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

May 12, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L189 - Mon 12 May 1997 / Lun 12 Mai 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NURSING WEEK

RENT REGULATION

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES CENTENNIAL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

BANKING SERVICES

NURSING WEEK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NURSING WEEK

BUDGET

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

UNEMPLOYMENT

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

USER FEES

PROPERTY TAXATION

ADULT EDUCATION

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

USER FEES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

TVONTARIO

DRINKING AND DRIVING

CLASS SIZE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

FIREARMS CONTROL

CHILD CARE

SALE OF AMMUNITION

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TUITION FEES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NURSING WEEK

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I am pleased to remind members of this provincial Parliament and Ontarians that this week is designated as Nursing Week.

Registered nurses are an integral part of our health care system. On the front lines of health care delivery, nurses have witnessed many changes. Through difficult times the people of this province have benefited from the creative and innovative solutions brought forward by registered nurses. Registered nurses think in broad terms: of populations, health, healthy communities and healthy public policy. Registered nurses know that people and families need practical tools to learn how to stay healthy.

"Sharing the Challenge," the theme for this year's Nursing Week, is designed to emphasize how registered nurses, along with other health care providers and consumers, are working to ensure our provincial health care system continues to deliver quality care. In Ontario, our citizens can access registered nurses through information hotlines, at community health centres, at home and at work. More than ever before we are realizing the value of asking for a registered nurse. Using the experience, expertise and commitment of the more than 100,000 registered nurses working in all parts of the health system will make a real difference to the health of Ontarians.

I wish to add that it's vital that we see today, when the health services restructuring adjustment board has been demolished by this government, some kind of commitment to the role of nurses, to the role of qualified health workers in general, to take their

part in our health system on the part of this government.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Today we are going to be debating Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, or the so-called Tenant Protection Act. As you know, 33% of people live in apartments. Many of these people will be affected by the Tenant Protection Act.

The effect of this act will not be to strengthen the rights of tenants, but rather to weaken them. It will be easier to evict tenants. Landlords will be able to get away with doing less maintenance and repair work. When a tenant moves out there will be no legal limit on the rent the landlord can charge the next tenant. The rent registry will be shut down. The Rental Housing Protection Act will be repealed, and it will be easier for landlords to demolish rental units, convert them to condominiums or carry out luxury renovations.

What I think this will do is to make housing less affordable for tenants, many of whom are low-income tenants, many of whom are seniors with less income now, obviously, than they would have had when they were young. Many of these are people with disabilities. This act will do nothing to assist these most vulnerable citizens, but in effect will weaken their rights and make it more impossible for them to find affordable housing.

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES CENTENNIAL

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Today I'm delighted to pay tribute to an organization that has served the health and social needs of generations of Ontarians. One hundred years ago the Victorian Order of Nurses formed in response to the hardship and suffering of people in remote areas of Canada. In Wellington, VON Guelph-Wellington-Dufferin has been providing health care and related services for local communities since 1919.

My own family is greatly indebted to our local VON, for when I was a toddler my mother became severely ill with rheumatoid arthritis and was in and out of hospital for more than a year. When she came home she was confined to her bed. During this period VON nurses and homemakers were a constant presence in our home, caring for my mom, my four sisters and me. Through the years, as my mother has fought the debilitating effects of arthritis, the VON has always provided caring service whenever we've needed it.

I know how important the VON is to our community, and recently I had an opportunity to meet with VON representatives serving Wellington. They raised several issues that I hope the Minister of Health will consider and review. Among the areas identified were the role of not-for-profit organizations in health care, recognition and understanding of the work of the VON's volunteers and nurses, and the VON's concerns regarding its ability to compete for home care services with private sector suppliers.

In closing, I'd like to thank everyone in the VON for their work serving communities. May your successes continue in the future.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): In the coming days the government will introduce changes to the way it provides income support to Ontarians who are now eligible for general welfare and family benefits. The changes have the potential to profoundly affect the lives of people living with certain disabilities and those who will become disabled in the future.

The government is expected to narrow its definition of "disability." If that happens, people living with the special burdens of mental illness may see a serious reduction in the level of their support.

The government is providing assurances that individuals already receiving support will not lose it under the new system. However, I implore the government to consider those who would not be covered under a grandfather clause. The realities of their lives -- who have yet to be diagnosed -- will be just as difficult. The circumstances they will encounter no one would choose. It will be on the government's conscience if it closes the door on the needs of these individuals -- just to be able to save a few dollars.

The responsibility of government will always remain the support of people who require assistance at difficult points of their lives. Let the record of this government show that it did not fail them.

BANKING SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On Friday last, I joined with City Councillor Rob Maxwell and a number of constituents in my riding in front of the Bank of Montreal branch at the corner of Dupont Street and Symington Avenue to support the citizens who were protesting the shutting down of that branch and the merging of that branch with a branch over a kilometre away.

The point I wanted to make here today was the point many of the residents made there, which is the irony that you have here a bank that prides itself in being people-friendly, a bank that as the song goes is changing to adapt with the times, and yet it seems to have forgotten that in some instances good old-fashioned, in-branch banking is the best way to provide service to its long-time customers, customers like Joanne Lofeud, who has been a customer at that particular branch for 38 years and as a senior finds it difficult to walk the additional kilometre to the next branch.

Although it is not an issue on which, obviously, the provincial Parliament and government can be involved, it is an issue on which certainly, as a local representative, I again today want to join in supporting the residents who are saying to the Bank of Montreal, "Find some money within your profit margin to continue to provide the kind of support and services your customers have served you well for for the last number of years."

NURSING WEEK

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am proud to rise in the House today to mark very important events: National Nursing Week and International Nursing Day.

We are proud of the extensive reinvestments our government has made specifically directed towards nurses. For example, last year the Minister of Health announced the largest single reinvestment in community services: $170 million. This announcement will benefit some 80,000 patients across Ontario in the communities and will help to create 4,400 new jobs for nurses and for home care workers.

We have also provided $1.75 million to McMaster University and U of T to operate the nursing effectiveness, utilization and outcomes research unit to advise the government on the type of nurses and nursing practices needed in the future, and $1 million for the province-wide nursing project to create centres of excellence to encourage the continual development of improved nursing practices.

Most important, our government recently introduced the Expanded Nursing Services for Patients Act that will legally recognize nurse practitioners so that Ontario residents can have improved access to primary care.

On a final note, today is the birthday of a very important nurse: Florence Nightingale. If she were alive today, she would be applauding the above initiatives to bring health care into the 21st century as we've had the support of the ONA and the RNAO.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): If Premier Harris had any doubt about the views of residents of western Niagara on the closing of West Lincoln Memorial Hospital as an acute care hospital, that doubt should be completely removed by the almost unanimous results of a plebiscite held in the western portion of the Niagara region on Saturday.

With a total of 15,594 people casting ballots, 15,524 voted yes to the continued operation of West Lincoln Memorial Hospital with acute care services, medical and surgical beds, obstetrical services, intensive care and a 24-hour genuine emergency department.

The residents of Grimsby, Lincoln and West Lincoln gave an astounding 99.6% endorsement to the hospital and an overwhelming thumbs-down to the Conservative health policy which calls for the closing of hospitals, despite the assurance of PC Leader Mike Harris on a provincial television debate, who said, "Well, certainly I can guarantee you that it's not my plan to close hospitals."

Congratulations are in order to the more than 300 volunteers who operated 41 polling stations during the citizens vote. This is an outcome that the Conservative government cannot ignore any more than the over 54,000 people who have signed the petition demanding that the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines remain open.

Residents in St Catharines, Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake and western Niagara say they would rather have their hospitals than the foolish tax cut for the rich people of this province.

NURSING WEEK

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It is important for all of us to celebrate together with the nurses of this province the fact that this week is Nursing Week and that we owe a great deal to the nursing profession for their delivery of health care in this province.

The Ontario Nurses' Association, which represents 45,000 registered nurses and allied health care professionals, has this morning released a public opinion poll. This is a companion piece to the poll the association released last year. In that poll they had looked at the opinions of nurses in the field and asked them what their opinion was of the changes in the health care system, and overwhelmingly those professionals expressed concern about the changes that are being caused by the lack of funding and the cutbacks by this government.

Today's results are extremely important because this was a poll that was done of the general public, and the poll overwhelmingly confirmed that 94% of Ontarians believe registered nurses play an important role in ensuring that the public receives quality health care; that 92% believe health care would improve with better cooperation and coordination between health provider agencies such as hospitals, nursing homes, doctors' offices and front-line health clinics; that 89% believe that increasing funding for health promotion and illness prevention activities will prevent health problems that will cost us a great deal in the future.

I endorse nursing --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

BUDGET

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It's my pleasure to stand in the House today and offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance. I spent this last weekend, as I do every weekend, speaking with the constituents in my riding of Perth. Although many continue to have concerns about the future of Ontario, mainly due to the financial mismanagement of previous Liberal and NDP governments, optimism is on the rise. This is especially noticeable following the 1997 budget, which was released by the Minister of Finance last Tuesday.

My constituents recognize hard work and are encouraged by the success of the plan this government is implementing. We promised jobs, hope, growth and opportunity to the people of Ontario, and the residents of Perth county are aware we are delivering on those promises.

By reducing the deficit, we are ensuring a more stable environment for business to grow and create jobs. The Ontario economy has responded in a renewed spirit of confidence and optimism. The creation of community small business investment funds, with the support of a network of enterprise centres for small business, will surely be of benefit to all Ontario.

Of considerable importance to the people of Perth county is the government's promotion of job creation in rural Ontario. The agriculture sector is an important contributor to jobs, growth and exports in Ontario. The announcement of a three-year, $30-million rural job strategy will boost job creation throughout rural Ontario. I'm proud to say our plan is working.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On Friday we learned that the coroner's jury looking into the death of Shanay Johnson had completed their deliberations and had 107 recommendations for the government of Ontario and agencies responsible for the safekeeping of our children -- 107 recommendations.

Ever since these tragedies were made public we've been asking you to restore funding to our children's aid societies. Put back the $17 million you've stolen from our province's children. That's the only way we can describe it, Minister, because it was an irresponsible act on your part. The coroner's jury is pleading with you to restore this funding.

Today, in light of these recommendations, as a first step, will you restore funding to children's aid societies? It's a small price to pay --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Lawrence, thank you. Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think the jury is to be commended for an excellent report. They've given a great deal of thought. It was a very difficult process for them to go through. We are going through those recommendations in great detail. We're very pleased to see that many of those recommendations are steps we already have under way because we believe and we agree that the system -- there have been some very important flaws pointed out in the system and we must move very quickly to fix them.

Mr Cordiano: The minister would like us to believe she agrees that an overhaul of the entire system is necessary, and so would the coroner's jury agree that an overhaul is necessary. But when you begin that overhaul by cutting 5% from the budgets of the children's aid societies, how can anyone take you seriously?

You're not making children a priority. That's what's missing here. You are not making children your priority. It's your priority, as Minister of Community and Social Services. There is no evidence that you plan to put children on the legislative agenda, as is strongly recommended by the coroner's jury.

Given the fact that there are two more inquests ongoing and four more yet to come, we hope your plan does not include waiting for those to finish before you proceed with your initiatives. Will you make a commitment today to introduce to this House, before the end of this session, legislation protecting the children of our province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate that the honourable member believes that throwing money at a flawed system is the only solution. If he will read those recommendations very carefully, and if he listens to what the workers on the front lines have said, if he's listened to what the professionals involved have said, if he's listened to all the messages that have come through, what is very clear is that there are many things that need to be done: training; better support for the workers; better information systems so children aren't falling through the cracks; yes, a review of the legislation.

There are many things that need to be done, there are many things we are undertaking, because we do take this very seriously.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, we do not agree with throwing money at every problem, but we don't agree with taking money away from those problems as a way to make it better. That's what you're suggesting: Take money away and it'll solve the problem, it'll go away magically.

You and your government are the first to complain about too much time studying problems and not enough action. Today we're asking you to take action. This morning our offices spoke with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. They are prepared to move ahead immediately and implement the recommendations, which they describe as fair and balanced.

Everyone agrees with the recommendations. What's stopping you? Introduce the necessary legislation today. Reviewing and examining won't save lives in the future, but additional resources and changes in legislation will certainly do that. Take action today. We're asking you to make those moves, undertake to make those initiatives possible, not some time next year or some time down the road. Take action today, Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Perhaps the honourable member thinks that going out and making a great, grand pronouncement and getting a great headline is taking action that will help the children who need our assistance, but that is not what is called for in the circumstance.

I have met with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies officials. I've spoken to front-line workers. I've spoken to the Metro children's aid society. What is interesting is they do not believe that we can introduce legislation tomorrow with a quick fix. As a matter of fact, they have many things that they want us to work with them on as we improve the system, and we are certainly prepared to do that. We have also said --

Mr Cordiano: That is not what they're saying. They're saying, "We agree with the recommendations."

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, I was at the meeting. The honourable member was not. The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies are quite prepared to work with us; we're very prepared to work them and to support improvements in the system.

I think it's also worth noting that in last week's budget we have put forward money which will support the ministry and the children's aid societies in making the improvements in the system.

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Beginning in December of this year, indeed prior to it, we have heard homily after homily after homily from you about the importance of road safety. In February of this year, amid great fanfare, with a great press conference and people all around you who are concerned about the safety of our highways, you brought forward your bill to make Ontario highways safe. In repeated correspondence to your office, in repeated press conferences you have talked about the importance of road safety and that your bill would address the issue.

On Friday, the Premier said it's too draconian. The Premier says it goes too far. In February, you said we had to have it. In March, you said we had to have it. You accuse the opposition of delaying tactics.

Minister, who's right? Are you right or is the Premier right? What are you going to do about it to make these roads in Ontario a lot safer than they are today?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I have no intentions of revoking the bill.

Mr Duncan: That's all very interesting, because you haven't brought it forward. You haven't brought it forward since February. We've offered to give you day after day after day in this House. We've offered to pass it in one day. I don't think you're giving us the full answer.

We think you've got two problems. First of all, officials in your ministry now tell us that the absolute liability provisions in that bill won't stand up in court. That's what your people are saying. We now have legal opinions from some of your biggest supporters that it won't stand up in court. If it's not the absolute liability provisions, has the trucking industry got to the government? Is that what it is?

We have had homily after homily after homily from you and nothing but talk and empty rhetoric. Bring the bill forward today. We'll deal with it, we'll pass it and we'll make Ontario's roads safe again.

Hon Mr Palladini: The member's rhetoric speaks just as well as their safety approach when they were in government: They did absolutely nothing. Just rhetoric, that's all the member is saying.

The wheel separation bill was supposed to be part of a major spring road safety bill. It was because of their continuing support and also saying and badgering: "We need higher fines. We need stronger legislation." We advanced the wheel separation bill, but all they wanted to do was create a filibuster and waste Ontarians' money on needless hijacking of the Legislature. We were not able to introduce the bill when we should have because of your lack of support.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you want a point of order?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He would be misleading the House if he said that, so I know he didn't say it.

The Speaker: That's out of order. Member for St Catharines, you can't say that. You must withdraw that statement.

Mr Bradley: He would be if he did.

The Speaker: You can't say that either. You must withdraw.

Mr Bradley: If I would be saying that, I would withdraw it. I withdraw it.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Duncan: The wheels aren't only coming off trucks; they're coming off the minister's credibility. Everything you've said since December is just an absolute crock. You had no intention of bringing this bill forward. You set it up so it would fail.

If you were serious, why haven't you responded to the recommendations of Target '97? Bring forward the bill today and we'll deal with it expeditiously. We'll deal with the Target '97 recommendations expeditiously. Let's bring it forward and put your credibility back on track, and let's make the roads in Ontario a lot safer than they are because of your dilly-dallying. Stop blaming everyone else. Will you bring that bill forward today or next week? We'll deal with it and we'll deal with as expeditiously as possible.

Hon Mr Palladini: I will compare this government's safety record to yours when you were in government any time. We have done more for safety on our highways in two years than your government did in their whole term. Your government did not even enforce legislation that was in place.

It took this government to enforce the aggregate haulers, I want to remind the member, something your government never did. On top of that, our record speaks for itself. We have stopped over 37,000 truckers out there. That's twice as many as your government did during your mandate. We have taken trucks off the road more than your government ever did during its mandate. Our record is intact, and I'll stack it up against yours any day of the week.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. One year ago our NDP caucus brought forward a resolution calling on the government to introduce a bill of rights for Ontario children. The resolution speaks to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and eight key principles were underlined: standards of living, standards of health, nutrition, protection from abuse, quality child care, social security.

It was a year ago that we brought that forward, and it received support from most members in this House. Now, a year later, the coroner's inquest into Shanay Johnson's death recommends that the provincial government establish explicit rights for children with the Child and Family Services Act. That's their first recommendation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The question, please.

Mr Hampton: Minister, are you going to do that now? You had the chance a year ago. Are you finally going to do it now?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the honourable member's concern. I think the bill of rights would certainly be something we should consider in a rewrite of the legislation.

Mr Hampton: On April 25 of this year, my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine wrote you a letter requesting that you refer the Child and Family Services Act to the standing committee on social development for an open and public review. You haven't responded to that request. Last week the coroner's inquest which examined the death of Shanay Johnson made their own far-reaching recommendations on changes to the legislation, on children's aid societies, on training and on other things. What my colleague is asking you to do is what the coroner's inquest is recommending that you do.

Minister, you can't act unilaterally here. You've got to involve all the stakeholders. This has to be a non-partisan review. Everybody who is concerned about children has to be involved. Will you commit to holding those open, public hearings so that all the stakeholders can be involved in this? Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I agree that we do not need quick, knee-jerk reactions in terms of how to solve the very serious and very significant problems that are here. I've talked to the association of children's aid societies about putting in place an action plan and also about the process that they would like to see that might actually have some productive input.

What I don't want to do is subject the front-line workers or the parents or the other people involved or the families involved in the system to more public hearings where everybody gets to generate a headline. What I'm interested in doing is trying to have a credible process that gets that input from all the stakeholders in a way that will be extremely helpful.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, I appreciate your comments about not wanting a quick reaction and needing to have a response that is fulsome in terms of the review of the legislation. But I'm concerned about your approach, because it sounds like it's behind closed doors, and there are many people, CASs and beyond, who have a stake in this legislation that protects our children.

I want to return to the matter of funding, because I was disturbed when you responded to a question earlier and you talked about throwing money at the problem, that's not the solution. You've used that phrase a lot through this process. You've also talked about the CASs having access to contingency funds. The recommendations of the jury's panel said very clearly that the funding for the CAS is insufficient, and the distribution of funds continues to focus on contingency rather than on base-line, and that has led to a lack of long-term planning and erosion in preventive services.

Minister, you have to work out a new funding model. I'm sure you know that and agree with that. But in the meantime, those front-line services are stretched beyond belief. It is, I believe, incumbent upon your government to take those first steps by restoring the money that you've cut and working out in the long term the new funding mechanisms. Will you at least consider that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I've already said that because we are going to be assuming 100% funding for children's aid societies in this province, that opens up a very good possibility to examine how they are funded. I think there have been flaws in the contingency system but it has been a support for those many agencies. We're certainly prepared to take a look at how they're funded to ensure that they have the support they need.

I think it's also important to recognize that we are spending $800,000 for training for children's aid society workers. Clearly we need to do a better job of that and we agree with the children's aid society on that. We want to improve that.

We also are working on the new data, the computer system, so that people are not falling through the cracks, children are not being lost in the system, which is one of the things that has been flagged very much. The money is in place for that, and we will be completing that work hopefully some time this year.

We have also put out almost $45 million for the prevention and intervention support so that children do not need children's aid society work, as well as the money that was announced in the budget last week.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Minister, your government has created a real crisis for municipalities, schools and hospitals. You have combined budget cuts with shutdowns and now downloading, and it's affecting some 800,000 workers. You call it restructuring, but what it boils down to is that more and more people are losing their jobs in hospitals, in schools and in municipalities. Last Friday we learned that you're continuing to fail on your jobs promise. There are 29,000 more people unemployed in Ontario now than when you became the government.

Minister, what are you going to do? We know your cuts to hospitals, to schools and to municipalities are going to put more people out of work. It's creating a drag in terms of jobs. What are you going to do to avoid more job losses? What are you going to do to avoid a more serious deterioration in terms of jobs in the province?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There are not job losses in the province of Ontario. The reality is that in the last two months alone, 60,000 net new jobs have been created in the province -- in the last two months alone 60,000.

Mr Hampton: It's interesting, this Minister of Finance thinks that somehow Statistics Canada never gets it right. Well, StatsCan has been around for a long time and they have been studying the job numbers for a long time. They know there are 29,000 more people unemployed in Ontario this month than when you became the government. In fact there are 528,000 people unemployed in this province, and your cuts to health care, to hospitals, to schools, to municipalities are putting more people out of work.

What is equally crazy is that you've now shut down the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel. It was the one panel that connected out-of-work health sector workers with new jobs. In the last year alone, you have laid off 11,304 people in the hospital and health care sector. Now you're going to shut down the one agency that connected them with new jobs. Minister, this doesn't make any sense; it makes no sense. What are you going to do in the health sector, the education sector and the municipal sector to, first, avoid the job losses and, second, connect people up with new jobs?

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, through you to the leader of the third party, first of all, when he talks about how many people are unemployed, he doesn't also say that StatsCan will also tell him and everybody else, there are more people working in Ontario today than ever before in history. There are more people looking for work than ever before in history. The help wanted index at 18% speaks to that. There have been 60,000 net new jobs created in the province in the last two months alone. He is well aware of that.

He's also well aware that the federal government, in its budget, predicts that there will be between 300,000 and 350,000 jobs created in the Canadian economy this year, about half of which will be created right here in Ontario.

Speaking very specifically to his question with respect to the health sector training and adjustment program, the member is quite correct that the $30-million program is being phased out. He also didn't bother to mention that in the budget there will be some $2.7 billion spent in health care restructuring over the next five years, which will more than compensate for the loss of this fund.

Mr Hampton: The finance minister's answer illustrates the real problem for this government. We've got a real unemployment rate of over 30% for young people and this Minister of Finance says, "Oh, there's no problem." We've got more and more people unemployed in the province, and this minister stands up and says, "Oh, there's no problem." He calls paying severance pay to laid-off nurses investing in retraining and investing in new jobs in the health care sector. What nonsense. The money you're spending in the Ministry of Health in your so-called restructuring is simply the money it costs to throw nurses and health care workers into the street, nothing more.

When you shut down the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel you're shutting down the only registry that exists that connects unemployed health care workers with possible new opportunities. You're shutting down the only organization that has any knowledge and experience in taking people out of institutions that are being shut down and hopefully connecting them to new opportunities. What you should be doing is doing the same thing in the education sector and the municipal sector. Will you do that, or are you just going to throw people out on the street, give them a few bucks --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, the $2 billion-plus that will be spent on health care restructuring is not simply severance costs. I know you like to paint that picture. The overwhelming majority of it is not. I know you want to protect your own little program that you created for health care workers that you were unemploying while you were in government; however, we are spending $2.7 billion, not $30 million. There is a little bit of a difference, and I'm sure you'll appreciate that.

If your government had kept pace with the job creation the rest of Canada had between the years 1990 and 1995 when you were in government, there would have been 150,000 jobs created in Ontario. Instead, you lost 10,000 net new jobs in that five-year period. We'll stack our record up against yours any time. There were six times as many jobs created in the last two months as you lost in five years.

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. This House has before it a bill which will save children's lives. Bill 78 received the unanimous support of the House and was referred to the resources development committee where it has sat for over six months because you refuse to deal with it. There are 810,000 children riding school buses daily. We're counting on you to pass that bill.

The parents of Ryan Marcuzzi, who was tragically killed because of a careless driver, are waiting for you to pass the bill. Over 30,000 people have signed petitions demanding that you pass Bill 78.

Bill 78 calls for vehicle liability. School bus drivers and the police know that vehicle liability is the only measure which will provide Ontario school children with the safety on the roads they require and provide for convictions. When are you going to pass this bill to save children's lives here in Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I believe I've already thanked the member for his bill. It was something I supported, and I'm also pleased you have a lot of support from our colleagues in the House.

What I want to say to the member is that the safety bill we will be implementing is going to cover some of the things the member has proposed. I'm hoping we can actually expedite what he wanted to do and encompass and make it part of our bill. I'm very supportive and this government's very supportive of making sure bus safety is a priority, and we're going to maintain that.

Mr Hoy: Minister, quit stalling. Eleven children have been killed and over 80 injured in the past five years by careless drivers who ignored school bus warning lights. You say my bill would not achieve in practice what it intends in principle: convicting drivers. You are simply wrong. My bill does exactly that. It puts the onus on the vehicle owner to act responsibly and identify the driver.

We have expert legal advice that Bill 78 is enforceable, fair and would result in convictions in a court of law. Many groups supporting the bill want to come before the committee to tell you why vehicle liability is essential to save children's lives. Minister, your commitment to school bus safety is no better than your action on truck safety. Will you give me your assurance that a vehicle liability law will be in place before the school year ends?

Hon Mr Palladini: The rhetoric they would like the people of Ontario to believe -- one of the things this government has done is actually separate the two issues: truck safety and bus. The busing industry has a tremendous reputation as far as safety is concerned, and I believe safety has been practised and is at the very top of their list, as it is at the top of my list.

One kid's life is definitely worth pursuing better alternatives. I want to say to the member that I will stack this government's record on safety, whether bus or truck, against your government's when you were the government. I have already told the member that this is just the beginning. We still have a long way to go, but safety is going to be realized in the trucking and busing industries in Ontario.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I'm going to try it again. My question is for the Minister of Transportation --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You've got a question. Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Again, I'll try it. My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Over two months ago you introduced legislation in this House to try to deal with the issue of wheel separations. My party, my House leader, Bud Wildman, the NDP member for Algoma, has gone to you a number of times and said, "We are prepared to give you speedy passage of that legislation." In fact, last Thursday I asked in this House for unanimous consent for that bill to be called forward this week so that we can deal with it in order to get on with the business of making our highways safer for Ontarians across this province.

My question to you is quite simple. I will be requesting unanimous consent this afternoon in order to deal with this legislation today, tout de suite, quick. My caucus and I'm sure the other caucus is prepared to give you support. Minister, will you be supporting unanimous consent in order to deal with that legislation today?

Hon Mr Palladini: Here is a party that when they were the government saw the out-of-service rate go from 22% to 43% and did nothing, absolutely nothing, when it came to safety. Here's a party that hijacked this assembly, wasted Ontario taxpayers' dollars, when you could have passed this bill before the March break. Now you say, "Let's do it now." Why didn't you do it when we had the chance to do it?

Mr Bisson: Minister, you're the guy who calls the bills. You're the government. You have 84 members on the other side of the House. It's not up to the opposition to decide when bills get called. That is the function of the government, of the government House leader. My House leader has asked you on a number of occasions to bring the bill forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Culture, come to order. Ministers, members, please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Lambton, thank you for being very helpful. Could you come to order as well?

Interjection.

The Speaker: And of course the member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm trying to be helpful.

The Speaker: I know, but you're not being that helpful at the present time. Supplementary.

Mr Bisson: Again, Minister, I will be moving for unanimous consent in order to deal with this legislation today. I ask you again, will you vote in favour of unanimous consent so that we can deal with this bill today and we can get on with making highways safer for the motoring public of Ontario? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Palladini: Coming from a party that has broken every deal that we have made, I doubt very much if they're willing to keep this one.

The Speaker: New question. You are up on response?

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to take this opportunity to get back to the member for Essex South regarding his question to me on May 6 regarding flooding in his riding. He asked me to get back on when the ministry staff had been in touch with the municipalities.

I can tell you that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been in touch with the representatives of the area municipalities. On April 11 and 14, our southwestern regional office spoke to the clerk of Mersea township, the clerk of the village of Erieau, the treasurer of the village of Erie Beach and the clerk of the township of Dover. On May 2, our southwestern regional office spoke to the treasurer of the township of Harwich.

The ministry, through the regional policy adviser, spoke directly to the member for Essex South two weeks ago regarding the flooding in his riding and assistance under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. I understand that the member for Essex South also spoke to our regional office last week.

Notwithstanding what my ministry has done, I'd like to remind the House that the Ministry of Natural Resources --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister of Municipal Affairs. Response, member for Essex South.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): To the minister: When I spoke with the ministry, I made the two calls. So let's get that straight. I was the one who rang the telephone, they didn't.

To the other calls that were made to the municipalities, and I'd like the minister to understand this, I stood on a letter from Mersea township regarding the shoreline protection loan act. To my knowledge, the calls between ministry and municipalities were about some disaster fund. I know nothing of that. Minister, I was asking you about the shoreline loans protection act. I would like to ask the minister if he's responded to that.

Hon Mr Leach: I guess that might mean that the member is withdrawing the apology he made to the regional staff in London regarding his comments.

Mr Crozier: I am not withdrawing anything.

Hon Mr Leach: I would also suggest that the member might want to explain to his constituents what happened to the program for shoreline protection. He might want to explain to them why his party cancelled the program in 1988.

Mr Crozier: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It hasn't been cancelled. The minister doesn't understand it. It is a legitimate piece of legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, member for Essex South. New question, official opposition.

USER FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I'll direct my question to the minister responsible for seniors affairs. I want to bring to your attention the case of James McCooeye, a constituent of mine who is paying an absolutely impossible price for the Ministry of Health's mistakes and for your government's unconscionable decision to force seniors to pay a part of their drug costs.

Mr McCooeye is a senior whose annual income is $15,507. He supports on this very meagre amount a spouse who is not yet 65, is unable to work and requires prescription drugs, as does Mr McCooeye. Last August the Ministry of Health mistakenly misclassified Mr McCooeye so that he had to pay his $100 and the prescription fee for any drugs that he needed. It took until May 5 of this year to get Mr McCooeye on to the system that at least lets him pay the $2 copayment. In the meantime, on April 1, he was told that he would have to pay his $100 again.

My question is, do you have any idea how many other seniors are caught up in this costly and confusing mixup, and what compensation will your government --

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): First of all, I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. If she'll give me additional details, I'll be pleased to investigate it.

But I would like to comment about some of the concerns. As members of this House know, we were the last fully funded public drug plan available universally to seniors in the world. We are now the most inexpensive plan. When we announced that we were going to implement this program, the difficulty we had was the difficulty in cooperation with the federal government in determining income thresholds and sharing that private, confidential information with the government of Ontario. Our first steps with the program were awkward because we did not achieve the level of cooperation.

The second part of your question deals with the fact of the threshold of $100, still, I might add, the least expensive drug plan in all of Canada and anywhere else that we can compare it with. But I want to reassure the member that the largest single cost problems associated with any person using the drug plan is for the hundreds and hundreds of drugs that were removed from the drug formulary by the --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: So that the record can be complete, I would remind the minister that his was the government that said there would be no new fees. That was before they brought in the $2 copayment and the prescription drug fee for seniors. I would also suggest that in Mr McCooeye's case, the first awkward steps the minister describes took from last August until May 5. The problem is that after all that confusion, all that frustration, all those costs, Mr McCooeye's problems aren't yet over. He has now been classified correctly, but he's being told that he can't be reimbursed for his 1996-97 drug costs because the arbitrary cutoff date for last year's plan was April 30.

Minister, the problems, the delays getting Mr McCooeye properly on to the right plan were all related to errors made by the Ministry of Health and to its delays, yet we are being told that there are absolutely no exceptions to the cutoff rule. Surely you would agree that Mr McCooeye, who is supporting himself and his wife on $15,507 a year, should not have to pay the costs of the Ministry of Health's mistakes.

I ask you not only to look into this but to ensure that there is clear direction given to Mr McCooeye that Mr McCooeye will get compensation and that the arbitrary cutoff date will not apply to any seniors who have been forced --

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

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to assure all members of this House that seniors who were inappropriately classified will be adjusted fairly and appropriately and as quickly as possible. My understanding is that Mr McCooeye is an exception, and that's why I will look into the matter directly and personally.

I want to remind the members that the cost to the Ontario drug benefit plan is growing. If you read the budget carefully, it is over budget by $127 million in Ontario. The solution that every single government in Canada has done, when faced with that overwhelming issue, has been to increase the copayment. I'm here to tell you and all members of this House that the government of Mike Harris refuses to increase these copayments like every other government in the provinces of Canada has done in the past. We've increased over 400 new drugs into the formulary in the two years we've been the government.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Votre gouvernement est en train de passer le projet de loi 108, qui modifie la

loi sur les services pour les infractions provinciales. Avec cette loi, le procureur-général pourrait transférer aux municipalités la responsabilité d'exercer le fonctionnement des administrations et des tribunaux là où la province le faisait déjà.

L'hon Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Le projet de loi 108 découlant du ministère de la Justice, je vais demander à mon collègue de répondre à votre question.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Bill 108 will be transferring provincial offence jurisdiction to municipalities. As a result of the legislation that exists in Ontario under the act that regulates our courts, there are to be guaranteed trials in the French language all over Ontario. As the jurisdiction for dealing with the Provincial Offences Act is turned over to municipalities, it will be turned over on a basis of maintaining levels of service, and we are well accepting of the fact that municipalities will be prepared to do that.

Hon Mr Harnick: The Courts of Justice Act provides that guarantee, and the municipalities and the province and the Ministry of the Attorney General will be regulated in terms of dealing with the way the Provincial Offences Act will be devolved through agreements that will be made between the Ministry of the Attorney General and the municipalities. That will regulate the Bill 108 devolution.

The Courts of Justice Act, as well as the memorandum of understanding to be entered into between the ministry and the Attorney General, will regulate that relationship to guarantee a level of services that people want.

M. Bisson : Un point d'ordre, Monsieur le Président : Il est très clair que le procureur-général ne comprend pas exactement ce qui se passe avec la Loi 8. Pour cette raison, je demande que le ministre soit obligé de répondre à ma question à une date plus tard. Je demande une «late show».

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's not a point of order. New question.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, municipal leaders from the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities met in Hearst this past weekend. You will know, because you were there, that their real fear was, and still is, the downloading exercise and the new downloading deal your government and the AMO 16 reached.

They fear it will not be revenue-neutral in the short term or the long term. Initial number crunching by these northern municipalities shows severe shortfalls. For example, the region of Sudbury $73 million in the hole; the city of Sault Ste Marie $20 million short; Timmins $12 million short.

Minister, will you guarantee today that these individual municipalities, and all municipalities in the north that find themselves in a negative position because of your downloading exercise, will be given every single dollar necessary from your government to make this revenue-neutral?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): The honourable member opposite is correct. We did have an enjoyable meeting up in Hearst on Friday afternoon. I was joined by my colleague Mr Palladini. His question is in regard to the trade that AMO and the municipalities presented to the government of Ontario.

As you know, in January we brought the House back with a special Who Does What session. We said at that time that province-wide education, the opportunity for every student to have a quality education in this province, wasn't on the table. The province had to take that over.

We also said that the fiscal picture wasn't in question, but if there were better ideas on how this trade could take place, that was fine. We listened and responded to AMO and other municipal representatives, of which FONOM had a member at the table, Mayor Mavrinac from Kirkland Lake, and they brought forward a very sensible and practical alternative that the government agreed to.

The question northern municipalities had a problem with was the announcement prior to this on the cancellation of support grants to municipalities. Our challenge to work with AMO and to work with FONOM is to make sure --

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

Mr Bartolucci: You wonder why we get angry, Mr Speaker.

They were so concerned that they passed a resolution asking you to make sure it's revenue-neutral. They're not happy and they're still concerned. They're upset that you will not answer their questions. You didn't do it in Hearst and you refuse to do it today. Minister, your Premier and your finance minister have promised that the exchange will be revenue-neutral. In fact, they went as far as to say there's a possibility of a 10% tax cut.

Minister, will you guarantee today that property taxes in all northern Ontario municipalities will not go up next year or in subsequent years because of the downloading? If you'll give that guarantee, will you put it in writing so they have something tangible like they had in your commitment here on page 13 that you would do that? Will you do it in writing today?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm not sure that the northern representatives would want what the member opposite is asking. They had a concern that the grants are going to be cancelled, and that was announced a couple of years ago. Of course at the end of the day there's going to be $667 million less, and that could be equal to the amount of the grants.

Northerners don't want that. They want to be treated equitably right across the province so that as we work through this agreement, the tradeoff is fiscally neutral through the province. We want to make sure it's done equitably. One of the things they've asked us for is that they wanted the northern support --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold on. Minister --

Interjections.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): They especially like the 37 bucks for a licence.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, order. Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: Half of the gas prices they pay in the north compared to the south. But the member of the opposition brings up a good question, that we're going to have to work with our municipal partners. I and my colleague the Minister of Transportation and the parliamentary assistant to municipal affairs were there and we had a good meeting. They realize that it's complicated, that it's going to take cooperation between the municipal partners and the Ontario government, and we're going to work through this.

ADULT EDUCATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. There are two excellent adult education centres in my riding, the City Adult Learning Centre and the Jones Avenue Adult New Canadian School. I'm sure you've heard of them. The Jones centre will probably not survive your cuts, because it is geared to employment, it offers courses in business, computers and co-op program, and under your so-called GED program, this will all be lost to that school. CALC will be severely impacted; it will lose experienced teachers and important programs. Why are you discriminating against students in Ontario on the basis of their age?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member opposite for the question because it gives us an opportunity to once again talk about the programs that have been brought forward by this government which will help adults get an education, get training and get on with their lives in the workforce. We have several initiatives under way right now and we of course are engaged in negotiations with our federal counterparts to make sure we get the right training deal for people in Ontario.

In terms of the specific reference the member opposite made in talking about our schools, just one of the adult education and training delivery systems in the province, we continue to fund education for adults, we continue to fund based on what adult needs are. I am surprised that after all this length of time, because after all we're talking about announcements that were made almost a year and a half ago now, the member opposite would rise to her feet and ask me the difference between adolescent education and adult education once again in this chamber.

I think we've addressed that question time and time again, and the people of Ontario understand that there is a difference between adults and adolescents, a difference in their needs.

Ms Churley: I'm getting really sick of hearing the same tired old answers from this minister about adult education in this province, which severely affects adults, new Canadians and high school dropouts who need to get back into the labour force. They need a commitment from you today that you will restore that funding you cut. You can stand up in this House and say repeatedly to questions from the opposition that we over here don't understand. You are cutting the funding; it is as simple as that.

Adult learning centres are going to close, and people are going to be stuck with programs that research done in the United States shows kills adult schooling overall. People are not going to have the same opportunities to get jobs; there's research that shows that.

You're telling boards of education for students that the boards will have to decide whether they'll be cut or not so it's out of your hands. I want you to stand up here today and say that you will restore that funding and make sure adults can get a good education and can get jobs in Ontario.

Applause.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I too applaud the member opposite's use of recycling. You're attempting to recycle an issue that is now a year and a half old.

When we tailored the funding for adult education in our schools to the needs of adults, when we did that a year and a half ago, you stood up and other people stood up in this chamber and said, "That's the end of adult education in Ontario." In fact, it's not. We have school boards right across the province offering education for adults that is designed for adults, delivered in a time frame that is there for the needs of adults.

We recognize, this government recognizes that there is a difference between the needs of adults and the needs of adolescents. You cannot condemn adults to an adolescent program. I've talked to people across the province about this, and most reasonable people in the province understand completely that there is a considerable difference between adolescents and adults. I find it incredible that the member opposite cannot recognize and understand that.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. Could you update the House on the government's programs to offer long-term-care patients one-stop shopping?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You mean we had to wait for this?

Mrs Marland: I know the member for Beaches-Woodbine is concerned about these patients who need long-term care. We'd like to know how that's going to work through the new community care access centres.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I heard the member for Beaches-Woodbine interject and say, "We waited for this." The truth is, all through her government there was a whole series of programs in her riding, and she appreciated the opportunity, several weeks ago, to be present when I provided upgraded funding for several programs in her riding that deal on the basis of community-based support systems.

This government is very proud that we have created an infrastructure called community care access centres, that this is one-stop access. We waited for over a decade to have this program implemented in this province. We have taken 74 agencies and we have put those into 43 single-point access for the disabled and seniors across this province. The volunteer boards all across this province are involved with people who are seniors, members of the disabled community. These are individuals who contributed in their communities and volunteered, as I said.

Frankly, the contribution they're making to develop an accountable system in Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Marland: I know there is at the moment a wide disparity in the level of services for long-term care across the province. In the region of Peel, in spite of what the opposition is saying, we have a CCAC which is supported very much by those community agencies in the region. I would just like you to tell the House how you're going to address the problems of the imbalance across the province and how the CCACs are part of the solution.

Hon Mr Jackson: The CCACs have been working very hard to find savings. We estimate that, by this transfer, we have created savings in the magnitude of $4 million. It's enough money in savings to purchase about 100,000 more nursing visits in this province and about 211,000 homemaking visits.

As a result, we've been able to take a system in this province which has not been based on equity funding, acknowledgement for growth, no common assessment tools -- we've been able to, in as short a time as a year and a half, reconfigure this system so that we can provide equity funding in municipalities all across this province, municipalities that are represented in all sectors of this Legislature.

This a "more fairness" model. This is a model where seniors in one part of the province get the same level of service as in other parts of the province. This government is deeply committed to ensuring one-window access, more equitable financing in high-growth areas and to have more accountability with public funds.

USER FEES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): You might as well stay up. My question is to the minister responsible for seniors affairs. Can you please tell me, tell us in the House today, how many months are there in a year for seniors who receive benefits through the Ontario drug benefit plan?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I didn't catch --

Interjections.

Mr Sergio: Can I repeat the question?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yes, go ahead.

Mr Sergio: How many months are there in a year for seniors receiving benefits through the Ontario drug benefit plan?

Hon Mr Jackson: There is no question. First of all, as I said earlier, we have one of the most comprehensive public drug plans in North America. I must indicate, not every senior in Ontario wants to admit when their 65th birthday is in order to become eligible for this plan in the first place. I want to indicate that there are --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Jackson: This province is currently supporting 1.4 million seniors who are utilizing this drug plan, and once they are fully into the plan, they are utilizing its services for 12 months of the year.

Mr Sergio: Since July 15 of last year seniors have been paying a copayment -- whatever you call it -- deductible, user fee, to the tune of $100. Through your programs they are being asked to pay another $100 three months prior to the expiry of that year. Can you please tell me today, tell the seniors through this House, that you will see that the seniors will be compensated for what they have paid for, which is 12 months and not nine months, in a year of benefits?

Hon Mr Jackson: I should advise all members of the House that this is not a question for people who are 67, 68 or older in this province. They understand the rules of participation of the drug plan. What the real question is is what I raised earlier in this House: that we have a $1.2-billion drug plan in this province, the most generous on the face of the earth. In one instance alone that I'll give the member who wants information, the drug Losec in this province was approved with an expectation that it would cost $2 million worth of taxpayers' dollars; last year alone we spent $57 million on one drug.

I invite the member opposite to come to this Legislature with creative ways in which we can lower the cost of the drug plan without increasing costs to seniors, because I want to assure the member that every government in Canada has always resorted to increasing utilization fees, but not this government.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent so that this House can call forward the wheel separation legislation for passage today at second reading.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is asking for unanimous consent to call forward the wheel separation legislation. Agreed? I heard a bunch of noes, so it's no.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 34(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to my question on Tuesday, May 6, regarding assistance to flood victims and his further comments today. I will file the appropriate papers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File at the table. Thank you.

PETITIONS

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission appointed by the health minister has recommended closure of the London and St Thomas psychiatric hospitals; and

"Whereas psychiatric patients are being displaced without adequate support systems; and

"Whereas

article 34(1) of the Mental Health Act states, `A patient shall be discharged from a psychiatric facility when he is no longer in need of the observation, care and treatment provided therein'; and

"Whereas

article 34(2) of the Mental Health Act states, `Subsection (1) does not authorize the discharge into the community of a patient who is subject to detention otherwise under this act';

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retain psychiatric facilities separate from

schedule 1 hospitals and managed by the Ministry of Health to ensure that no person will go untreated or will be placed at risk or cause another to be placed at risk."

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The campaign to save TVO is continuing and the amazing thing is that we're getting from all over the province, including Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Cambridge --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let's hear the petition then.

Mr Gravelle: The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I'm proud to sign my name to that petition.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci which promotes smaller class sizes passed second reading; and

"Whereas this bill, known as Bill 110, was referred to the social development committee; and

"Whereas we, the stakeholders in education, want the government committee to hear what we have to say about smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas we want to hear what the government committee has to say regarding smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas all people in Ontario have a right to speak to the social development committee about smaller class sizes;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the recommendation that the social development committee travel across Ontario to find out what the students, parents, teachers and taxpayers of Ontario are saying about smaller class sizes and Bill 110, the smaller class sizes act."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): "Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

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

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

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

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

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000;

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Minister of Health to provide appropriate levels of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

This is today particularly poignant as the health restructuring commission is in Windsor today.

REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition regarding the proposed Social Work Act in Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, are concerned about the exclusionary intentions of the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers to regulate the delivery of social work in Ontario. It is imperative that graduates of social service worker programs are included in the proposed Social Work Act. More than 50% of practising social workers in Ontario are graduates of community college SSW programs. Any legislation must include the regulation of social service workers and their clients in order to realistically reflect the services provided in our communities."

I will sign my signature.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the government of Ontario:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of $44 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

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

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition concerning gun control.

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking and the ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy other than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

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

CHILD CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infant and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature to pursue policy and funding initiatives such as a child care tax credit that will support a full range of child care choices for the families of Ontario including direct parental care."

I agree and I affix my signature to it.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition with respect to ammunition regulations:

"Whereas the NDP government under former Premier Bob Rae passed legislation, Bill 181, the Ammunition Regulation Act, placing restrictions on the sale of ammunition in Ontario; and

"Whereas the provisions contained in Bill 181 are time-consuming, onerous and create unnecessary red tape; and

"Whereas the records for which these provisions have been produced do not track criminals; and

"Whereas Bill 181 was passed in only one day, without any discussion with law-abiding gun owners such as farmers, collectors, hunters and recreational shooters, who understand and have a deep respect for the power of firearms and ammunition and the need to maintain and use their equipment in the safest of conditions; and

"Whereas Bill 181 will do nothing to combat the illegal use of ammunition;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal Bill 181, protect the rights of responsible firearms owners and work for tougher penalties against weapons offences."

I sign this petition.

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition against Bill 111 which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and deals with the amendments to the Mental Health Act regarding involuntary commitment.

"We, the undersigned consumer-survivors and their supporters, oppose the amendments to sections of the Mental Health Act. The proposed changes threaten to increase further violations and abuse of people with mental illness.

"The present act requires in part that we be of imminent harm to ourselves and others. This criterion has been expanded to include harm that may occur at some undetermined future time. In addition, we can be assessed or committed if it is `believed' that the mental disorder will lead to physical deterioration.

"As consumer-survivors, we are able to judge, to predict and to determine our futures. We have the right to self-determination and to voluntarily choose treatment that is appropriate to our needs and oppose the changes to the Mental Health Act that address only the fears and lack of education of others."

Pursuant to the rules, I've signed it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by a number of people from North York. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

TUITION FEES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-secondary educational costs have been increasing due to economic and technological changes;

"Whereas student tuition fees have increased greatly over the past few years;

"Whereas the cost of living for students continues to increase;

"Whereas students are unable to continue their education due to high costs;

"Whereas future economic growth depends on access to post-secondary education;

"Whereas the panel on the Future Directions for Postsecondary Education recognizes the inadequacy in financial resources available to post-secondary education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to renew its financial commitment for post-secondary education and to recognize that a multi-year commitment to the restoration of support must be guaranteed."

This is signed by hundreds and sent in by Claudio Monteleone, a Lakehead University student.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition sent to me from the fine people of Longlac and Geraldton, Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm proud to sign my name to this petition.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: I rise to correct my record. A moment ago, I introduced a petition very similar to the one just read by the member for Port Arthur, and I said that it was from residents of North York. I know that this probably makes absolutely no difference to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to the government members, but it was not from North York. It was from the city of York.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you very much for that clarification.

Mr Gravelle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: In the petition that I read previously also related to increased cost to students, I meant to say very proudly that I was very proud to sign it. I did forget to do so, and I wanted to be sure. I have since signed it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Leach moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 96,

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

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Today I move second reading of Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act. This legislation constitutes an important new direction for Ontario. This legislation takes a seriously flawed system of rent regulation and improves it for the benefit of all tenants, property owners and taxpayers in the province.

This legislation is balanced, and balance is critical to the creation of a successful system of rent regulation. As I've said many times in all the consultations we've undertaken in the area of rent control, it quickly becomes obvious that tenants and property owners are never going to agree on rental housing. Both sides want to have it all their own way. Tenants suggest imposing the strictest controls imaginable, leaving property owners with absolutely no chance to break even, never mind making a profit.

Property owners suggest eliminating the entire rent control system and all the regulations that go with it, leaving tenants totally unprotected. There was almost never a compromise position.

Yet both tenants and property owners are confronted with a system that is seriously flawed. More than $10 billion in repairs is needed to rental buildings in Ontario. There are apartment buildings across the province with dozens of outstanding work orders for maintenance.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): So why are you increasing the property taxes?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: There is little investment in rental housing, with a mere handful of new apartments being built each year. Vacancy rates in many of our cities are extremely low, leaving tenants with few choices about where to live. Clearly these are very serious problems, and this government is committed to do something about them.

We want to achieve four things: First, we want to protect tenants from unfair rent increases and arbitrary evictions; second, we want to improve maintenance and get tough on landlords who fail to take care of their buildings; third, we want to create a climate where people will invest in new rental housing; fourth, we want to streamline administration and cut red tape to create a faster, fairer system of rent control. That's where we're headed with this legislation.

Our objective is to protect tenants while fixing the problems with the current rent control system. Under the Tenant Protection Act, tenants continue to enjoy many of the valuable protections to which they've been entitled for many years:

The new law will continue to protect tenants from unfair rent increases by keeping the annual rent control guideline. The guideline is 2.8% for this year, the lowest guideline in the entire history of rent control in Ontario.

Tenants are a protected by a cap on rent increases above the guideline for capital repairs.

Tenants can only receive one rent increase each year.

Tenants must be given proper notice of a rent increase.

Tenants can apply for a rent refund for poor maintenance or a lower rent for reduced services.

Tenants can also apply to challenge illegal rent increases and illegal extra charges.

All these protections, and many others, remain in place as long the tenant continues to live in the apartment.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Then what happens?

Hon Mr Leach: I'll tell you what happens. When the apartment becomes vacant, the property owner can negotiate a new rent with a new tenant, and when the tenant moves in, that tenant will be protected by rent control and all the protections afforded to all other tenants. What we're doing is moving from a system that protects the apartment building to a system that protects the individual.

It has been suggested that property owners may take advantage of this opportunity to increase rents by evicting tenants by a number of means. Well, first of all, tenants are protected from arbitrary eviction. There are specific reasons laid out in the Landlord and Tenant Act for the eviction of a tenant. These involve serious violations of the landlord-tenant relationship. The new Tenant Protection Act continues the same protection from arbitrary eviction that tenants currently enjoy.

It has also been suggested that property owners will harass tenants to get them to move out of their units so rent can be increased. I'm not going to deny that harassment can occur in any landlord-tenant relationship, and it can occur in the system that is currently in place. If it does, an enforcement unit in my ministry takes action. The current maximum fine for a corporate landlord convicted of harassing a tenant is $25,000; under the new Tenant Protection Act, we're going to strengthen the enforcement unit, and we've doubled the maximum fine to $50,000. I'm not going to pretend that's a perfect solution, but it's twice as tough as the current system.

It's also been suggested that property owners will try to force tenants out of their units by refusing to do any maintenance, thereby making the premises so miserable that the tenants will have no alternative but to move out. Again there are provisions in the current rent control system which deal with poor maintenance in rental buildings. Unfortunately, as we all know, the current system isn't working very well, if it's working at all. That's obvious when you consider the number of rental buildings across the province with outstanding work orders for poor maintenance. Clearly, the current system is not ensuring good maintenance; in fact, it seems to be doing exactly the opposite.

What we've done with the Tenant Protection Act is to change the system to ensure good maintenance in a number of ways.

First, we've created a system in which property owners will have to compete for new tenants, and that's a very important change. There has not been any competition for tenants among property owners for many years, and that is a critical aspect of a healthy rental market. Under the Tenant Protection Act, when a tenant moves out of an apartment, the property owner can negotiate a new rent with the incoming tenant. Obviously, if the building is falling apart, the property owner is going to have an extremely difficult time attracting a new tenant. So to start with, we have created an incentive for property owners to do the required maintenance.

Second, we have changed the system to allow property owners to recover the money they spend on repairs. The new legislation places a 4% cap on the amount above the rent control guideline by which a tenant's rent can be increased due to capital repairs to a building. Under the current system, it is not surprising that property owners are not doing any repairs to their buildings. The current system allows the property owner to recover very little of the money spent on repairs, so the repairs are not done.

Obviously, if you've seen many of the buildings around our ridings, you would agree. The buildings have countless work orders against them and tenants are plagued by chronic poor maintenance. We're going to fix that by letting property owners recover the money they legitimately spend to repair the buildings. We're giving the property owners an incentive to do maintenance and we're giving them the means to recover the money they spend on repairs.

We're going to change the system a third way: We're going to get tough with property owners who fail to take care of their buildings.

First, we're improving the ability of municipalities to enforce their property standards bylaws. We're doubling the maximum fine for a property standards violation, such as failing to comply with a municipal work order. Under the Tenant Protection Act, the maximum fine will be $100,000 for a repeat offence by a corporate landlord.

Second, we're speeding up the process. The Tenant Protection Act will give local property standards officers the power to issue a work order for poor maintenance immediately. They will no longer have to issue a property owner with a notice of violation first, followed later by a work order, as is the case under the current system. We're eliminating that first step and making the system faster and more efficient.

The procedures associated with serving of work orders will also be streamlined. The Tenant Protection Act will also make it easier to recover the cost of municipal repair work carried out in emergencies and easier to recover the cost of the work carried out in those instances where the property owner fails to comply with a work order. The money involved will be recovered as part of the municipal property taxes, and this greater certainty will encourage municipal action.

I would like to point out that we've made an important change to this aspect of the proposed legislation as a result of public consultation which was held on the discussion paper New Directions last summer. Again, I would like to extend my appreciation to members of the standing committee on general government, which conducted public hearings in nine communities across Ontario at that time. The committee received a great deal of valuable information from the public and we have made a number of substantive changes to the proposed legislation as a result of those hearings.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Which ones, Al?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Fort York. Come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: One of those changes involves the maintenance provisions. Initially we planned to make it an offence for a property owner simply to violate a maintenance standard.

Mr Marchese: You already went through that.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Fort York, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: Municipalities could have issued tickets on the spot, without giving the property owner any opportunity to fix the problem before facing substantial fines. As the consultation revealed, this approach would not have been fair, so we've changed the legislation to give property owners an opportunity to fix the problem before a charge is laid.

Upon identifying a property standards deficiency, the municipal property standards officer can issue a work order. If the deficiency is not fixed within the time limit, then the property owner may be charged with an offence.

Another issue we're hearing about involves condominium conversions. It has been suggested that under the Tenant Protection Act, property owners will simply convert all their rental buildings to condominiums and evict all their tenants in that way. If a property owner wants to convert a rental building to a condominium, then the tenants of that building will have the first right of refusal to purchase their apartment. Those tenants who do not wish to purchase their apartments will have lifetime tenure in their apartment for as long as they like. Let me stress that: lifetime tenure. They can remain in their apartments for as long as they choose.

Mr Wildman: They are prisoners in their own apartment.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: This too is an aspect of the legislation which came about as a result of the public consultation last summer.

Mr Wildman: This law brings in house arrest.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Leach: We listened to the tenants' request for lifetime tenure in case of condominium conversion and we have drafted that aspect into the proposed legislation.

Mr Wildman: House arrest.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Minister, could you take your seat for a moment. Could I ask the member for Algoma and all opposition members, or most opposition members, to come to order, please. Thank you.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker, but I think it's incumbent upon all members to --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Leach: Probably the only one who should be under house arrest is the member for Algoma.

I want to stress that as a result no tenant, not a one, will lose their home as a result of the conversion of rental buildings to condominiums.

Also, I would like to point out an additional matter which seems to have slipped the minds of some people regarding conversion to condominiums, and that is -- and this applies to the member for Fort York -- that while we are changing the Rental Housing Protection Act, we have made no changes whatsoever to the authority of municipalities to adopt official plan policies restricting condominium conversions. Municipalities can still discourage condominium conversions through their official plan policies that exist in the present city of Toronto if they feel a conversion is not in the best interests of their community.

Finally, we are hearing the claim that rents will skyrocket because of the Tenant Protection Act. Our studies show exactly the opposite.

Mr Marchese: Which studies, Al?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm glad the member asked. The Todd report examined the impact of rent controls if rent controls were lifted completely all at once. The Todd report concluded that after an adjustment period, on average, rents would be largely the same as they are today. The study also concluded that our proposal to keep rent controls in place for sitting tenants and allow property owners to set a new rate for vacant apartments results in an adjustment period which is less dramatic and easier on tenants. Not least of all, the report concluded that the availability of low-rent units for low-income tenants would remain unchanged.

All of this is not surprising, given the analysis of Ontario's rental housing market by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. In its study last fall, CMHC concluded that many property owners in Ontario are not charging tenants the maximum rent for their apartments; they're charging them less. Why has this happened? It's happened because the property owners cannot find tenants who are willing to pay the maximum legal rents allowed by rent control. CMHC also concludes that the demand for rental housing in Toronto will drop between now and the year 2001. The bottom line is that the market is setting rent right now, not rent controls.

In

summary, the Tenant Protection Act is legislation that continues to protect tenants while solving problems with the current flawed system. This legislation will cut red tape, improve maintenance, help to encourage investment in rental housing and give the taxpayer a workable system at reasonable cost.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Gerretsen: It's difficult to know exactly where to start on this, but let me just start with the last point the minister made. He stated that his study clearly indicated that rents are going to be largely the same today as they have been over the last little while and that they will remain the same for the next four or five years. If that's so, why change the law? I think in Ontario we've probably had about 20 different rent control systems over the last 20 years, and changing the law every time certainly doesn't lead to any kind of tenant confidence in the system.

The other thing I think ought to be stated is that to call this the Tenant Protection Act when in effect you're opening up the system so that you allow landlords to increase rents a lot more often or to deregulate a unit once a tenant leaves there I think is a total misnomer. At least call it the Landlord and Tenant Act or something to that effect and don't just call it the Tenant Protection Act.

The minister makes a great to-do over the fact that the maximum fine for tenant harassment is going to go up from $25,000 to $50,000 if a corporate landlord gets convicted. Let's not forget that under the existing law it's my understanding that no landlord has ever been convicted on this and the maximum fine has never been imposed. If you're going from $25,000 to $50,000, it really doesn't make any sense at all.

The final point I very quickly want to make is that most municipalities are quite adequately equipped to issue tickets against substandard properties. They certainly don't need the pressure of the province against them in this particular case in order to speed that process along. They can handle it. Leave it alone to them. You don't need to interfere in that matter at all.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): What we need to keep in mind when it comes to this legislation is a very simple thing: What the government and the Minister of Housing are indulging in are the politics of special interests. Whose special interests, I ask? It's the special interests of developers and large landlords; not the mom-and-pop operations, but those like Cadillac Fairview and a whole bunch of other large corporations that have rental interests in this province and who say, "We want to line our pockets with larger rents so that we can make more profits and we can make a lot more money at the expense of" -- who? At the expense of the tenants of the province of Ontario.

Let's be clear about what this government is up to. Will this legislation create more housing? "Oh," the government argues, "of course it will." Tell me, Minister, how is it that when you build a brand-new apartment building today in the Ontario, there is no rent control applied for five years? They can set their rent to whatever they want to make it. There is no rent control on brand-new apartment buildings in this province as it is now; there isn't for five years. That's something we put in place, as the New Democratic government, because we understood that the market had to set the rent. But once the market has set that rent, you need to bring it under some form of rent control.

If the legislation is not going to create new housing -- we know that is a fact, because there is no rent control when it comes to new housing in Ontario -- then why is the government doing it? I come back to my first point. It comes down to a very simple premise. It is because the government of Ontario is playing special interest politics with the big developers and the big renters of this province. I say shame on the government, when the government decides they're more concerned about making sure that their large corporate friends can make much more money at the expense of the tenants in the province.

I say shame to the Minister of Housing, and I say shame to the government. We know what side you're on; I know what side I'm on. We in the New Democratic Party are on the side of the tenants, pure and simple.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I know that none of the Conservative candidates in my area went from apartment building to apartment building saying the government was going to be ending rent control. Many of the senior citizens who are in those apartments, and some of them voted for the Conservative Party last time, are going to wonder why now they're finding out that the Conservative Party is going to end rent control, that they're coming down on the side of the huge landlords and these huge complexes and not on the side of tenants, particularly those who are on fixed incomes.

I expected this afternoon we'd be dealing with the truck safety bill, because that's supposed to be a high priority. Instead, the government seems to be anxious to end rent control in this province.

I know as well that people are going to be concerned about the fact that if they live in rental units they can be converted very easily now to condominiums. So we're going to see less and less rental accommodation as the rental accommodation in this province is easily converted to condominium. While in some cases when you're building new ones and they're condominiums, everybody knows they're moving into it, that's quite acceptable, these conversions are worrying people in the apartments in various municipalities in Ontario.

People are going to be virtual prisoners in their own apartments, because the only way they can dodge rent control, I say to my friend from Stormont, is to remain in the apartment they're in at the present time. That's why I say they're prisoners in that apartment: They would like to be able to move to other places. Those people are going to feel betrayed by the Conservative Party. They're finding out when it comes down to it, just as in health care, the Conservative Party, on this issue of rent control, will come down on the side of the most wealthy, the most privileged and the most powerful people in this province. This bill is just proof of that.

Mr Marchese: I'm glad to have this two-minute opportunity to respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, one of the most beleaguered ministers in this House. In the last two years this poor minister has had to deal with more bills than I can think of. I feel sorry for him. I'm sure most of the members on this side and of his own caucus feel sorry for M. Leach; I certainly do.

I will have an opportunity to exfoliate this malodorous act in the next little while, because I'll have an hour and a half, so I will leave that for that time. But in the meantime, to respond to the Minister of Culture, who talked about special-interest groups and was saying, "Special-interest groups" -- Minister of Citizenship, I'm addressing these comments to you, because you were asking how we could speak of special interests. We represent the most powerless people in society, because that's what social democrats are all about. It is true that we represent a lot of interest groups, but they are powerless in this society, and in this particular case it happens to be tenants.

The special-interest group the Minister of Citizenship and the Minister of Municipal Affairs are supporting is their powerful friends. Voilà la différence, Madame la Ministre. The difference is that you support the rich and the wealthy citizens of Ontario -- she's trying not to pay attention, but I know she is listening to me --

whereas we represent the powerless and the vulnerable. In this case today, we are talking about representing the 33% of the population who are tenants. These are the people who will be most affected by this law, a law that will hurt those people who are on low income, people with disabilities and seniors who are on low income. They'll fight back, I know it.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Minister, you can sum up.

Hon Mr Leach: I would like to thank my colleagues from across the floor: the members for Kingston and The Islands, Cochrane South, St Catharines, my good friend, and the member for Fort York.

First of all, I think we have to agree that the current system doesn't work. I know the Liberal Party was planning to bring in major changes to the rent control system. In the red book it was pointed out very clearly that the existing system doesn't work. I think the NDP would agree that the existing system needs some changes and corrections. The current system doesn't work; it doesn't work for tenants and it doesn't work for property owners.

What are we going to do with this act? The Tenant Protection Act will (1) protect tenants from unfair rent increases and arbitrary evictions; (2) it's going to get tough on landlords who fail to maintain their buildings; and (3) help produce a climate where people will invest in real estate.

What we need are more rental units being constructed. Under the current system, there haven't been any built in the last decade. I think that itself points out that the current system doesn't work. If people made all the profits that my friends opposite indicate, people would be rushing out to build apartment buildings to make these massive profits you keep talking about. Why aren't they doing that? Because it's not true.

What we're going to do is cut the red tape and create a faster, fairer system; a system that, as I said, will protect tenants. As long as they want to remain in that apartment, they will be under rent control. They can negotiate a new rent with a new landlord and then come under rent control. This is going to be the best of situations for both landlords and tenants.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It's my intention to share my 90 minutes with the members for Scarborough North and York South.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Duncan: The Tenant Protection Act: The title in itself suggests that this bill is yet another example of a government that's intent on false rhetoric and has no intention whatsoever of protecting tenants. This government has systematically undone the protections that have been built up over years.

Yes, Minister, our party did advocate change, but we said explicitly then and we say explicitly now that rent control has to stay. To be perfectly clear about it, when we defeat you in 1999, we will repeal this bill and reintroduce a system of rent control that will protect the tenants of this province and not abandon them to a market that can't protect their interests.

The minister has stated a case for four things he wanted to do with the bill. I'd like to, in the course of my remarks, address those four issues: He said (1) they want to protect tenants; he said (2) that the government wants to improve maintenance; he said (3) that the government wants to improve the investment climate; and then (4) he said that the government wants to streamline the administration and red tape around rent control legislation in this province.

I'd like to begin my talk by quoting the minister himself, who on a number of occasions has said -- to the Ontario Home Builders' Association in October 1995 -- that rent control has got to go. That's the Minister of Housing, who today stands and says that we are protecting rent control. I say the minister's credibility, like that of his colleague the Minister of Transportation, is coming off the rails. The only wheel that's flying in here is the wheel of inconsistency in a government that recognized that the position it put forward early in its mandate has now changed its tune, or at least is trying to suggest it's changing its tune.

We have the scenario of a minister who on October 19 says, "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rent control has got to go." That's the minister who moments ago stood in this House and suggested to this House and to the people of this province that indeed he is protecting tenants in this province. "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rent control has got to go."

When we talk of the government's credibility, is it any wonder when the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism said in the last election that he'll protect rent control that he has failed miserably? The government in its campaign brochures in the by-election last year in York South said, "Rent control will continue." But then again, Minister Al Leach, to no other than the Ontario Home Builders' Association: "Rent control has got to go."

This bill is the tenant rejection act, not the Tenant Protection Act. The bill does absolutely nothing to strengthen rent control; indeed the bill provides for the slow death of rent control in this province specifically at the time when we need rent control.

The government talks about special interests and interest group politics. Here, in our view, is a case of a government giving everything to one very small interest group, forsaking the interests of tens of thousands of Ontarians. Again, we ought not to be surprised, because it was this minister who said, "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rent control has got to go."

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I heard it many times.

Mr Duncan: I've heard that, we've all heard it.

I'd like to take a moment to remind the government members, the members from Metro Toronto who have a lot of tenants, that there are approximately 1.4 million rental units in Ontario today; 45% of those are here in Toronto, 10% in Ottawa and the rest are spread throughout the province; 80% of those units are private and the balance are either non-profit or in government hands; over 50% of the citizens of the city of Toronto, the households in Toronto, are tenants.

I think the most salient statistic that the government has obviously chosen to ignore is that over one third of renters pay more than 30% of their income. What does that mean? It doesn't mean a lot to the government and its wealthy benefactors, it doesn't mean a lot to those people who have a comfortable lifestyle, who have been relatively blessed. But let me tell you, for people on a limited income, for people on a fixed income, 30% of their income represents an astronomically high percentage of their income, and this bill doesn't speak to their needs.

This bill speaks to the needs of a government that wants to fulfil a promise. "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rent control has got to go."

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): How many more times?

Mr Duncan: We will say it again and again and again, to the member from Durham, and we'll say it in the campaign, and just to be unequivocal, as we said in the last election, when we beat you in 1999, we'll repeal this bill and reintroduce meaningful rent control legislation in Ontario because you are abandoning once again the people who need the protection of government the most.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Just like you did with the GST, right? Just like you got rid of the GST. You guys have no credibility at all.

Mr O'Toole: What does Sheila say?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, come to order. Attorney General, come to order.

Mr Duncan: You are abandoning the poor. You are abandoning those in our society who spend more than 30% of their income. You're ignoring the market, I say to the minister. You are not providing for tenant protection. You are providing for a free market that will penalize the poorest in this society and you are providing a piece of legislation that does nothing that the minister said it would do. Again, I remind you, this government, this minister, said on October 19 to the Ontario Home --

Hon Mr Harnick: What did the red book say?

Mr Duncan: It's page 28. It says, "We will protect rent control," and we will do it. We owe no apology to you or yours. Page 28, bottom of the page. We stand behind that and we'll scrap this bill and we will bring forward meaningful tenant protection legislation when we beat you in 1999.

Maintenance: The minister says that they want to improve maintenance in these buildings. He says the protections are in there. We've gone through this with a fine-tooth comb and what we see is unenforceable law with fines that mean nothing and won't be enforced, similar to the fines that the minister has brought forward in the occupational health and safety domain. We say that this does nothing to improve maintenance of apartments and that the government had no intention whatsoever of protecting tenants.

The provincial vacancy rate today is approximately 2.4%; Toronto's is 1%. That represents a tight market. The government claims this bill will stimulate development of apartment units. We say, wrong again. Investment dollars are not competing against the guidelines. Investment dollars are competing against a whole variety of other opportunities. It's our view that if the government's intention is to create more investment in housing, it's not going to happen.

The government again has a real credibility problem in the whole issue of housing and the provision of housing. Let's just review some of the government's initiatives to date in the area of housing.

Staffing: They have cut 21%, total staff cuts, 398 jobs out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing since 1994-95. They have cut $27 million from the operating budget of that ministry -- that's 11% of the Ontario Housing Corp's operating budget -- and 26% of the $51-million capital budget was cut for this year. The corporation's capital repairs budget was cut by $13 million, or 25%. They had better hope this bill will stimulate private sector investment because they are abandoning housing as a government entity.

What does that mean? We submit that it means we will return to a climate where the most vulnerable people are exposed. The government suggests that they are protected: "Well, you know, rent control doesn't go off until they move." Let me tell you, with the rate of turnover in apartments in our large urban cores, we figure it'll be roughly four to five years before it has gone completely, certainly gone completely in those parts of Ontario where the protection is most needed.

Public housing operating subsidies have been cut by 12%, or $16.9 million; the rent review budget was cut by 31%, or $7.5 million; 100 rent review staff were laid off; field operations support was cut by 46%, or $8.4 million; rent-geared-to-income financial support to subsidize the rents of low-income tenants in private housing was reduced by 10%, or $8.4 million, in 1996. The government has also announced that all rent-geared-to-income agreements with private sector landlords will be terminated at the end of the individual agreement terms.

I remind you again: The same minister who said, "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Rent control has got to go," stands in the House and says this bill protects rent control -- no credibility, none whatsoever.

The government has been very clear. They have wanted to end rent control. The minister was right when he first said that and that's what this bill does. They download social housing on to municipalities and increase property taxes. The members opposite talk about tax and spend. You're raising property taxes in this province; it will be the Harris property tax increase that will go into effect next year.

If you were as serious as you say about expenditure control, we suggested last week, we've said it for the last two years, and we'll say it again: Give up the tax cut. Wait until you've balanced the budget, until you don't have to borrow the $5.5 billion per year to finance the tax cut. You have not created jobs. You have not kept pace with other provinces. You have, in our view, failed miserably in your economic policy, and this is yet another attempt to undermine law that was developed in this province over a number of years. It has been modified and changed and subject to lengthy debate.

This bill, members know, will replace six pieces of legislation. It will amend others. Groups were heard all last summer. They made excellent presentations. Members of all parties sat through those hearings, and we look forward to going forward again. We look forward to public hearings this summer, especially here in Toronto and Ottawa and Windsor and Hamilton and other areas where this draconian legislation will have a huge impact.

You were told clearly by groups ranging from the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights, the Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Tenants, the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, the seniors' groups, including the United Seniors of Ontario, that you ought not to proceed with this kind of legislation, and yet you march on. You are creating a potential crisis in housing in this province the likes of which haven't been seen since the mid-1970s. Landlords will be given free rein. The application of these laws, in our view, will not create any new housing, will not improve the status of maintenance, and will not improve the investment climate in housing in this province.

The minister has argued in the House today that other provisions in the bill will prevent landlords from forcing tenants to leave. We say that won't work. It's in the landlord's interest to have as many new tenants as possible. It's in the landlord's interest to try and get somebody out of a rent-controlled unit now so that unit is no longer under rent control.

You're proposing the creation of an ant