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

April 3, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L052 - Wed 3 Apr 1996 / Mer 3 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEW LISKEARD CUBS

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

MEMBER FOR NICKEL BELT

POTHOLE OF THE YEAR CONTEST

WATER QUALITY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

FERRY SERVICE FEES

ONTARIO DAIRY INDUSTRY

HIGHWAY HELP PROGRAM

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY LEGISLATION

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY LEGISLATION

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

EDUCATION FINANCING

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

TAX REDUCTION

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

COMMENTS OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

TAX REDUCTION

BUS TRANSPORTATION

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

HIGHWAY SAFETY

BUS TRANSPORTATION

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

TAX REDUCTION

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

RENT REGULATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RENT REGULATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SÛRETÉS MOBILIÈRES

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CO-OPERATION AMONG BOARDS), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COLLABORATION ENTRE CONSEILS)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SÛRETÉS MOBILIÈRES

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEW LISKEARD CUBS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very proud to stand in my place today to announce that the New Liskeard Cubs of the Great North Midget League have won the all-Ontario championship and are going to be on their way to the Canadian championships in a couple of weekends.

As the Northern Daily News in Kirkland Lake had reported:

"Cubs Are Tops -- New Liskeard Wins All-Ontario Crown.

"They were too good, and that's the truth.

"The New Liskeard Cubs are now central Canadian champions and will be playing in the Air Canada Cup in Burnaby, BC from April 16 to 21 after whipping the North York Canadiens 5-2 in Sunday's final in Waterloo.

"Cubs, champions of the Great North Midget League, dominated their foes during the week-long tournament in Waterloo winning seven games and tying one in eight matches." They scored 37 goals and only gave up 13 in that whole tournament.

"Cubs will now face even tougher competition as they will meet the best half-dozen midget AAA hockey teams in the country. But the team has shown no signs of faltering yet and has not lost a big game this season."

I'd like to congratulate all the members of the New Liskeard Cubs, Don Shepherdson, Claude Denommé and all the supporters in New Liskeard, and wish them well in the all-Canadians.

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The atmosphere in this country and indeed this province has changed dramatically.

Whereas we as a community of people acted in a caring and supportive way for much of our time as a nation, bringing in a national pension plan and unemployment insurance and a national health care program, things that have come to define us both at home and abroad, it is disheartening to hear the voices of fear and anger, indeed of resentment and in some instances hate, become so obvious and so loud. But even more disturbing is the playing on or taking advantage of these so obviously destructive and negative sentiments by political leaders for no other reason but to make political gain.

On Monday of this week we saw another crack in the up until now taken for granted protective shield we wove around ourselves as a people who saw themselves as family with common national ties. The Canada assistance plan is now gone. No more common standards, no more commitment to fairness and justice across this land.

We have all heard of the trickle-down theory of economics. Tommy Douglas called it trickle-on. Mr Chrétien has picked up from where Brian Mulroney left off. We are being trickled on royally by the federal government and Mike Harris is gleefully flushing us all, programs, jobs and services, down the toilet.

MEMBER FOR NICKEL BELT

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I rise in the House today to comment on the shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars and the fearmongering of Ontarians that a member of the previous NDP government has resorted to. The member for Nickel Belt has been mailing letters province-wide for the lone purpose of distorting the facts about what our government has done to improve health care in this province.

In his letter, the member for Nickel Belt asks if we really need a 30% tax cut. That's more like asking whether a person needs prescription drugs, transportation or food. Our government has improved health care in many ways: by spending $15.5 million to improve ambulance service across Ontario; by providing greater access through the Ontario drug benefit program to allow 144,000 more Ontarians to be covered than were protected before; by expanding funding to fight against anorexia and bulimia; by reducing the waiting time for cardiac care patients requiring lifesaving heart surgery; by expanding kidney dialysis; by immunizing all elementary and secondary school students for measles.

I would like to remind the member for Nickel Belt that it was his government that raised taxes 35 times for Ontario citizens. In answer to the question, "Do we need a tax cut in Ontario?" -- absolutely. My response is an unequivocal yes.

POTHOLE OF THE YEAR CONTEST

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I rise in the House today to announce the first annual Pothole of the Year contest, due to the public outrage over the conditions of our roads in this province.

The Provincial Auditor has warned that 60% of Ontario roads are substandard, and the Ministry of Transportation has made massive cuts to road maintenance and repair on top of that. Nobody wins when driving on unsafe roads that are filled with potholes. Serious accidents and costly repair bills result from driving over potholes.

Motorists across Ontario are fed up and frustrated with a Minister of Transportation who just blames others and refuses to take responsibility for the crisis facing our motorists from Cornwall to Kenora. Safety and good, reliable roads are important.

The Pothole of the Year Contest is being held in an attempt to bring the severity of this matter to the attention of the Ontario people and the Minister of Transportation. What is needed is a comprehensive, province-wide road repair program and the stopping of the offloading of substandard roads on municipalities that cannot afford to fix them.

I urge all motorists in Ontario to expose their local potholes and help push the Minister of Transportation into doing more than just blaming others and whining that it's Ottawa's fault.

WATER QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Those of us who live in the province of Ontario are blessed in that we have long been able to take clean drinking water for granted. It's practically a birthright. There are so many parts of this world in which that is sadly not the case.

I want to suggest it's time to put an end to that complacency here in Ontario. The recent problems with the contamination of the water supply in Collingwood have concerned us all, though none more so than the local residents. It appears that Collingwood has enough money to be able to solve the problem, but what assurance do the other 43 communities at risk have that they can deal with this problem if it hits them? I think if there is a lesson in Collingwood, it's to remind us what a precious and valuable resource clean, pure, healthy drinking water is.

This government likes to pretend that Ontarians aren't concerned about the environment these days, but it continues to cut and slash. This government has even eliminated funding for new water filtration systems and the CURB program, which was designed to prevent agricultural runoff, believed to be the cause of the problem in Collingwood. Absolutely incredible.

It's time that this environment minister, apparently so intent on destroying the environmental gains of the last 30 years, started to realize that when she allows the environment to be compromised, she allows our health to be compromised.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today as the member for Scarborough Centre in order to bring to the attention of this House the urgent campaign of a store owner in my riding.

Less than a year ago, Mr Tom Ambas's kid brother Louis was brutally murdered while working in Tom's store, Tom Houston Boots, on Kingston Road in Scarborough. Tom's kid brother was stabbed 54 times. Charged is a 17-year-old male who is protected under the Young Offenders Act. Tom's kid brother was savagely murdered for a few hundred dollars robbed from the store. This madness must end now.

Tom Ambas has undertaken a campaign across the country which he has termed the Kid Brother Campaign, calling for real and lasting changes to the Young Offenders Act. I am proud to be wearing the campaign pin today which Tom gave to me at my recent town hall meeting on youth crime at Midland Avenue Collegiate in Scarborough. At that meeting, 500 concerned residents came out to voice their concerns and offer solutions to the growing problem of youth crime.

I was proud that the Attorney General of Ontario, the Honourable Charles Harnick, attended the meeting as my special guest -- proud because it shows how much our government cares about this problem and how determined we are to push for changes.

Tom Ambas has a petition with more than 500,000 signatures from Canadians who demand real and lasting changes to the Young Offenders Act, but the federal government refuses to act. They have not made the changes that people are calling for. When will Mr Chrétien and Mr Rock start listening to the people? The 500 people from Scarborough Centre who attended my meeting can't be wrong. The 500,000 people who signed Mr Ambas's Kid Brother petition cannot be wrong. When will the Prime Minister start to listen?

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The council and residents of Amherst Island, a small municipality in my riding, are extremely concerned about their ferry subsidy, which as of January 1 this year has been temporarily cut back on a holdback basis by 15%, or about $160,000 on an annualized basis. This is the first time the monthly subsidy amounts have been reduced.

Council and the residents fear that the 15% cut will become permanent in the May budget. This could be devastating to this small community of 486 full-time residents that today is unsure of its future. The ferry service is the lifeline of the township and it's the only way to grocery stores, doctors, services, markets and jobs. It has a municipal tax base of only $170,000 that it raises for its own purposes.

To make up the reduction in the subsidy would require the township to double its property taxation this year unless drastic action is taken by the Minister of Transportation and the township. The township already has had to raise the fares on the ferry from $3.50 to $5 a trip, and eliminate runs, raising a projected further revenue of $67,000. Despite these measures, they will still be $100,000 short if the 15% cut is made permanent.

The council has continued to lobby the MTO to restore the full funding. The reeve fears the high fares will strangle the community. Council has requested a meeting with Minister Palladini. Minister, will you meet with them prior to the spring budget and also pay back the $62,000 that MTO still owes them for last year? The island community cannot afford --

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

ONTARIO DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs concerning the northern Ontario dairy industry. Proposed changes by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission would bring an end to the dairy industry in my riding of Cochrane North. The commission plans to amend regulations covering the distribution of fluid milk products, allowing producers from southern Ontario to access customers throughout northern Ontario with a view to reducing the cost of milk locally. But this is not guaranteed, as transportation costs are considerably higher in the north.

If the minister agrees to these changes, it would cause a loss of jobs in the Kapuskasing area and damage the local economy.

In anticipation of the negative impact of these changes, as of March 31 the Community Dairy of Kapuskasing laid off four of its 11 employees, and it is owned mostly by 41 local shareholders. One of two Hearst milking operations will be closing by the end of this year; another supplier is thinking about quitting the business after being in it for nine years. Now Beatrice Foods, concerned about the lack of consultation, is asking for public hearings to review the proposed changes.

It makes no sense to destroy these local businesses. The Kapuskasing Community Dairy has been contributing to the Kapuskasing economy since 1935. I might ask the question, how much has the Conservative government been contributing to the local community since 1935? Very little, as far as the people there are concerned; last year, for that matter, considerably less than what the Kapuskasing dairy has done since 1935.

HIGHWAY HELP PROGRAM

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police for its establishment of the Highway Help program. Highway Help is a roadside safety program being coordinated by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. It is designed to aid motorists stranded on a highway to safely receive help by creating partnerships between motorists concerned with safety and the Ontario police.

The focus and goal of the Highway Help program is to educate Ontario residents about safety procedures when drivers are forced to pull their vehicles over to the side of a highway. As part of the program, this special, high-quality, reflective plastic "Call Police" sign is hooked on to the driver's window, allowing stranded motorists to communicate a clear need for help to passing motorists without ever leaving their vehicle.

It is a unique program because it has the support of police services across Ontario, which recognize the official OACP Highway Help sign. It is also unique because it provides motorists who wish to help others with a simple method to do so without endangering the safety of either party.

The OACP launched a pilot program in the Waterloo region this past December. The pilot was a resounding success and is scheduled for launch province-wide this May, made possible through the support of corporate sponsors. The OACP will be formally introducing the Highway Help program at a news conference at Metro Toronto Police headquarters on April 30.

I know I convey the sentiment of every member of this House when I say congratulations to the members of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. Well done.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Irina Khromenko, secretary for international relations with the Christian-Democratic Party of Ukraine, and Mr Derm Whelan, chief electoral officer, the province of Alberta. Join me in welcoming our guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY LEGISLATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Later today I will be introducing for first, hopefully second, and third reading, amendments to the Personal Property Security Act. This act, which is essential to credit-granting in Ontario, establishes an electronic registry which allows lenders to search and register security interests against personal property or collateral.

During the recent strike, the personal property security system was unable to operate because the mainframe computer on which it depends had to be shut down. The proposed amendments would extend a short grace period to creditors whereby they could register or renew certain security interests that could not be registered or renewed during the strike.

The amendments would offer a grace period of five or 10 days, beginning on the day the system becomes operational again, in which to take the necessary steps to preserve the priority of their security interests. Without these amendments creditors could lose the priority of their security interests and collateral vis-à-vis other creditors. This is extremely important to many private individuals and both large and small lenders and businesses.

While I'm sure most of the honourable members are familiar with the severity of the problems that the loss of priority of a security can cause, some may not be so, so I'd like to outline a simple, factual situation that provides a typical example of the kind of financial hardship that could result.

Let us say Jane Smith has loaned her savings to her brother to help him run his company. Her registration under the Personal Property Security Act expired on March 1. Ms Smith was unable to renew her registration because of the strike. On April 5 the brother's company goes bankrupt. Ms Smith has failed to register a renewal and will be treated as an unsecured creditor rather than as a secured creditor and will likely lose most if not all of her money.

These amendments will benefit all lenders, including small businesses and individuals. In fact, because large financial institutions generally process their security interest renewals in advance, they have already taken care of most of their expiry periods. But small businesses are not staffed to do this and clearly need these amendments to this act.

In

summary, these amendments to the Personal Property Security Act will restore order to the registration system as a whole and may mean the difference between bankruptcy and prosperity for some of the people in Ontario.

Lastly, I'd like to thank my critics in the opposition parties for their cooperation in bringing these matters forward to their caucuses as I consulted with them on the bill prior to introducing it today.

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'll be rising later today to introduce the Ministry of Natural Resources Statute Law Amendment Act, 1996, a housekeeping bill which will amend legislation under three existing acts.

The proposed amendments will help the Minister of Natural Resources deliver more cost-effective and efficient programs and services and better manage our natural resources.

First, amendments to the Game and Fish Act limit licences to hunt black bear to one licence per person per year. The amendments also allow the MNR to prohibit the sale of black bear parts, regardless of origin.

MNR has also been asked by the province's agricultural community to provide them with the means to control nuisance deer under carefully controlled conditions that are consistent with ethical harvest practices. MNR will streamline government operations and cut red tape by replacing the Game and Fish Hearing Board with a hearing officer, who will be accountable to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Amendments to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act allow the Minister of Natural Resources to enter into agreements to perform forest management responsibilities for some licensees on crown forest management units for a fee. Bill 171 looked after the large forest companies. We want to make sure that the small operators have increased options on crown management units. Changes also make it an offence to obstruct MNR employees who are monitoring compliance with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

Amendments to the Provincial Parks Act will enable the Minister of Natural Resources to set park fees and collect and retain revenues under the act in a special-purpose account, which will allow reinvestment in the improved services and facilities for all park users. The public interest in Ontario's provincial parks system will continue to be protected.

The amendments I have outlined will help ensure the MNR can continue to increase efficiency in its operations, promote our provincial parks and effectively manage and preserve Ontario's natural resources.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I have an announcement to make that is of importance to young people in Ontario. It's my pleasure today to present the result of the work of a number of people and the cooperation of a number of ministries. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of the Premier and the cooperation of two of my colleagues, the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Without that cooperation this announcement would not be possible.

I'm happy to announce today that this government is creating 29,000 summer jobs for the young people of this province. That is 5,000 more jobs than last year. I am also very pleased to note that the taxpayers will be paying $3 million less to support this year's program. In other words, we're going to be doing much more and much better with taxpayers' dollars.

These jobs for youth will be created through a new initiative that we're calling Ontario Summer Jobs. The Ontario summer jobs program will offer students a wide range of opportunities, including environmental projects, public and private sector positions, jobs in northern communities and entrepreneurial opportunities for students who want to start their own businesses.

As well as directly supporting thousands of jobs, the program will also offer information and referral services to equip our young people with appropriate employment and job search skills.

This government recognizes the importance of giving young people an opportunity to work. Even though the province is facing serious financial challenges, we remain committed to giving our young people a chance to gain valuable work experience.

We have already announced our intention of making the secondary school program more relevant to those students who choose to go to college or directly to work. Co-op and work experience programs are going to be expanded to give students more insight into possible career choices. We will introduce formal transition-to-work training programs in partnership with local employers. The Ontario summer jobs program is another key element as we help our young people take that first step on the road to self-reliance.

The reason we've been able to create 5,000 more jobs than last year, at less cost to the taxpayer, is partly because we have refocused funding for youth employment and partly because we have reached out to increase the involvement of the business community in our summer jobs program. Partnerships with the business community will continue to be very important to this government's broad strategy to get the Ontario economy moving. Jobs for young people is one area where involvement by the business community is vitally important.

Employing the youth of today is an investment in the workforce of tomorrow. It's an investment that will pay enormous returns to employers and young people alike. By giving young people a chance to gain experience and learn working skills, we are helping to ensure that they will have a fair chance to lead productive, independent lives. They will be ready to take their place in the revitalized, prosperous Ontario that this government is working to create.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today is a victory. Today is a victory for the young people of Ontario. Today we saw the government blink.

I must say this is an exciting day. It's not just exciting for the Liberal caucus -- because it was the Liberal caucus that made this an issue. Only last week, the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism stood up in the House and said: "The youth unemployment rate? Why, it's not that high." Not only that, they said: "Well, we're going to fix that. We're going to freeze the minimum wage. Oh, that tax cut, that's going to help the youth." They disregarded it as an issue.

The Liberal caucus stood by the young people of Ontario, and we heard from them. We heard from people from the north, the south, the east and the west. All of the students responded and said, "You must hear us, because we're important too." I've got to tell you that I'm very excited, because the Liberal caucus will continue to be the voice for the young people of Ontario, because we knew we could make a difference. The young people who will benefit are going to be there and they'll continue to hold your feet to the fire in terms of what future they have in this province.

I want to say that I have some questions, and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for some time. We must question how we're going to get 5,000 more jobs when we have $3 million less in funding.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Pupatello for leader. You finally found a leader over there.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Grey-Owen Sound is out of order.

Mrs Pupatello: However, we're going to wait and see exactly what the play is. We don't want to find out at the end that the government will fudge numbers in order to show an increased number of jobs. We are going to hold their feet to the fire, we are going to continue to speak for the youth of Ontario and we are more than pleased that the Liberal Party was able to do this.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too want to congratulate my colleague for having brought this issue to the fore. We have absolutely no idea whether this government would have done anything had we not brought this forward and had the youth of this province not replied in the way they did. To the youth of Ontario: Good job for sticking up for yourselves.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I want to reply to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We're pleased to join you today in supporting the amendments you are proposing that will benefit all the lenders, small businesses and individuals of this province. I only hope, sir, that you will prevail upon the Minister of Finance to do the same thing with your proposed tax cut so that more than 50% of the lower wage earners in this province will get the bulk of the money and not just 10%. You're a very influential minister when you can get this kind of thing on the table. We only hope you can prevail upon the Minister of Finance to listen to you as well.

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I stand to reply to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources, which I think everyone would be excited to know is a housekeeping bill, which tells you something. We applaud the minister for some of the things he's done in this particular housekeeping bill -- not very exciting -- but I think we should bring people's attention to the more substantive parts of what the minister is saying here today.

What he is saying to the small operators in Ontario's forests is, "You now have the privilege of paying more fees to the government of Ontario." Sounds like a tax hike to me. That's what he saying. He's saying that the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, to which he was totally opposed -- I remember that -- now will allow crown officers to move in even more obtrusive ways that he objected to strenuously when he was on this side of the floor.

I also want to talk a little bit about his announcement about provincial parks. It's the same message. The message we're seeing about provincial parks is that the people of Ontario will now have the privilege of paying more taxes, of paying more fees, to visit their own parks, the parks they bought, paid for and have maintained for generations.

I say to the minister, the sleight of hand here is not all that good. This is more than a housekeeping bill; this is a tax grab of major proportions. It will hurt small businesses in northern Ontario and in your part of the world, and it will hurt the people who want to go to provincial parks.

The second thing I want to say about provincial parks is that I think this may be the first step towards privatization.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources. His statement today reminds me of the situation we faced here on Monday when, in the face of huge layoffs of thousands and thousands of teachers, the debate that occurred was that the Minister of Education had as his priority bringing forward the College of Teachers bill.

The Minister of Natural Resources today is putting forward a bill which basically deals with some housekeeping items, and in the face of that we have a Conservative government which is involved in secret negotiations with the big pulp and paper and forestry companies to give away 8.2 million hectares of public resources to these companies with no public input, no public consultation -- all in secret, all to his friends.

In December, we revealed in this House that the MNR was involved in these negotiations behind closed doors to give away all of this public resource. We revealed at the time that the ministry was involved in negotiations with Stone Consolidated and Avenor for the crown management units at Red Lake; with Stone for the crown management unit in Fort Frances; and with E.B. Eddy, with Yaeger and with St Marys Paper for the crown management units in Sault Ste Marie and Wawa. We further revealed that at that point in time about 2,000 MNR staff were going to lose their jobs as a consequence.

We demanded in this House that the minister stop the negotiations, that he institute a completely full, open process so that independent loggers, so that native and non-native communities, so that other organizations that have an interest in how forests are used in the province could participate in these important discussions.

What has been the result? Nothing. The negotiations continue. There's no public process. There's no participation by all the people who have a right to be involved in determining the future of the crown management units. Shame on you. You should be in the House today opening up a complete process that allows people to participate in these very important decisions.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to respond to the Minister of Education and Training's statement today. We welcome it, although it's three months late, and I really wonder why it took this long for the minister to respond to the letter I sent to him in mid-March pointing out the need for announcements on summer job creation for youth.

It's important to recognize that this statement comes after the government cancelled the JumpStart program our government put in place, and simply, what the government is doing is changing the name of the Jobs Ontario program we had in place to another name.

The government doesn't seem to recognize that there is a crisis in youth employment in this province, that youth employment was over 16% last month, that February over February, unemployed youth in this province, there were 15,000 more people looking for work than last year.

The government makes a great to-do in this statement that it is creating 5,000 more jobs this year than were created last year. I guess the reason is that they are hoping the public will think this is simply greater involvement from the private sector, when I suspect what's happening is that there are going to be more jobs because they will be of shorter duration and will be paid less, in order to ensure there's a total number that is higher.

There's no question that there needs to be youth employment programs for young people because this government has increased tuition fees, and has increased tuition fees at a time when the income-contingent loan program is not in place and probably will not be in place for two years, so it's going to be more expensive for young people to be able to pay for their education than it has been over the last number of years, even with the increases over the last number of years, and the promise of the income-contingent program is just pie in the sky because there's nothing going on between this government and the federal government to bring it into place.

I wonder what this government is actually going to do about the overall youth employment crisis we face in this province. We appreciate there is an attempt here to deal with the need for jobs in the summertime, but what is this government going to do to try to move beyond the silly comments made by the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, who seems to think that the only good job creation program in this province for young people is his tax cut?

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. I would like to deal this afternoon with one of the most important emerging issues facing not only Ontario, but probably our society as a whole in the western world. We're seeing more and more examples of corporations laying off thousands of workers at the very time those corporations are enjoying unprecedented or at least substantial profits, sometimes the highest profits in their history. Premier, do you believe that corporations that are making higher and higher profits should at the same time be chopping the jobs of often long-term and loyal employees?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'd be interested in knowing what the member believes corporations should do. My own belief is that good corporations ought to have in mind employee relationships, good social responsibility, community responsibility, provincial responsibility, national responsibility, indeed global responsibility.

I think the long-term, successful corporations which most shareholders are looking towards do in fact reflect that. There are, though, from time to time difficult corporate decisions that have to be made. I won't agree with all of them; sometimes I don't agree with any of them. But they are their dollars, it is their money, they are their shareholders and it is their decision to make.

What we can do as a government and plan to do -- every corporate survey we've done, including a recent one from the CFIB today, indicates that if we could have a competitive climate here, both taxwise and regulatorywise, this will provide the opportunity for businesses to grow and hire, as opposed to constantly looking at how they have to be more efficient to compete. We're certainly going to do everything we can to try and inculcate those attitudes in the corporate sector of Ontario and Canada. As you've said, competitiveness is a North American and perhaps a global problem today.

But certainly those would be my views. If the member shares those views, if he believes there are some things we could be doing together in a good corporate sense, in a non-partisan way, we'd be glad to do that.

Mr Bradley: I am glad the Premier is seeking some guidance from others in this assembly but I want to go back to the Premier, because he was elected to lead this province. I'm interested because of his view, for instance, that the private sector is the place where jobs are to be created. In years gone by, people understood -- they didn't like it but they understood -- if a company was losing a lot of money and was laying people off.

Today we're seeing companies making a lot of money and laying people off, some would say for the purpose of a temporary blip in the stock market, in other words, to please shareholders with that temporary blip in the stock market. The tendency has been for the initial hit to come down in the stock market.

If we don't have these people working, we're not going to have people to purchase the products and the services that will be needed to provide future jobs in our economy. Do you believe that you, as Premier, have a special responsibility in this province to address this problem with the senior leaders of the corporate sector -- the banks, General Motors, Bell Canada and others -- all of whom have made substantial profits while at the same time laying workers off?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, we do. We are in consultation with all employers, large and small, and of course we're doing everything we can to encourage more job creation, particularly in the province of Ontario. I don't apologize for finally coming out and acknowledging that we're going to compete with other premiers and governors who come in here and think they can raid jobs in the province of Ontario.

In a very aggressive way, we're doing everything we can in there, including discussions with those employers. If the member would like to come with me to some of those discussions and has other suggestions -- I don't believe there is a legislative remedy that's being proposed -- if you have one that you and your party think is appropriate, we would certainly take a look at it. It's not our intention to legislate that a private sector employer has to hire somebody, but short of that, we're doing everything we can. If it is your contention that there is something legislatively, I'd be pleased to see you table that.

Mr Bradley: Premier, in late January this year you had the opportunity to attend a conference in Davos, Switzerland, which had a lot of people gathered together who are interested and expert in international finance. Klaus Schwab made a presentation to you and to others who were there. He said:

"Companies have an obligation to their employees. While they cannot guarantee lifetime employment, companies should help ensure future employability.

"Every day someone works for a company, that person should have the opportunity to acquire new skills and capabilities.

"The winners in globalization have an obligation to assist the losers. Those who benefit the most should support social programs and income support...for those who end up as losers."

Do you believe that you, as the Premier of this province, have an obligation to put in place policies which will encourage that so we don't have a continued situation where corporations are pulling profits out of their companies and leaving the bodies in the street?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the most important thing we can do that is within our jurisdiction, within our responsibility, is to make sure that Ontario is a very competitive place in which to create jobs and to employ people. We look at some of the barriers over the last 10 years that have been put in place, some of the regulation, some of the red tape, some of the payroll taxes, which the Liberal Party was the heaviest on -- income taxes, for example.

I'm very pleased, actually. I know today the CFIB released a survey of its employers and their membership, and of course these collectively are the largest employers and the creators of new jobs. They indicate, I think to the tune of -- either in a significant way, in a big help or some help -- about 80%, that income tax cuts will encourage them to hire more people, pay more money. Of course we're very interested in all employers having the climate to do that.

With regard to the larger companies, yes, I think we want to point out if there is ever any evidence of a company that is doing something on a very short-term, quick-fix basis, the odds are that's a company that's heading for bankruptcy and not going to do very well in the long term. Those are not the good kind of corporate companies. Those that are doing it to guarantee long-term security and market share for the employees are the ones that of course will be around for a much longer time.

But I repeat, if the Liberal caucus and party and leadership candidates have a piece of legislation where they think we should legislate that companies have to do some things, I invite you to table it and let us all look at it.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. For months prior to the June 1995 election, you solemnly, piously and repeatedly travelled the province and pledged that if favoured with the responsibility of office, you and your Tory colleagues would not cut the agriculture ministry budget any further because, as you said repeatedly and everywhere, agriculture had done more than its share.

Minister, when you took office your departmental spending budget was in the neighbourhood of $450 million. In the first nine months of your administration of that department you have, in absolute breach of your solemn promise, taken $25 million out of that budget. Given the solemnity of your promise to rural Ontario, Minister, how is that budget cut possible?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): To the honourable member for Renfrew North who in the last 10 years saw 65 tax increases come along, I will simply set the record straight: $13.1 million was removed from the agricultural budget simply to meet some of the requirements that had to be met in order to try and balance a budget -- very difficult.

We promised no cuts to agricultural programs. We have delivered these programs more efficiently and will continue to deliver them more efficiently.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear. This question and this issue is about the worth of the word of the member from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. You promised and you said in your electoral platform that you would not cut the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture. In the first nine months of your administration you have already cut the budget by $26 million.

We now have the spectacle of your colleague from Brant-Haldimand, to pick one, who is saying, "I'm worried that my government is going to make a liar out of me." And the members from Prince Edward, Hastings, St Catharines-Brock and Lambton, to name four others, are worried and they are saying publicly, "It appears that we have broken our promise."

My question is, what are you going to say to those people in the farm community, including the people of Renfrew, the farm community that I met with the other day, who said, "We've got $25 million in cuts already and now they are talking about cutting another $130 million to $150 million"? How is that not a complete breaking of faith with what you promised?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We promised to cut no programs and to deliver them more efficiently, and that's exactly --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: There is no doubletalk here. It's simply to deliver the programs more efficiently. When my colleagues are able to discuss these things with me, contrary to what possibly was the situation when the Liberals were in power, we do listen to our backbench members, we respect our backbench members, and we work with them. I appreciate the fact that they are able to convey to me the thoughts of their constituents.

Mr Conway: Minister, I understand that you're soon going to Japan. Let me tell you, that manure spreader of yours won't get you across the Pacific, and it's not going to get you through this broken promise. Your colleagues, Mr Fox from Prince Edward-Lennox, Mr Beaubien, Mr Arnott, Mr Danford, they're out in the land. The farm press is replete with your broken promises.

Just to put this in very sharp focus, two years ago you wrote Elmer Buchanan, the then minister, saying, "Don't close the Ag office in Glengarry county and don't take away our Ag rep in Glengarry county." What is one of the first things you did? You closed the Ag office in your own county. You promise one thing before the election, beg the then government to spend money, and then in the first year of your administration, barefacedly, you did the very thing in your own home county that you begged Elmer Buchanan not to do.

Will you commit that the Ag offices in Avonmore and Renfrew and Picton and Napanee, to pick but four, will you promise that those agricultural offices serving good, hardworking farmers in eastern Ontario will not be closed during the course of your four-year administration?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It's interesting that the honourable member would be so exercised as he is, because we promise one thing: to deliver efficient services to Ontario agriculture, to provide them with the good services that they have been accustomed to. You can wave all the paper you want, the honourable member for Renfrew North; we will not let the agricultural community down.

The reason I'm going to Japan is to accompany the federal minister on a trade mission where we will be selling Ontario products.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party has the floor.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's sad, Mr Speaker, to see him swinging in the wind like that.

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. There's been a lot of discussion over the last number of months about plans for Ontario Hydro. Does the minister support the privatization of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): What we have determined since we have formed the government, and certainly we were aware of that before we formed the government, was that in fact Ontario Hydro's rates have been rising into a dangerous level over the past few years. The first thing we did when we formed the government was to freeze the rates.

What we are working now to do is to look closely at Ontario Hydro to determine how we can make Ontario Hydro more competitive and thus reduce the rates to keep the business, to keep the companies that require competitive power prices in this province.

Mr Wildman: I asked a question about privatization and the minister answered a question about rates. The minister will know that the previous government froze Hydro rates and this government continued that freeze, but that's not what I was asking about.

Can the minister explain how decisions will be made with regard to the possible privatization of Ontario Hydro? Is the minister expecting to make public the report of Donald S. Macdonald later this month, and if the minister is prepared to make that public, is she confident that that report will provide the government with an unbiased view of what the future of Ontario Hydro should be to properly serve the consumers in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Donald Macdonald has been asked to chair a committee to look at restructuring Ontario Hydro. He will be reporting to me at the end of this month with suggestions on how to change Ontario Hydro. To date, he has received over 200 submissions presenting various ideas on how to do that. The suggestions that he and his committee will bring forward will be presented to the public. At that point, we will be welcoming comments on those suggestions and then some time after that we will be coming forward with a government position.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I'll try again. I asked the minister two things. I asked her if she would make the report public -- she didn't quite answer that -- and I also asked her if she was confident that this would be an unbiased recommendation, considering the fact that Mr Macdonald is on the board of TransCanada PipeLines, a company that stands to gain from increased competition and privatization of Ontario Hydro, since they are in the manufacture of gas-fired plants that produce electricity and TransCanada PipeLines is a supplier to Hydro for non-utility generation.

I would quote from their annual report. It lists as one of the three main goals, "To increase substantially the scope and profitability of our energy management operations in North America." That is power generation.

Mr Macdonald is a walking energy conglomerate. Not only is he on the board of TransCanada PipeLines, he's a member of the board of Alberta Energy Co, a major oil and gas company, and he's the chairman of Siemens Electric Ltd in Mississauga, which is a subsidiary of a German multinational that is reported to have sold over 50 turbines to utilities around the world.

The point is, doesn't Mr Macdonald have a conflict of interest in this matter? How are you going to get an unbiased report from a gentleman who's on the board of companies that will probably benefit if Hydro or parts of it are privatized?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I believe I did make clear in my second answer that we will make this report public. It will be a report from this committee and it will be, I believe, representative of the suggestions that have been brought forward to them and formulated in a way that will come to us as advice on how to move forward.

We took great care in determining the membership of this committee. We had a number of criteria we looked for. We looked for a few representatives from the municipal electrical; we looked for people who had regulatory experience; we looked for people who had experience in the gas industry, the electricity industry; we looked for people who could give us public policy advice. Mr Macdonald is a former federal Minister of Energy for the Liberal Party. I believe he has the qualifications, as do all members on that committee, to give us very good advice.

We were aware of Mr Macdonald's affiliations, as we are aware of the affiliations of all the people on that board. Mr Macdonald signed a letter of confidentiality with us at the outset. I'm very confident, and this confidence has been bolstered by the comments from people who have gone before this committee that they have received an excellent reception, have had very wise questions asked of them, and I am looking forward to that report because I believe it will be one of good advice to our government, with suggestions for change.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I'd like to tell you the story of two Ontario women. One is Elsie Lowndes from Hamilton. Ms Lowndes lives on a $10,000-a-year disability pension from her employer since she lost a lung to cancer. After rent, her annual income is about $6,000 a year. She pays $113 a month for painkillers and other drugs that help keep her able to eat food.

The other woman is from Pickering. Diane doesn't want her last name used because she already has had enough difficulty coping with her situation. She gets a disability pension from Canada pension. After paying her mortgage and utilities, Diane has about $90 a month for food, drugs and everything else. Her drugs for high blood pressure and chronic pain come to more than $100 a month.

These two women have one thing in common. As of April 1, they no longer have a drug card that was provided to them by the municipalities under the special assistance and supplementary aid programs because your ministry has stopped paying its 80% share coverage of those programs.

Minister, before you start touting your Trillium drug benefit program, these women, before your extension of the Trillium plan, got Ontario drug benefit programs. They've lost that. They didn't have a minimum payment that you've now imposed on them because of your cuts. How do you expect these two women to continue with their necessary drugs when they do not have the money to pay your deductible?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, I'm not going to deny that things may be difficult for some people, but clearly the rationale for our embarking upon the new drug program is to ensure that the program is available to more people. Certainly our government is concerned not only with people who are on special assistance right now but also with the working poor of the province. The intention of the program clearly is to make sure that an additional 140,000 people have access to the drug program.

We've tried very hard to protect programs for the disabled. You can see that we had no reduction in their benefit rates under the FBA, and we have also indicated that there'll be no reduction in services for the disabled community coming up.

Mr Cooke: That's exactly the question. Both of these women -- I'll let you get your consultation from the Minister of Health.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Carry on. Question.

Mr Cooke: I'd like the minister to listen, Mr Speaker.

In answer to the question, the minister said there weren't any cuts to the disabled. Elsie has had a lung removed. She's 64 years old. One could say that she's disabled, and she's a senior. Diane is on a CPP disability pension. Both of these women were covered by the Ontario drug benefit program until you changed the rules on April 1. They're disabled. You've cut their benefits. You broke your promise. How can you justify that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I said was that the government protected the benefits of people under the FBA. Clearly what we have to do, and I don't think this is such a bad thing, is to try to make sure there's more access to the drug program. Yes, there is a $2 copayment, but I believe what we're trying to do right now is to provide more and more service to more and more people in Ontario. I also indicated before that we're going to protect the services for the disabled.

Mr Cooke: I'd like to ask the minister what part of this puzzle he's having difficulty comprehending today. These two women do not have any money left at the end of the month to pay for their drugs and they do not have the money to pay the deductible. Before you made the cut, they were covered by the Ontario drug benefit program. Why did you -- and I can't use the word in here, Mr Speaker, or I'd be thrown out, but why did you say that you would protect the disabled and in these two cases you've destroyed their lives.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I suppose that if we get past the rhetoric, we recognize the need to protect people from excessively high drug costs and we have a need to focus our limited resources in order to service as many people as possible. This is what the intention is. I can only remind the member across the way again that this new program will in fact enlarge the program to allow close to 140,000 more people access to the drug program.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Education. The property tax owners and taxpayers in my area have been shocked to hear that you've introduced a bill that will mean that they have to pay $65 million of property tax directly to the province. The bill that you introduced here this week will force the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to give you a cheque for $65 million, all from the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto. This is at the very same time that your government has promised reform of property taxes here in Metropolitan Toronto.

That's what they were expecting to hear, but what they heard was that you were going to force the Metro school board to write you a cheque for $65 million, all from the property tax. How can you possibly justify putting a tax on the Metro property tax and taking $65 million out of property tax to help you with your tax cut?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member opposite for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to straighten out what might be a misconception. The bill we tabled will not require a payment from the Metro school board to the provincial government. It will allow for the Metro board and this government to pursue an agreement whereby Metro will share in the reductions and finding the savings in our school system in Ontario.

I'm sure the member opposite realizes that every student in Ontario deserves a chance for a high-quality education and every taxpayer in Ontario deserves a chance to get real value for their education dollar. That's what this government is up to, that's what this government wants to achieve, and I for one think it's high time.

Mr Phillips: You don't understand your own bill then, because as I read the bill, it does permit you to ask the Metro school board to write you a cheque for whatever you want it to be. They estimate it could be much more than $65 million, but at least $65 million. I don't think you have been forthcoming with the House in your answer, saying that the bill does not permit that. The bill specifically is designed so you can demand that cheque. I think that's the first thing you should clarify to the people of Ontario, that your answer was not particularly --

Interjection: Careful.

Mr Phillips: I'll be very careful, because I cannot say that you were deliberately misleading. But your answer was not completely forthcoming. This does permit you to write a cheque; it is your intention to demand that. I want to once again ask you very directly, recognizing that the property tax system is broken -- that's what you've said. You've said that you were going to fix it, but the only bill you've introduced is a bill that permits you to demand a cheque to take property taxes from the hardworking people of Metropolitan Toronto to fund your tax cut.

I want to ask you very directly two things: Does this bill permit that and, secondly, how can you possibly justify taking $65 million from the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto to partially fund your tax cut?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know that the member opposite, like every honourable member, would not want to misinform the public at all and so I'll take the words out of his second question. Yes, there is permission. That's a long way from demanding. That's a long way from requiring, sir. There's a world of difference between those words and that's why that legislation says what it says. We will negotiate with boards and we will do it to find equity in funding in education in Ontario. That's what the people of Ontario expect, and that's what they'll get.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier. I've been reviewing some of your recent appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, and it's sort of interesting. Over the last four months at least 18 of those appointments are ex-Tory candidates or ex-Tory campaign managers. There's a disturbing trend here. Mr Premier, let me give you just a couple of examples. I think one of the most shocking appointments that was made recently --

Interjections.

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

Ms Lankin: I think the members opposite should quieten down and listen to this one because I think you'll find this shocking, too. Let me tell you about Daniel Callaghan. He was appointed to the College of Midwives of Ontario. He appeared before the committee and when he was asked about his interest or his expertise in midwifery, Callaghan replied that he simply wanted an appointment, preferably in the health field, and because he was currently out of work he had some time on his hands. But the one credential he forgot to mention to the committee was the reason why he had time on his hands. He was the defeated Tory candidate in Renfrew North in the 1995 election.

Let me give you a second example: Blaine Tyndall. He was appointed to the City of Windsor Police Services Board. Mr Tyndall has no background in local policing issues and in fact, Mr Premier, he doesn't even live in the city of Windsor. His credentials: He was the Tory candidate in Windsor-Riverside in the June election and he too was defeated.

The Speaker: Would you put your question, please.

Ms Lankin: Mr Premier, how can you defend these blatant political appointments when you said before the election, and I quote to you, "To prevent the appointment of unqualified persons for their political reasons," you support the concept of minimum standards of experience of expertise for board members. Mr Premier, please explain this.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would indicate that the political appointment process, or the appointment of people to agencies, boards and commissions, is always one of those areas that could be contentious and that a lot of people will look at. That's why we have the committee, of course, to review, something that I think was brought in perhaps by the NDP, and we supported the process that you brought in.

You mentioned one appointment on midwifery. I believe that appointment was to be a lay appointment. Some of the positions that were set up under your criteria were to be lay appointments, and I believe that appointment was to fill a lay appointment position that was there. That's my recollection, but the committee is reviewing that.

I would also say to the member that you will find there are, on any basis you want to do it -- party membership, votes -- far more Tories in the province today than there ever were and far more Tories than you will ever find any percentage of the appointments that would be made. I have to tell you that it would take this government 42 years to ever match the amount of political patronage appointments your party made in five.

Ms Lankin: Well, Mr Premier, perhaps the facts would belie that. You're the one who said you wanted a minimum standard of expertise and experience. An unemployed used car salesman from the past, an ex-Tory candidate, contacted by the political staff in the Minister of Health's office, what's his minimum expertise and experience for the College of Midwives?

Let me go through some of the other appointments. Maybe we can see what standards you are using.

Evelyn Dodds, two-time Tory candidate, appointed to the Social Assistance Review Board; Dan MacDonald, to the Social Assistance Review Board, Mulroney organizer and past Tory candidate; Maeve Quaid to the Social Assistance Review Board, past Tory candidate; Pauline Browes, to the Environmental Assessment Board, former Tory cabinet minister; John Best, to the provincial parole board, Bob Runciman's campaign manager; David Nash, to the Ontario Casino Corp, Tory campaign manager; Peter Vice, who was appointed to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board, past Tory campaign manager; John Rossetti, to the Gaming Control Commission, past member of executives of various Progressive Conservative riding associations; Douglas Maund, to the Orangeville Police Services Board, chief of staff to Perrin Beatty and political friend of your Minister of Health, who also worked for Perrin Beatty.

Mr Premier, before the election, you said that appointments to agencies, boards and commissions should be based on the principles of sound turnaround management and expertise and not a pork-barrelling carousel. Mr Premier, you have broken your pledge to the people of the province on this issue. Will you make a commitment to us today to stop these blatant political patronage appointments?

Hon Mr Harris: We, of course, have not broken our pledge to the people.

Ms Lankin: You said you were different. You set the standard. Live up to it.

Hon Mr Harris: Well, I asked them to bring me in the NDP appointments, and the wheelbarrows can't get here in time. If you would like, I can pass them on to you.

I think you will find, of the appointments we have made to date, there are probably far more NDP reappointments than there are new ones. You will find in the percentage of appointments that the Progressive Conservatives are in the vast, significant minority of all the appointments that are there. I don't think if somebody's qualified they should be ruled ineligible because at some point in time they may have supported any of the three political parties.

I can tell you that I think the member, looking over the five-year record, now campaigning for leadership, has a lot of nerve inviting public scrutiny of your record of the last five years. I'm surprised you would want to do that.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Today my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable Norm Sterling. I wonder, Mr Sterling, now that the OPSEU strike is over, if you'd like to inform the House how the province is serving the needs of the business community in light of the fact that many of them have suffered some business delays in starting their businesses, as well as difficulties they may have encountered in concluding important business deals.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As you know, during the strike, many of my branches were closed down. I'm pleased to tell the members of the House and the business community that my ministry's companies branch, which was fully operational on Monday -- we were back in business, the normal over-the-counter registration services were being accepted at a great rate. We set up extra stations, we set up different methods, different lines, drop boxes, for those people who had to have a date stamped on it.

We worked extra hours to make certain that everybody was served on the first day who needed to be served. We're very proud of our management and the OPSEU workers who got back to work and did their job right away.

Mr Doyle: I understand as well from a member of my own constituency that some offices were extremely busy on Monday, as you have said, and that there were some delays, so I wonder if it's possible if you could give us a prediction on how long these delays may go on.

Hon Mr Sterling: We expect to be very busy for the next two or three weeks, catching up on some of the work that was let go during that period of time. The first day that we were open we had over 1,000 business names registered, as well as 450 incorporations take place, which is an abnormally large number of registrations to take place on a single day.

We're going to talk about the Personal Property Security Act this afternoon. When that's up and running, we'll be accepting tens of thousands of registrations, but we're getting the system back on track. We ask the public to be a little bit patient and perhaps they will have to wait a little bit longer, but we see that we'll be out of this in a very, very short period of time because of the extra effort that my employees are putting forward.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I mentioned earlier how thrilled we were to have an announcement that meant a victory for the youth in Ontario. I do have a question to direct to the Minister of Education and Training today. Perhaps the minister missed our tour of Ontario, but as you know, the students across Ontario were in dire straits to hear the kinds of programs that would be introduced. We know that the programs had been cancelled. We knew you had a very busy couple of weeks to reintroduce programs and come back today to announce that in fact you're going to hire more youth throughout the summer months.

I'd like to get the assurance from the minister today that even though you're taking $3 million out of the program, you are going to allow the youth of Ontario to prepare themselves to pay the increased tuition that they'll be facing come September and that the youth programs you've introduced today are going to take care of that for the youth.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member opposite for the question. Indeed, this is a good-news announcement. There are thousands more jobs for our young people in the province of Ontario, the young people who need those work opportunities, who need them not only to pay for their college and university tuitions and other living expenses, but also to get those work habits that they need to get on with their careers in the province. So I think this is excellent news: thousands more jobs for young people in Ontario at a cost that's a real value for the taxpayers.

Mrs Pupatello: Let's take an example of one of these programs then, since we've got an assurance that you really are going to do more for the youth. The Environmental Youth Corps, as an example, one of the programs you announced today, they had a budget last year of $10.1 million. You say that you're going to have their number of jobs for this part of the program, at 3,500, it's going to be increased to 6,200. But you've also told them about the length of weeks. Last year it was 14 to 16 weeks, but this year it's 10 to 12 weeks. Now, how are we going to have the moneys being spread around?

It's clear you're going to have every student make less so that you can come back at the end of the program and say, "Look how many more students we've hired." I'd like some kind of an explanation, because we don't expect a minister to come to the House and fudge the numbers.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you for the question. I think it's a good one. We want to make sure that our summer programs have some commonality, that they represent about the same time period, so temporally we've made some changes. But I want to tell you that the core change is this: We are looking to work with the private sector to provide these jobs and to help fund these jobs, because we think, as I said in my statement earlier, that these are not only work opportunities for young people, but they're of benefit to employers across the province too.

It's certainly to their benefit to have young people employed on a summer basis and to develop in the youth of Ontario the kind of skills that will be necessary for their ongoing careers. So I think this announcement's good news all the way across. It's good news for employers, it's good news for young people and it's another example of doing more with less, of levering those tax dollars and making a big difference for young people in Ontario. We're proud of it.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the Premier. During the time that we were the government, we embraced an open and public process in terms of the budget process that allowed people across the province to come forward and give their views on what should be dealt with through the budget, not just through the finance committee hearings, but indeed through the finance minister's own pre-budget consultations.

Premier, your government turned its back on this process when you scrapped this very same process. We know that the finance minister is meeting with groups, but he's meeting in very private meetings. This morning, we in the NDP caucus began our own process of talking with people and hearing what people really are concerned about. I want to tell you that we intend to continue across the province the meetings that we started here this morning in Toronto, bringing people together to talk about the real options that are in front of this province.

We heard this morning, in just a short one-and-a-half-hour discussion, that people are really concerned, they're really worried, they're fearful. They're worried about the long-term deficit that you will be creating, the increasing poverty that will come about as a result of your actions, the abandonment of the environment, a loss of standards for social services and the loss of jobs which your fiscal plan will be responsible for.

Given the good sense that exists out there among people from all walks of life, why have you allowed your finance minister to abandon this process of open consultation with people before making up your mind about what budget decisions you will reflect in the budget later this spring?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): On February 5, the Minister of Finance appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to kick off the pre-budget consultation process. In addition, the Minister of Finance is meeting, as did the former Minister of Finance, with more than 40 groups and associations -- representatives from business, labour, the agriculture community, high-tech industry. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, Isabel Bassett, is meeting with a variety of sectors. MPPs are consulting with members. We invite input, over and above the committee, from all members of the Legislature and from all of those concerned.

I think they have been probably more extensive than any that were held by the New Democratic Party. Consultations actually are still ongoing, continuing right through to April 23. I might add that there are caucus consultations and I would hope that you're having those too. The only thing that has surprised me is that in the process that you and the member for Beaches-Woodbine have kicked off I don't know where the other two leadership candidates are in your leadership tour to hear other submissions. But I want to say we would welcome your submissions, and from the other two leadership candidates if they want to embark on their own tour. We'd welcome that input.

Mr Silipo: You can continue to let your arrogance flow as much as you want. You can try to paint this as a leadership contest all you want. The reality is that we are providing the vehicle for public discussion which you and your Minister of Finance are not doing.

I have to say that I found it very interesting. If the Premier thinks that this is just another futile exercise, why was it that we had officials from the Ministry of Finance sitting in on the discussion? Maybe it was because it's the only way that the Ministry of Finance is going to hear what the public really thinks out there, because certainly they're not hearing through discussions that the Minister of Finance is holding, which are being held behind closed doors. When the Minister of Finance came to the budget committee, he didn't provide us any information about the options that they were looking at.

Is that all happening, Premier, because you really have just made up your mind about the tax cut, about all the job cuts, about everything else that you are doing and you have no room left to listen to whatever it is that people have to say out there?

This morning, when you were asked about the Embarrass Harris Campaign, your response was that you tend to respond more to logical, sensible arguments. Let me tell you, there were lots of logical, sensible arguments in the meeting that I was at this morning and there are lots of logical, sensible arguments out there, but you're not going to hear them unless you and your ministers are out there listening to those discussions. I want to ask you again, why will you not reinstate the open public discussions that the previous Minister of Finance had for four years in this province, which give people an opportunity to talk to you and hopefully talk good sense to you through that process?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess you're talking about the process that led to 32 tax hikes. Is that the process? Is this the process that you heard from that encouraged the Minister of Finance to run four $10-billion deficits in a row? Is this the process where the Minister of Finance heard that he should run up $100 billion in debt? Because if that's the process, we're not interested in that process. We're interested in hearing, quite frankly, I might say, from all of the people.

I might tell you that we did listen for four years. We put together a proposal. We campaigned on it in what might be called the ultimate consultation where the people said: "We'd like our taxes cut so we can be competitive. We'd like to spend more efficiently. We'd like a budget, the first one introduced by the new government, that brings us on a path to fully balance our budget." I might add that we are indeed committed by virtue of our campaign promises and commitments, as you all indicate, to do just what we asked the people to elect us to do.

So we are delivering on that, and within that framework we welcome all opinion and all input. But if you're asking us to deliver the kind of budgets you delivered with tax hikes, job losses, bigger deficits, higher debt, more people on welfare, we're not interested in that.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, earlier today you were asked by the member for Beaches-Woodbine with regard to certain appointments made by this administration, and in particular Mr Callaghan's name was mentioned. Having had the opportunity to campaign with Mr Callaghan and meet him during the election campaign, I would wonder if the Premier might like to expand to some extent on this man's background and his qualifications.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I might add that it is, I think, rewarding and interesting that finally we get a question that comes from the ebb and flow of the debate in the House as opposed to the setup, scripted questions that normally come forward. Might I congratulate the member, because lots of times people at home say: "Don't they listen? Is this all a setup? Is it all for that?"

I am pleased because, as I indicated in response to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, this matter had gone before the committee, and it's important that you understand that the College of Midwives, that college set up by the NDP, is set up with seven to eight midwives and then five to seven public members. The criteria set out by the NDP were this: Public members cannot be members of a regulatory college; they cannot be midwives; they can't be any other health professional. They are to represent the public interest and should be open-minded in regard to the profession.

I am supposing that these were the criteria that just before the election prompted the NDP to appoint to the very same college Lucie Paquin, constituency assistant to Len Wood, NDP MPP for Cochrane. That was on May 15, just about when the polls said the government and that job may disappear for Lucy Pacquin; or Abby Pollonetsky, a director of the New Democratic Party of Canada, on May 4. So I am assuming that the NDP were looking for laypeople, non-professionals, non-medical background, to fill those criteria, and indeed we believe Mr Callaghan fills those criteria better than these appointments.

Mr Guzzo: My supplementary question would be to the Premier. I'd like to know, Mr Premier, if you have some more people of that quality and qualifications that I support and have recognized in Mr Callaghan from eastern Ontario, and any appointments in the offing, people of that nature.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to say that I agree with you on Mr Callaghan's qualifications, as did the committee. It's a matter of public record, his community services and experiences. He also put on the record his sensitivity to the subject of birthing, having two very personal experiences that are now a matter of record that I don't think anybody would particularly want to contradict.

I want to assure the member and again congratulate him on coming forth with these spontaneous questions, because it really helps the image of all members of all parties of the House to get away from this viewpoint that a lot of the public have that question period is a fix and they really know the answers or they don't really want to know. Let me assure the member there are many very talented, qualified people coming forward. I want to indicate that many of them are willing to serve for $1 a year and many of them are serving in that capacity, in unprecedented numbers. Some may have had previous political experience, but that of course is not the primary criterion.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you have now basically acknowledged that you are going to change the definition of "disability" and that this change is going to come in a short little while here in Ontario. We're talking about individuals who are permanently unemployable who are disabled. We're talking about cancer patients in remission, people with psychiatric conditions, people with heart conditions.

This category is now being reviewed by your ministry with an intent to move these people out of this system into the welfare system, so someone would go from $900 a month to $560 a month once you've made your changes. It's going to save you millions of dollars on the backs of the disabled.

Minister, can you assure us today that once you have completed your redefinition of "disability" in Ontario, not one single person who is now receiving disability pension will be ineligible as a result of your changing and forcing them on to welfare for a lower rate? Can you simply give that assurance to the House today?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Sometimes it's nice if the honourable member across the way wouldn't engage in the practice of setting up straw men so he can knock them down. I have not acknowledged any change in any definition of "disabled." The honourable member is starting with an assumption and clearly his starting point is incorrect.

As I've said to this particular member before, and clearly in the House as well, this is one of the reasons why we have this advisory committee, so we can have consultation with the disabled community. These are the groups of the caregivers. We have an obligation right now, and we are working right now with the disabled community to find out what their needs are. This particular member keeps on coming up over and over again with these assumptions and he considers them to be true and self-evident, but they're not. He's got to start with a real and true premise.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their right to access pension security, a right that other workers in the province have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the coming months could be forced into poverty;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

I proudly affix my signature to it.

COMMENTS OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition with about 150 signatures from people in my riding and across Ontario.

"Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement; and

"Whereas the minister's credibility in all future actions and statements will be clouded by these discrepancies,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

I affix my signature to this petition.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government plans to sell off public services to corporations which will run them for profit; and

"Whereas after the corporate takeover it will be strictly user-pay for these services we now depend on; and

"Whereas our clean air and water standards and worker safety rules are being relaxed because corporations don't like rules that interfere with profits; and

"Whereas privatization is being sold as a way to save tax dollars, even though large companies pay little or no taxes while individual Canadians pay most of the total tax bill; and

"Whereas Bill 7 was introduced in the interests of facilitating its privatization agenda by stripping public sector workers of their rights to retain fair working conditions when services are transferred or privatized,

"We, the following citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to abandon the sell-off of Ontario public services and reinstate successor rights for public service employees."

I affix my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Here I have a petition from a number of people from around the city of Toronto, initiated by Paul Daniels. The petition reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sign the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"The government of Ontario is planning to implement tax cuts that will benefit well-off people while at the same time they have cut incomes to the poor. 46% of Ontario families make less than $35,000 a year but will get only 7.3% of the benefits of the proposed tax cuts (or about $462 a year). Families with total incomes over $95,000 a year make up only 9.2% of all Ontario families, but they will get 32.7% of the benefits. In these tough times it is unconscionable that the poor will go hungry while the wealthy are given more."

I have signed this petition.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition addressed to Transportation Minister Al Palladini and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with respect to legislation proposed that will cost many towns their bus service.

"Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given the rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundreds of smaller communities like ours are going to lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns and villages need bus service just as much as people in big cities." -- like Toronto -- "We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts. The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

That's signed by just numbers and numbers and numbers of people. I have affixed my signature.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition today signed by a number of residents from the city of Scarborough. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to:

"

(1) Continue pediatric services, including inpatient pediatric beds,

"

(2) Continue special care nursery services,

"

(3) Continue and combine Metropolitan Toronto's burn care

"At Scarborough General Hospital!"

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That junior kindergarten as it stands in the current public school system remain as a level of education for our children, governed by the provincial government,

"Therefore, we, the people of Elgin county, request that the House refrain from cancelling junior kindergarten as proposed by the current Harris government. We request that junior kindergarten remain as part of the public school system."

It's signed by a number of people in my riding.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has had 12.8 kilometres of Highway 11 between Temagami and south of Highway 64 turnoff reconstructed during October to April 1995; and

"Whereas the contractor for this project is Allan Cook Construction of Barrie, Ontario; and

"Whereas the condition of this highway during construction was deplorable and caused considerable damage to vehicles driving north and south along this" portion of highway "and the lack of maintenance during the construction period caused an unsafe environment for vehicle traffic from the south and north who had to use Highway 11 as the only route for residents, businesses and tourists in the area; and

"Whereas the length of time for this construction to be completed was too long of a time frame and being the months of April, May, June, July, August and September (1995) afforded the most favourable weather for the necessary construction work to be completed,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow a similar situation of road construction to occur in the future and to guarantee a safe and good passable roadway during any further road construction for the residents of northern Ontario, transportation vehicles of goods and services, and tourists to and from northern Ontario."

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Transportation Minister Al Palladini is proposing legislation that will cost many towns their bus service.

"Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given the rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundreds of smaller communities like ours will lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts. The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

This petition is signed by 15 residents of the province. I affix my signature as well, as I agree with this petition.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to affix my signature to the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have petitions here from well over, I think in this set, 200 people.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to abandon, reduce or delay the provincial government's proposed 30% tax reduction in order to maintain needed funding and services for the two million people of Metro Toronto."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of northwestern Ontario continue to express great support for the family support plan and the need for the regional offices to be maintained. It reads:

"We, being residents and taxpayers of Ontario, hereby wish to notify you that we oppose the centralization of the family support plan and in particular the closure of the Thunder Bay branch of the family support plan for the following reasons," which I read into Hansard yesterday.

It summarizes by saying, "We hereby respectfully request that you give consideration to our concerns and reject any proposal for the closure of the Thunder Bay branch."

I've got over 1,000 signatures here, and I'm proud to sign my own name as well.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their right to access pension security, a right that other workers in Ontario have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the coming months could be forced into poverty;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

That signed by Barbara LeBlanc of Welland, by Marielle Labrie of Welland, and hundreds and hundreds of others.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): "We, the undersigned, believe that rent control abolition would lead to a steep rise in rents due to the persistent shortage of affordable housing in Hamilton-Wentworth. Tenants, who are among the most affected by ongoing mass layoffs, wage cuts and hiring freezes, and senior citizens on fixed incomes will suffer greatly if rent controls are abolished. We are not in favour of the proposed abolition of rent controls by the provincial government."

I urge this House to reject any attempt to do so, and I'm pleased to sign my name to the petition.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have yet another petition, this time from people around the Hamilton area, who sent this petition to me as the housing critic for the NDP. It reads:

"Whereas security of tenure or the right to remain in our homes is a basic need of all humans, and

whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons, and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent controls remain in effect in this province."

I've signed the petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The residents of public housing continue to be very concerned and apprehensive about the government's intention to privatize, and I have another petition saying:

"Whereas the Ministry of Housing has indicated an intent to privatize public housing units and intensify the housing crisis in Ontario; and

"Whereas all Ontarians have a basic right to fair and affordable shelter; and

"Whereas such privatization will cause financial hardship and insecurity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow the privatization of public housing units and to ensure that existing structures are adequately maintained."

I am pleased to add my signature to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have yet another petition, this time from the people of Windsor. It reads:

"Whereas security of tenure or the right to remain in our homes is a basic need of all humans, and

whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons, and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent controls remain in effect in this province."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Barrett from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr42,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SÛRETÉS MOBILIÈRES

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act / Projet de loi 35, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les sûretés mobilières.

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

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 36,

An Act to amend certain acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant certaines lois appliquées par le ministère des Richesses naturelles.

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

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CO-OPERATION AMONG BOARDS), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COLLABORATION ENTRE CONSEILS)

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Education Act to require co-operation among boards / Projet de loi 37, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation pour exiger la collaboration entre les conseils.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The bill amends the Education Act to require coterminous school boards to cooperate in the provision and purchase and use of goods and services, goods such as supplies and equipment and facilities, services such as transportation services, educational, administrative and operational support services.

Nothing in this bill infringes upon rights under collective agreements.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I believe I have unanimous consent to call as the first order of the day the amendment to the Personal Property Security Act, which I just introduced, and that I have unanimous consent to call that for second and third reading today as well.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Agreed? Agreed.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SÛRETÉS MOBILIÈRES

Mr Sterling moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act / Projet de loi 35, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les sûretés mobilières.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): At the outset, I'd like to thank the critic for the Liberal Party and the critic for the New Democratic Party for going to their caucuses and explaining this bill to their caucuses prior to the introduction of the bill. I was glad to share it with them prior to the introduction because of their understanding that it was necessary to have quick passage of this to protect some small businesses and some creditors in our province.

I'd like to outline the basis of the bill. Under the Personal Property Security Act, it's necessary to re-register an instrument on its termination date, and you have 30 days in which to do that. Because the computers were shut down during the recent strike, people who had instruments that came to an end during that period of time or just immediately prior to it did not have the opportunity to re-register their instrument. This meant that their lien against a particular chattel became unperfected, as they say in the legal business, meaning that it no longer was a charge against that particular chattel or piece of personal property.

The problem with that, of course, is that all of a sudden the system gets out of sync and that those who would have another lien against that property or against all of the assets of a business would get out of sync with what was actually intended by the people who are conducting the business around that particular piece of property.

In the case of liens which were supposed to be re-registered during that period of time, what we are proposing to do in this legislation is to give the people who should have re-registered during the shutdown five days to re-register those instruments. If they re-register those instruments within those five days, their effective date in terms of their protection will go back to the date when their lien terminated against that particular chattel.

The second area that is of importance as well is when a small business person has sold perhaps a computer and taken a lien on that computer to secure the amount of money left owing on the computer. Under the Personal Property Security Act, you have 10 days in order to register that lien to get the first charge against that particular computer. If you don't register it within 10 days but register it later, you become second to some of the other liens that would be against perhaps all of the assets of that particular business.

It's common, for instance, for a bank to take a lien against all of the chattels or all of the property of a particular business. So by not being able to register the lien within 10 days, the small business man who has sold the computer to that business has lost his priority to the bank. That would happen, and that would show up particularly in the case of a bankruptcy.

In the third instance, there is a requirement to discharge a lien within 30 days of being paid off, and of course people have not had that opportunity to register that discharge when the computers have been shut down. This legislation will give people five days to register discharges of liens against chattels in the future. We don't know yet when the computers are going to be up. It takes a considerable amount of time to get the computers back on stream.

The legislation indicates that I will put a notice in the Ontario Gazette when those computers are ready to start up again, and from the initial day there will be four days after that to make a total of five, or the additional day plus nine in order to register the first lien against the smaller chattel in the second case that I indicated.

That is the basic guts of the legislation. The need for us to pass this quickly is in case of a company going bankrupt. There is good law and there is also arguable law that when a person or a business goes bankrupt the law freezes as of that day. If there were a bankruptcy today or yesterday, for instance, we might be stuck with the old regime of priorities that had been skewed by the fact that the registry system wasn't working during the strike. Once this law is passed, then the new regime will be in place and people will have the opportunity to correct the priority dates or the priority of the various liens against the chattels.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions of the members here and again want to thank them for their cooperation in putting this situation back in place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's my pleasure to reply to the minister and to reiterate that we are pleased to join you and the third party, I understand, in supporting the swift passage of this bill, the Personal Property Security Amendment Act, so that it might benefit all the lenders, the small businesses and individuals the minister has spoken to.

This is a small example of, when someone with your influence and experience and power within cabinet introduces a bill, how swiftly these things can be done, and perhaps could suggest that if the minister and I and the critic for the third party were to get together, we could probably run this whole province more efficiently. I wish you well with your bill.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a couple of questions of the minister, but prior to that I would just say that this is an example where many people don't understand that at times in the Legislature we don't fight on issues just because we want to. We decide that many times in legislation there are things that we need to do, that we have to do, all of us, for the good of Ontario, and we do that. But at times we do disagree and we have very strong argument on that. I think people need to recognize this is not one of those times.

One of the two questions I have for you is simply this: In regard to the five days' notification, I take it that it will only be published in the Gazette and it will be up to individuals to find out what is required of them to reregister their liens. Is that the only mechanism by which you're going to do that?

The other question is that you're saying it is a problem to start up and to get back up on line the computer network system itself. I understand the same problem exists with the Ministry of Transportation presently, where it's having difficulty trying to get the computers back on line again. Understanding something about computers -- I wouldn't say I'm expert, but I understand a fair amount about networking -- what is the difficulty? Maybe you can shed a bit of light on that. I need to know, is it a question that there's a problem with the system or is it just that the equipment is so old they're having some problems trying to warm it up once again?

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, Minister, you have two minutes.

Hon Mr Sterling: I thank you for your support of the bill. The official notification will be occurring in the Gazette. We will be making every attempt to publicize the dates in every other forum that we can, including that I will come into this Legislature and indicate the date here in this Legislature, as well as doing a number of other things in trying to get to those people who would be involved with the small business community. We're going to be in touch with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business people. We're going to be in touch with the bar.

Mr Bisson: The OFL?

Hon Mr Sterling: If the OFL wants to find out; I didn't realize that they were in the securing of business. But I ask the members, if they have suggestions as to how I can propagate this particular date, I would be pleased to receive their comments.

I can't really comment on the problem with the computers. This was a first instance. I guess it's reflected by the fact that the act never contemplated this kind of situation. However, I think it has pointed out a weakness in our computer systems in government and the fact that they can't be shut down easily and started easily. I'd have to refer you to Mr Johnson, who is the head of Management Board. They fall under him. Again, thank you very much for your support.

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I want to thank the minister for introducing this bill. As the former leader of the party graced me with the position of critic for consumer and commercial relations -- and it was something like being the Maytag repairman -- I'm grateful for any legislation that comes from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- this is the second one -- because you see, it gives me an opportunity to respond as a critic.

I was assured, of course, at the time I was given this critic's position that it would be extremely high profile, that I'd have an opportunity to address a number of issues here in the Legislature, that I'd be engaging in debate frequently and I trusted the former leader when he advised me of that. I felt I was in good hands.

In any event, I also want to thank, from Welland-Thorold riding, the Niagara Credit Union, Atlas and Civic Employees Credit Union, Canal City Savings and Credit Union and Thorold Community Credit Union, along with some 15 to 20 lawyers whose expertise is in commercial practice who assisted me in responding to this bill, telling you that this caucus is going to support the bill, of course, but expressing a couple of concerns.

One, as my colleague Mr Bisson did, there has been concern expressed to me about the nature of publication. Of course, we know that the Gazette is the official forum, the official venue for the publication of the reinstatement date which will be determined by regulation. It's been suggested by members of the bar, of course, that the Ontario Reports be used as a vehicle for transmitting that information. Obviously, from the credit unions' perspective, there are communication processes that are available to credit unions that would make it suitable.

Some concern though about the retroactivity of it and recognizing that the courts have, by and large, upheld retroactivity. But certainly, in cases when courts have upheld retroactivity, it's been reinforced, or it's been easier for the courts to uphold retroactivity when there's been notice at least of intention. That clearly in this instance was lacking.

I mention that -- obviously, if people choose to litigate on that basis, God bless and let the courts deal with it. It remains, however, that the OPSEU strike, of course, lasted a considerable period of time. It lasted 30-plus days. It would have been, in our view, preferable for at least notice of this type of legislation to have been offered up when a strike first became the case. One is left with the impression that, yes, this government suspected OPSEU was going to fold its tents and quietly fold their picket lines in short order. Clearly, history has demonstrated otherwise.

The women and men in the Ontario Public Service Employees Union fought with courage, with tenacity, indeed with solidarity. They won and they won notwithstanding the government's desire that they be crushed as an organized force of workers.

As well, this illustrates once again, as so many things did during the course of that work stoppage, how important the work of public sector workers is to our day-to-day lives. There was a tendency, certainly by the government, and unfortunately by a few other people, to disregard or discount the role of public sector workers. Well, here is but another example, another illustration of how important those public sector workers are to the economy of our communities, to the health of our communities, to the safety of our communities, to the welfare of our communities and to the prosperity of our communities.

It underscores the fact that we should indeed value public sector work. We should recognize the great contribution it makes to the wealth of this province.

The act is one which demonstrates, yes, a level of cooperation on the part of the opposition parties. One would only wish that there was the same level-headedness that would prevail in the context of, oh, let's say, this absurd appointment of Daniel Callaghan to the council of the College of Midwives here in the province of Ontario, a person totally unqualified, a person whose nomination has outraged women and advocates for midwifery and the community of midwifery here in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Speak to the bill, please.

Mr Kormos: The Personal Property Security Amendment Act that we're dealing with today in second reading pales in comparison to the outrageousness of that type of appointment. That, I regret to say, is going to be the legacy of this government far more than this appropriate but modest bit of cleanup after the government mismanagement of labour relations with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

As well I've got to tell you, noting here that as lead speaker I have an hour and a half to speak, that I'm not going to speak for an hour and a half by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not even contemplating it; I'm not even considering it in this case.

You should know that in the government agencies committee, the government members have moved a motion to impose closure on debate on concurrence to a mere 10 minutes for all three motions on concurrence. That means a maximum of three and one third minutes for each caucus to discuss some very important matters of appointment to some very important boards, agencies and commissions. I find it extremely disappointing, indeed beyond disappointing; it's outright disgusting.

First of all it's probably illegal, because if one reads Erskine May one discovers that the British Parliament of 1883 indicated quite clearly it is not the committee that can establish its own procedures other than, I presume, by unanimous consent; it is only the Legislature. I suspect very much that the government's motion in the government agencies committee is out of order, and if it's not out of order, it's certainly immoral and repugnant to any fairminded person and anybody who has any regard for the process of democracy, not only here in the House but in the committee.

The New Democrats will be supporting the Personal Property Security Amendment Act, will be consenting to its third reading. We will undoubtedly be assisting in communicating to those good lending institutions like credit unions -- I can't emphasize strongly enough that the banks I have little sympathy for. By God, I have little sympathy for them. If this legislation was designed only to protect banking interests, we'd be opposing it with all the passion we could muster.

Don't forget that the banks in this country and province made in excess of $5 billion last year, made incredible profits, made profits off the deficit and haven't been called upon to help pay off that deficit. Rather, it's been the poorest who are being called upon to pay off the deficit.

Credit unions, however, community-based financial institutions owned by their membership -- what a novel proposition. That's why they're strong; that's why they're valuable assets to the community. They have indicated a desire to see this passed promptly and we will be supporting it. I thank Mr Sterling for presenting this legislation. I encourage him to present more legislation, as frequently as possible, in as many diverse areas as possible. It will no doubt frustrate the whip and the House leader that I have an opportunity to respond to these things, but what the heck, I need a break at this point, don't I?

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate? Mr Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 35. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Mr Sterling moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act / Projet de loi 35, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les sûretés mobilières.

Hon Mr Sterling: I would just again like to thank not only the members of the Legislature, but Teri Kirk, director of my legal services, and Allen Doppelt who is the senior counsel in charge of the Personal Property Security Act, for their timely and hard work in getting this together in a very short period of time. And I thank members for their support.

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate? Mr Sterling has moved third reading of Bill 35. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes / Loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Mr Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure today to have the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you, the members of the House and the people of Ontario, and to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

I believe that education is critically important to the future of Ontario and that excellence in teaching is critical to quality in education.

The concept of the College of Teachers has been suggested for many years. You may recall the Hall-Dennis report in 1967, and most recently the Royal Commission on Learning. Both reports supported the College of Teachers concept. There has been broad support to recognize teachers as a profession. By definition, a profession is a self-regulating body.

I have to tell you that over the past few months I have strengthened my personal respect