap in the last budget through the generosity of my cabinet and caucus colleagues. We're putting more money into health care today, but it's not unlimited. It's not unlimited in any province. The amount of money available for physicians, including their insurance, is not unlimited.

This province spends 18.5% more than the national average per capita on physician services, so we're one of the most generous provinces, if not the most generous, in terms of what we pay our doctors. We will settle this pay dispute with them over the next six months, before patient care is affected. Let's not unnecessarily keep worrying the women of this province, who I'm sure have enough to think about during their pregnancy period.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the minister responsible for native affairs and the Attorney General. Last week, our leader asked the Premier to request you, the minister responsible for native affairs, to investigate who reportedly said, "Get the" -- expletive deleted -- "Indians out of the park." The Premier said, "I don't mind inquiring to find out if anybody knows about this."

Yesterday, our leader asked you again what actions you had taken to investigate whether and when this offensive comment had been made. You have not answered the question, so I ask you again, what actions have you taken to investigate who made this comment? What investigation process have you started? What have you come up with? What do you have to report back to this House?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I have spoken to those who I understand attended some of the meetings that have been referred to and I have not found anyone who knows anything about that comment or whether it was made or who made it.

Mr Hampton: I want to ask the minister responsible for native affairs, who is also the Attorney General, who have you spoken to, then, and what meetings are you referring to? You will know that this morning, the lawyers for the George family held a press conference and they raised questions regarding the government's involvement in directing the actions of the OPP. Those lawyers advised that they have been contacted by several different sources who have provided facts in the course of their job that the Premier or his office was involved in directing the actions of the OPP. So I ask you, whom have you spoken to and what meetings are you referring to?

Hon Mr Harnick: I've spoken to members of my staff, colleagues and people who have attended the meetings that my friends across the way have referred to. Quite simply I will say again, there has been no government involvement in directing the OPP.

Mr Hampton: We learned yesterday, for example, that the member for Lambton was at the police blockade. Have you spoken to the member for Lambton? Have you spoken to the Premier? Have you spoken to all of the actors in the Premier's office? Have you spoken to all of those people who attended the blockade committee meetings? Have you spoken to these people, and if you have, we'd ask you to table the names of the people whom you have spoken to in this House.

Hon Mr Harnick: My investigations have not indicated, number one, that this comment was made, and of course following from that, who made it.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. It concerns jobs in eastern and northeastern Ontario specifically. Minister, people living in communities like Gloucester and Hawkesbury and Pembroke and Mattawa, Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Cornwall, are increasingly concerned that they are the subject of ongoing discrimination in the Quebec labour market because the Quebec government continues to tolerate and apparently support an active discrimination of Ontario workers and Ontario businesses which seek to do business on a level playing field in the province of Quebec, particularly in western and northwestern Quebec.

As the Minister of Economic Development and presumably the minister of interprovincial trade, what are you prepared to tell the working men and women and the business people of eastern and northeastern Ontario that you and your government intend to do to correct this transparent, ongoing discrimination in the Quebec labour market and workplace?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm happy to respond that our Premier was in Quebec City last week. He spoke to the Premier of Quebec at that time and voiced our concerns about the construction industry situation between the two provinces. I think he made a very good presentation. He feels the point was made, and I think in the future we'll see much better treatment.

We're quite aware, by the way, that Highway 416 will be completed very shortly. We are taking steps to make sure there are proper jobs for Ontario people.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): What's that got to do with it?

Hon Mr Saunderson: You asked me about that district, so I am responding.

I'm very pleased to say that I have had a recent discussion with Mr Lalonde of your party, who came to my ministry and said he had a company that was wanting to consider coming to Ontario. We have had discussions with him, and I offered just yesterday to sit down again with him to try to bring his party together with the people in my ministry to make sure we get some process in this. That's going to create jobs.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Great work. Sterling work, Minister. Job by job we'll save this economy.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, we are doing much to save this economy. But I wanted to report on what was happening in your particular region, which you asked me about.

Mr Conway: I must say that after 21 years in this Legislature I've come to the conclusion that voicing concern in Quebec City, whether the Premier is Davis, Miller, Peterson, Rae or Harris, is not good enough, however well intentioned those prime-ministerial communiqués are.

Yesterday my colleague Mr Lalonde, the member for Prescott-Russell, tabled in this Legislature private member's legislation which would have the effect of legislating in Ontario precisely the same kind of treatment that the Parizeau, Johnson, Bourassa and Bouchard governments have offered and continue to offer Ontario workers and businesses in Quebec.

Would you agree, as minister responsible for interprovincial trade, that the Lalonde bill introduced yesterday legislating equal treatment in Ontario relative to Quebec ought to be accepted by the government and legislated? I, for one, and speaking for my colleagues Lalonde, Morin, Grandmaître and others, believe that unless and until the Quebec government and the Quebec labour leadership and the Quebec business leadership feel the same kind of treatment in Quebec that Ontario labourers and businesses feel in Ontario from Quebec, nothing is going to change. Will you accept the Lalonde bill and will you undertake to support it as a government initiative?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I shall certainly look at the Lalonde bill. We always do consider every aspect on this side of the House. But let me say to the members on the opposite side that what is happening these days is a result of what they did not do in the past.

I can tell you that we are doing what has to be done in this province to create jobs. It doesn't matter in what particular region we do things. Let me tell you, if we raise the economic tide, the economic tide raises all economic areas in this province and the jobs start to come.

I am not concerned at this stage of the game. May I say that the records of jobs we have available from April show that there were 35,000 new full-time jobs created in Ontario. That's the strongest monthly gain we've had since November 1994. So I think we are doing our part on this side of the House to look after all regions of this province.

We will certainly look at Mr Lalonde's bill, but I would ask him to do what he can to bring together his company and my ministry.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I just wonder how many of those jobs in eastern Ontario are going to be filled by Quebec construction workers.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. During the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park, you were regularly briefed by ministry staff. On September 6, 1995, the day of the incident that took Dudley George's life, you were quoted as saying, "The bottom line here is that it's our park; we paid for it and they're illegally trespassing upon it."

We know that the blockade committee met on September 5 and 6. We know that political staff from your office attended those meetings. Minister, will you tell this House what meetings or briefings you attended yourself with regard to this occupation, what participation you and your ministerial advisers had in those meetings, and are you prepared to make clear to this House what you said and what your ministerial staff said and to table that, if your colleague the minister responsible for native affairs is unwilling to table the whole list?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): The quote that you refer to is accurate. It is our park. It was purchased from the federal government. If there's a land claim around that, there is a legal process to enter that, and that's been made clear to the first nation and the legitimate chief, Tom Bressette, and I've met with him on occasion.

The involvement of our ministry is because it is our park; the MNR is responsible for the park. We would have been briefed on what was happening. Our staff would have said the state of the park as we knew it up to that point. Any advice or any concerns that we had would have related to the park and those issues.

Mr Wildman: The minister was quoted on September 6 as saying: "Public safety's always at the forefront of these decisions but on the other hand there has been, in our opinion, illegal activity taking place and it should be dealt with."

Minister, would you clearly explain what you meant by "should be dealt with," and what was your position with regard to how the public should be protected, and did your opinions, private or public, directly or indirectly influence the OPP?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can't comment on whether it influenced or didn't influence the OPP, but I can tell you as the land owner responsible for the park that the question of public safety was an evacuation of the park of the campers and our staff. That had to be taken into account.

Mr Wildman: There were no campers. The park was closed.

Hon Mr Hodgson: You're referring to a quote, and I'm telling you where it came from. It came from the process around the evacuation, public safety being a concern. As the land owner, we would phone the police. I think I also went on to talk about, in that process, an injunction that might be requested from the Attorney General. If you have any questions on that injunction, that's a legal remedy to

an act of trespass.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Economic development and job creation are top priorities of all local officials in my riding of Nepean. Like the provincial government, my local government is taking real actions to create jobs in our community.

I was reading in the Ottawa Citizen today that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has decided to lower development charges for single and semidetached homes. Several Ottawa-Carleton municipalities, including my own municipality of Nepean, have already lowered the development charges for new homes in order to encourage growth in the housing sector. Could the minister tell us very specifically what effect these municipal actions will have on the housing market and how much this will help families in buying their own home?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank my honourable colleague the member for Nepean for his question. I too saw the

article in the Citizen, and I consider this to be a very, very positive step. Anything that decreases the cost of a new home is good news for the consumer. The building industry also sees this as good news, and I believe that it will pass these savings on to the consumer. Increased activity in the market will more than make up for any price decrease. As the member noted as well, Nepean has reduced its development charge by almost half, from $12,000 to $6,000, and this is going to create the opportunity for thousands of people to make the leap into new home ownership.

The spinoff benefits in home construction are also enormous. Besides the new tax revenue for the municipality, this is job creation. It's estimated that for every $1,000 reduction in the cost of a new home, 8,000 potential buyers would be eligible to purchase a new house. Think of it: A $6,000 reduction would make it possible for 48,000 potential new home buyers, and the spinoff effects to the consumers -- the purchasers of refrigerators, dryers, landscaping and moving -- I see this as a great move. It's jobs, jobs, jobs. It's music to my ears.

Mr Baird: I agree with the minister that municipalities helping to encourage growth in the housing sector is a very positive step. It will boost the sagging housing industry and create jobs, and it helps increase the overall housing stock, particularly the rental stock as well. Could the minister tell the House what his ministry is doing to complement these actions, to encourage growth and new jobs in the housing industry?

Hon Mr Leach: Again, I thank my colleague for that great question. In his budget my colleague the Minister of Finance announced the land transfer tax rebate of up to $1,725 for all first-time buyers of a new home. This is a very welcome step to encourage growth, and because of this and other measures the housing market is stronger now than it has been for a long time. The building industry tells me that consumer confidence in the industry is critical. A cut in taxes certainly goes a long way in this respect, and I note that resales in May reached their highest level in a decade in Ontario.

CROWN LAND CAMPING FEES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Premier. Just to be helpful to the Premier, I'm going to reference Hansard, page 5832 on 25 April 1994. I want to ask the Premier if he can confirm today that his Minister of Natural Resources is about to increase the tax on Boy Scouts who have property at Lake Panache near Espanola by 2,700%.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have no idea whether this is what's happening. I would be prepared, if you would wish me, to talk to the minister and to ascertain if this is indeed the case. I don't know whether it's -- how much, 2,700%? I don't know whether that's a three-cent increase. I don't know whether that is accurate. I don't know whether that is real. I don't know whether that is new.

But my experience of the Ministry of Natural Resources is that it has been very fair and reasonable in any very modest user fees it has proposed to put our parks on a more sustainable basis. I can tell you as well that to the best of my knowledge -- I may be wrong; I'll check too -- I have had not one word of complaint from the Boy Scouts about this government, about me, about the ministry or about the minister. But I'll check that for you.

Mr Michael Brown: I can help you. It's not three cents; it's $720. This may not seem like a lot to you, but these are your words to the now deputy leader of the NDP, the former Treasurer, on April 25, 1994:

"This may not seem like a lot to you, Minister, but this is the first time in the history of this province that we've had to go after these kids, trying to teach them a little bit about conservation, a little bit about managing of our forests, that we've had to go into" the pockets of kids.

"For parents sending their kids to campgrounds, for the kids who sell apples to raise money, it may mean the difference between going to a...park this year and not going to a...park."

Mr Premier, in order to fund your tax decrease, do you have to go after the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of this province?

Hon Mr Harris: You have me a little bit disadvantaged. I don't have my 1994 quotes, where it sounds like for some reason or other -- and if you send them over I'd appreciate it -- the former New Democratic Party government was unfairly going after kids and children. I'm very surprised the New Democratic Party would do such a thing, particularly targeting the children.

But I can tell you this, that the --

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Harris: I can tell you this, that the current Minister of Natural Resources, whom you are referring to, who wants to bring in accountability and responsibility, and may be asking parents of children to participate in the use of some of the resources that are there, that the honourable member and minister is honorary chair of the Hamilton district Scouts and Guides. Just two weeks ago they applauded him; they thanked them for his involvement. His ministry is actively involved in the curriculum of Scouts and Guides, where they have actively applauded not only the long history of the ministry, but the current minister himself for leading the way in this area.

With regard to the specifics and any implications that may have for those parents of children who can afford to pay, we'd be glad to look into those specifics and get back to the member on that.

ONTARIO WOMEN'S DIRECTORATE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. As you know, the national Women's March Against Poverty is making its way today from Wawa to Sault Ste Marie. In April, you said to this House that you could rationalize abolishing the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues, because women have been telling you they want more direct contact with the minister. But Minister, if any of those women who are marching across the province had tried yesterday and today, like our staff did, to contact the Ontario women's directorate, they would have gotten a voice mail. I'd like to ask you, what is going on at the OWD? Why don't they answer their phones?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm not aware that they don't answer their phones, and I will take that observation under advisement and get back to the member as quickly as I can, within the next few minutes.

Ms Churley: Minister, I just don't think that answer is adequate. You don't even know that the phones are being answered. You told women you wanted to consult with them directly, and that's your link to women. Your idea of consultation is a joke if you don't even know if their phones are not being answered over there. You get rid of an advisory council and replace it with a series of meetings led by you, called "Community Talks."

How is the women's community going to talk to you when nobody is answering the phones? We called yesterday at 11:20 am and 3 pm, and today at 10:10 am and 12:20 pm. A message told us to leave a name and phone number "if you want."

How are you then, as the minister responsible for women's issues, going to explain to the women who will be gathering here this Saturday to protest what your government is going to do to them and has done to them and their families? How do you explain this?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think really that the member is asking us whether or not we are able to speak to the women in the province of Ontario. The incident about the telephone is something I will look into. That is a complaint I have never had as minister responsible for women's issues, and you know in this House that we have a very effective Ontario women's directorate in the province of Ontario. When I was out last week in Winnipeg, Manitoba, speaking to the other women responsible for women's issues, they advised us that we have one of the best-informed directorates across Canada, of which you once were part, as were the Liberals.

I want all my colleagues to know that we met with the women who are marching across Canada at that time. We had an informal meeting. I have already spoken to them on more than one occasion.

As to our intent to get out and talk to the women across this province, I am out almost every evening speaking to the women, including this evening in Toronto. We have already had community talk sessions across the province. They have been very well received. We have already had Partners in Change sessions across the province. They have been very well received. We are getting good advice on policy, good advice on how we can improve our programs. We have a very open communication process in the province of Ontario for women and have no complaints, except for the ones you give us on a daily basis in this House.

AGRICORP

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): When I met with farm leaders in my riding of Norfolk prior to the budget and the announcement about the AgriCorp agency, I heard some concerns, concerns that our doing more for less could actually mean doing less for less.

Now that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has introduced the agrifood and rural business bill, could he explain to the farmers I represent and the agricultural community across Ontario how this will enable the ministry to provide better service to farmers for less? Second, could the minister tell us a bit about the mandate for AgriCorp?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Norfolk for that question. I know he was in consultation with farmers in his riding, in Delhi and Waterford and Simcoe and other communities.

Let me tell him first of all that the agrifood and rural business bill is getting rid of a lot of deadwood that was laying there within the Ministry of Agriculture and had to be done away with. Second, AgriCorp was set up pursuant to a try by the Liberals, and they didn't have the political will to bring it forth. Another try by the NDP; they didn't have the political will to bring it forth.

We brought forth AgriCorp, which will be run by farmers, administered by farmers, to look after the safety net issue, which includes GRIP, NISA and the crop insurance. I want the honourable member to know that this will be administered by the Crop Insurance Commission initially, which is farmers working for farmers, and who better can administer something like AgriCorp?

Mr Barrett: We saw too many times under previous governments that farmers were not properly consulted when changes were pending to programs that affect them. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has set a positive precedent for consulting farmers in my riding and also across Ontario with the table talk sessions.

I wonder if the minister could tell us how the creation of a new crown agency, AgriCorp, would be accountable to farmers.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As I mentioned in the initial reply, it will be managed and operated by farmers for farmers.

I want to remind my colleagues and my friends in this Legislature that indeed in the budget we had good news, good news from all across the agricultural sector: $15 million for research, development and competitive action that we in agriculture will have to bring forth to the world, and we will be rebating $20 million in the building products for farm buildings.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The honourable members don't like to hear this good news. There is good news and the agricultural community knows about it; they've recognized it. I appreciate the opportunity of answering that question.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. Not only is there a crisis with obstetric services, but now we have a family physician crisis looming in Sudbury which jeopardizes the health care services for patients requiring a family physician.

Minister, you will know you have ardent supporters of the Conservative health care agenda deciding that it just ain't worth it any more to practise in Sudbury: specialists, such as Dr Jack Hollingsworth, a government appointee to the Ontario drug commission and Tory fund-raiser, leaving for one year at least, returning to his roots in Ireland; family physicians, such as Dr Killian De Blacam, another Tory fund-raiser, moving to Detroit; other family physicians, such as Dr Joel Andersen, relocating, Dr Deacon and Dr St Martin closing their family practices to operate out of their clinics. The crisis is real with these four family practitioners leaving.

Minister, on April 3 of this year, you designated Sudbury as an underserviced area, requiring four additional doctors. Since then, these four doctors have announced that they're going. Two more are going to retire this summer and several more are thinking of going.

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

Mr Bartolucci: My question is, what emergency measures are you prepared to implement to ensure Sudburians have an adequate number of family physicians?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I say to the honourable member, first of all, that the underserviced area program designation received by Sudbury is a very important and very substantial incentive package to attract doctors to Sudbury. I have letters from Dr De Blacam and Dr Jack Hollingsworth. Dr De Blacam writes saying:

"Dear Jim:

"Just a note to let you know that I'm on sabbatical leave from Sudbury for 12 months, taking extra training in Detroit."

He goes on to say he'll be back. He wants to upgrade his skills, a perfectly legitimate thing to do. We encourage CME, and in fact it's part of what the doctors are asking for and it's contained in the physician action plan, CME being continual medical education. The government, through the OMA actually, has a program to pay for some of these leaves.

With respect to the word "crisis," I have a letter dated May 29 -- because when I heard about these things up in the north, we chatted with the doctors in the north. Dr Chris McKibbon, who is the president of the medical society in Sudbury, certainly indicates that it's not a crisis in his letter to me of May 29. Jack Hollingsworth, I've a letter from him and he says he's going for some personal reasons and some reasons to do with his children. He wants them to get in touch with their Irish roots. He's going to Ireland for a year.

So we see in many communities professionals coming and going and the ministry will work with the people of Sudbury as has been the tradition of all governments with the Sudbury area to attract physicians to that area.

Mr Bartolucci: It's interesting that the minister has these letters. I have a meeting with Dr McKibbon on Saturday morning at his request to discuss the emergency that he sees. Now I'm wondering who's on first here and what in fact the minister and how the minister is interpreting what Dr McKibbon is saying. There clearly is a crisis in Sudbury, with family physicians. The ministry designated it an underserviced area, when we had four family physicians more than we're going to have a month from now. Obviously there's a crisis, and the crisis continues to grow.

But let's talk about the underserviced program. The underserviced designation in Sudbury is not working. Why has the ministry refused to accept Dr Paul Rheault and Dr Tim Zimiowski as successful candidates for the underserviced area program because of a technicality which, when you compare their combined caseloads, you're looking at 6,000 cases. They've had to appeal to their patients for a letter-writing program, for a telephone phone-in program to try to convince the Ministry of Health in northern Ontario to designate these two doctors as underserviced designations. Why haven't you granted that to these two doctors?

Hon Mr Wilson: It would be inappropriate for me to divulge the personal information in those cases, other than that the doctors, in order to qualify for the program, need the consent of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I would have to check if the technical difficulties were perhaps in the accreditation process from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

We're eager to get doctors to the north. I've been up there and have spoken to the medical society and have a nice letter from Dr Chris McKibbon, who says he looks forward to continuing to work with me and the government to solve the problems in the north.

I'm looking forward in a few days to responding to the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, who did a northern tour earlier this year and came up with some good ideas to enhance services to the north. I'm reviewing that right now and hope to make an announcement in a few days, which will be more good news for northern Ontario.

I've spent a considerable amount of my time delivering good news to northern Ontario. We're going to do everything we can to make sure you have physicians in Sudbury, I assure you.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

"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 to 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.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): "To all members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the children of Ontario deserve accessible, quality child care;

"Whereas the child care review committee of the Harris Conservative government is considering cutting subsidies to child care and threatening to introduce user fees;

"Whereas the Harris Conservatives are also contemplating a number of changes to current child care legislation that would lower licensing standards so that child care centres would be required to renew their licences only every three years;

"Whereas the child care committee of the Conservative government has discussed handing the enforcement of regulations over to a self-regulating body;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that child care subsidies be restored to the level introduced by the previous NDP government, that licensing standards be maintained at the current level and that the Conservative government ensure that the enforcement of regulations not be devolved to the child care industry."

This is signed by a number of constituents in my riding, and I am proud to attach my signature.

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM LEGISLATION

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition from some 440 people from my riding and southern Ontario ridings.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, was introduced for first reading on December 11, 1995;

"Whereas the bill amends the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents;

"Whereas the amendment would require parents and other guardians with custody of children to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relations between children and their grandparents;

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

"Please pass Bill 27 with royal assent without further delay to amend the loopholes in the existing Children's Law Reform Act."

I affix my signature to this petition.

DÉCHETS TOXIQUES

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai reçu de M me Cécile Bourdeau une pétition qui contient 650 signatures relative aux déchets industriels de papiers peints de spécialité Domtar.

«Attendu que l'industrie de papiers peints spécialisés Domtar veut faire l'épandage de déchets industriels sur les terrains agricoles d'Embrun ;

«Attendu que ces déchets industriels au bout contiennent des produits cancérigènes et que le taux de cancer dans notre région est déjà très élevé ;

«Attendu que suite à nos craintes pour notre santé, nous avons fait faire une analyse par un laboratoire qui confirme que ces déchets contiennent des métaux très toxiques ;

«Nous demandons que ce projet soit aboli pour le bien-être de la population actuelle et la génération future.»

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): A petition to the Legislature:

"Whereas evidence placed before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs illustrates that the stated fiscal plan of the government of Ontario will not work and the government's commitment to deliver 725,000 jobs over the next four years is unattainable given the current state of the Ontario economy combined with the government's plan to deliver a 30% reduction in personal income taxes at the same time as eliminating the deficit, and that the evidence presented to the committee illustrates the contradictions within the government's fiscal and economic agenda as well as the damage it will cause in every community in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition this government to recognize its responsibility to working women and men in this province and abandon its plan to introduce a 30% reduction in personal income taxes and instead the government should concentrate on the creation of jobs so the economy will grow, the deficit can be eliminated and accumulated debt reduced."

I'm affixing my signature to this petition in agreement.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My riding of Durham East is the home of the Darlington nuclear plant. The citizens in my community are concerned with the findings and decisions soon to be announced by the Macdonald commission.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to not proceed with the privatization of Ontario Hydro, especially the nuclear component which represents a potential safety threat to the people of Ontario (in any unregulated environment)."

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

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

"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 stock 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'll affix my signature. I know that if Kay Gardner were able to do so, she would also affix her signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have yet another petition from my riding on rent control. It reads:

"Petition to the Ontario Legislature:

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

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control; 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 on the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of the province."

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

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Honourable Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Solicitor General, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, to reverse this decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

Because this is so important and because I agree with it, I have affixed my name to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from the good people of the city of Toronto and it's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario and reads as follows:

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

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995;

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

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

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

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

I sign this petition.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition today signed by a number of residents from Scarborough Centre and it's to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to close inpatient paediatric beds, the special care nursery and the burn care unit at the Scarborough General Hospital, resulting in significantly reduced access to paediatric, newborn and burn care for a large geographic area of Scarborough; and

"Whereas the paediatric unit, special care nursery and burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital provide very cost-efficient, quality care;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to: (1) continue paediatric services, including inpatient paediatric beds; (2) continue special care nursery services; and (3) continue and combine Metropolitan Toronto's burn care at Scarborough General Hospital."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirit 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 its 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; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wine and thereby contributes immensely to the grape-growing and wine-producing industry,

"Therefore,

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

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

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to remove rent controls; and

"Whereas the removal of rent control legislation breaks the campaign promise made by the Conservatives during the election; and

"Whereas a great number of tenants are seniors and people on fixed incomes and many of those have had their incomes cut by 22% due to social assistance cuts and cannot afford an increase in their rent; and

"Whereas growing unemployment and the scarcity of affordable housing in Metro makes the removal of rent control an even greater disaster for tenants and for people who cannot afford homes;

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

"That the government of Ontario keep their pre-election promise and not remove rent controls and continue with the Landlord and Tenant Act and Rental Housing Protection Act."

I affix my name to this fine petition.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): On the same issue, more and more concerned citizens, fully 15 more on this sheet, petitioning the Ontario Legislature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a future tenant because, being of moderate means, I have no alternative, I'm pleased to join in this plea for common sense: Scrap the proposed legislation. Therefore, I will affix my signature to the petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL

Mr Harnick moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 61,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of the Attorney General / Projet de loi 61, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère du Procureur général.

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

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 62,

An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species / Projet de loi 62, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et visant à protéger les espèces vulnérables et les espèces menacées.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The purpose of the bill is to replace the Endangered Species Act. The act currently provides protection to endangered species of animals and plants. This bill extends this protection to threatened and vulnerable species as well.

A committee may be established to advise the Minister of Natural Resources as to which species should be declared endangered, threatened or vulnerable and as to possible recovery plans to ensure the survival of those species. The minister may acquire land or enter into land management agreements with a view to protecting designated species and their habitats.

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES CIVIQUES, DE LA CULTURE ET DES LOISIRS

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation / Projet de loi 63, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère des Affaires civiques, de la Culture et des Loisirs.

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations / Projet de loi 64, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère de la Consommation et du Commerce.

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM), 1996 / LOI DE 1996

VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS

GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE, DU COMMERCE ET DU TOURISME

Mr Saunderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism / Projet de loi 65, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère du Développement économique, du Commerce et du Tourisme.

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'ÉNERGIE

Mrs Elliott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Environment and Energy / Projet de loi 66, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère de l'Environnement et de l'Énergie.

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF HEALTH), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Wilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Health / Projet de loi 67, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère de la Santé.

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines / Projet de loi 68, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines.

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

GOVERNMENT PROCESS SIMPLIFICATION ACT (MINISTRIES OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 VISANT À SIMPLIFIER LES PROCESSUS GOUVERNEMENTAUX AUX MINISTÈRES DU SOLLICITEUR GÉNÉRAL ET DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Correctional Services / Projet de loi 69, Loi visant à simplifier les processus gouvernementaux et à améliorer l'efficience au ministère du Solliciteur général et au ministère des Services correctionnels.

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

OPPOSITION DAY

RENT REGULATION

Mr Wildman moved opposition day motion number 3:

Whereas the NDP government's Rent Control Act protects tenants from high rent increases; and

Whereas the 1992 Rent Control Act was the result of extensive consultation with tenants, landlords and other groups; and

Whereas tenants deserve rents that are predictable and fair; and

Whereas gutting rent control will do nothing to stimulate new private sector housing construction or solve maintenance problems; and

Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government has cancelled more than 15,000 units of co-op and non-profit housing and has embarked on a plan to privatize public housing; and

Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government now wants to gut rent control; and

Whereas the previous Conservative and Liberal governments failed to protect tenants from high rent increases;

Therefore this House calls on the Conservative government to keep the existing system of rent control, which protects tenants from high rent increases through a cap on rents, and ensures that landlords whose buildings are not properly maintained cannot increase rents; and to ensure that tenants still have security of tenure and access to the courts under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Frankly, those of us in our party wish we did not have to bring this matter before the House. We had hoped that all members of the assembly would want to protect the 3.5 million tenants in this province and would recognize the responsibility to ensure that a rent control program remain in place. We all know, or should know, that one third of the residents in this province are currently protected under the Rent Control Act, and if that act is changed or rent control is removed, if the government caves in to landlord and developer pressure to allow for hefty rent increases, those residents are vulnerable.

Unfortunately, it appears that this government is intending to move and is stating that it will change the current system. We believe they should be keeping the present system in place to ensure that there is proper rent control, because we recognize that the current system, unlike the systems that were in place prior to its being passed by this House under the previous government, does indeed protect tenants from high rent increases.

This government has given mixed messages in this matter. There are members of the assembly who campaigned for the Conservative Party in the last election who came out squarely opposed to rent control, rent control of any kind. Many of them said the market should simply set rents and that somehow the invisible hand of the marketplace would serve the interests certainly of the developers and of landlords, but that it even some way or other might serve the interests of tenants.

We don't have the same laissez-faire, Adam Smith confidence in the invisible hand of the marketplace that many of the members of the assembly who sit on the opposite side appear to have. But I said it was a mixed message, because certain members, some of whom are even now members of the executive council, campaigned on the basis that the rent control system would remain in place and that tenants would have the protection of real rent control.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has made a number of different statements. It's interesting that during the recent by-election the candidate for the Conservative Party indicated that he and the Conservatives would continue rent control. What he meant by "rent control" is unclear, but he said a system of rent control would continue. The minister has said in this House that he intends to bring forward a "better" rent control system, some sort of system that would protect tenants, he says. He has said that the Liberal Party, when it was in government, failed to protect tenants.

The Premier has said that the legislation currently in place, brought in by the NDP government, was better than what the Liberals did, in his opinion, but he thinks it can be somehow improved upon by this government.

Members of the government continually repeat the canard that rent control has somehow brought an end to investment in affordable housing in the province. It's interesting, because all the evidence, all the studies by experts have indicated that without a rent control system, tenants are significantly hurt, yet it is very unlikely that it will mean a significant increase in affordable housing for tenants in the province. All it will mean is increased rents.

It remains unclear what this government means by "a better system to protect tenants." The minister appeared before a large meeting recently and said he was guaranteeing that tenants would be protected under whatever new system the government is contemplating. We understand he has a number of options before him, and I guess he's getting close to deciding what option he will choose. But it seems very likely that whichever option he chooses, it is not going to be the kind of protection that tenants currently enjoy.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): It will be better.

Mr Wildman: Well, I look forward to the interventions of members of the gov