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

May 28, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L195 - Wed 28 May 1997 / Mer 28 Mai 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VEHICLE RECOVERY PROGRAM

WATER QUALITY

TODD BOYS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

TRUCKING SAFETY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WATER CLEANUP

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

HEARING AWARENESS MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

AMBULANCE SERVICES

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

PROTECTION OF JOBS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

OMA AGREEMENT

SCHOOL BOARDS

AGRIFOOD EXPORTS

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WASTE DISPOSAL

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

TVONTARIO

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CHILD CARE

TÉLÉVISION FRANCOPHONE DE L'ONTARIO

RENT REGULATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

LARRY GROSSMAN

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VEHICLE RECOVERY PROGRAM

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): On Monday I attended the unveiling of a new initiative, the vehicle recovery program, launched in my riding by the Hawkesbury OPP detachment in the village of Alfred, where citizens are always pulling together to prevent and eliminate crime.

I want to convey my sincere congratulations to Staff Sergeant Michael Aho of the Hawkesbury OPP detachment. Mr Aho played a very important role in the introduction of this innovative program, a first in Ontario. With small electronic devices, stolen cars can now be quickly identified and recovered.

I want to commend Staff Sergeant Aho and his staff as well as the people from the communities in Prescott and Russell who take an active

part in this program.

I know that in recent years the Conservative government has slashed $17 million from the OPP budget. I certainly hope the Solicitor General is listening and will make sure that funding is sufficient to spread this new program to many more communities in my riding and to communities throughout the province in the very near future.

WATER QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm still reeling from the statement the other day by the Tory environment minister that by polluting Lake Ontario with thousands of pounds of copper and zinc, Ontario Hydro's Pickering nuclear plant is somehow doing Lake Ontario's fish a favour. Not since Morley Kells said in response to a PCB spill that if you're a rat eating PCBs on the highway you might have some problems, or since Ronald Reagan suggested that trees are a major contributor to air pollution, have I heard such environmental claptrap from a public official.

Donald MacKay, an expert quoted in the Star, says that copper and zinc are persistent -- they never go away -- and are toxic, and they tend to bioaccumulate in fish.

On behalf of Ontario's fish and her citizens who eat them, I brewed up a concoction for the minister which I'll be sending across later. If copper pollution is as benevolent as he claims, perhaps this brew will kickstart his brain.

It's becoming clear that this minister is incapable of taking Hydro's pollution of our drinking water supply seriously. Minister, stand in this House today and announce that you are referring this entire matter to the Environmental Commissioner, who will take this seriously, so that the truth about what's happening over at Pickering nuclear plant can be uncovered.

TODD BOYS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate Todd Boys as the Ontario Colleges Athletic Association's male athlete of the year. The pride of the athletics department at Loyalist College, which is in my riding, Todd, a 20-year-old recreational leadership student, is the first-ever Loyalist College student to be unanimously selected for this award.

While Todd led the men's Lancers volleyball team to a gold at the Ontario championship and a fourth-place finish in the national championship, he maintained a 3.4 grade point average and won several individual honours, including: Canadian Colleges Athletic Association all-Canadian; CCAA championship all-star; OCAA championship MVP; OCAA all-star; OCAA east region scoring champion; OCAA all-star game MVP; Loyalist College male athlete of the year; Loyalist College men's volleyball MVP.

While Todd contemplates a possible move to Europe to use his considerable talents to play professional volleyball there, I want to once again congratulate him on his achievements and wish him well. No doubt, whatever path Todd chooses, he will succeed.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The Ontario Liberal Party has gone through this month's budget, and we are left wondering, along with Ontario's arts and culture community, whether this government will ever understand the value of the arts to our communities, let alone our economy.

We remember the Premier promising on the election trail that he would not cut cultural support. We also recall how the culture minister herself recently said she'd maintain funding for the Ontario Arts Council at last year's level. Yet budget '97 revealed a government intent on extinguishing the artistic spirit that brings fire and life to Ontario's non-profit arts community. It revealed an additional $5-million cut to the Ontario Arts Council, putting funding levels at 1975 levels.

But culture does matter to the people of Ontario. It matters to the economy of Metropolitan Toronto, where the loss in economic activity already far outweighs what this government has ripped out over the last two years. It matters to the residents in northern Ontario who access cultural opportunities like the Thunder Bay Symphony and Magnus Theatre, which can only be maintained with stable and predictable government support.

It matters to the individual artists who, as noted by Paul Hoffert, the chair of the Ontario Arts Council, are in essence the research and development wing of Ontario's not-for-profit arts sector.

The Ontario Liberal Party today asks the government to make two commitments: (1) to restore the budget for the arts council to 1996-97 levels and (2) to undertake an immediate round table discussion with provincial representatives from the non-profit arts community to devise a constructive provincial approach for funding to the not-for-profit arts sector.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yesterday in the debate here on the issue of truck safety, the Minister of Transportation yet again showed his colours when it comes to just who he listens to on the issues of highway and truck safety.

Specifically, yesterday in debate I mentioned that I was looking forward to seeing whether the comprehensive truck policy legislation the government is bringing forward was going to contain some of the issues that have been raised by the public and associated groups who have been trying to lobby this government to address some of the issues of truck safety.

In that debate I think the minister tipped his hand and told us where he's really coming from. I was making comments at that time, saying that I hoped the minister was going to try to listen, at least this time, to CRASH. I quote from Hansard the response of the Minister of Transportation: "No need."

You're the Minister of Transportation and you're responsible not only to listen to the paid lobbyists of the trucking association, but you should also be listening to the public and those groups that represent the public when it comes to highway safety. The job of the Minister of Transportation is to listen to both sides.

I look forward to the legislation you will bring forward. I truly hope it addresses some of the issues that have been raised not only by the trucking association but by the public, and very much look forward to a time when we're able to start dealing with some of these issues. But I really wonder just how effective and comprehensive this policy is if you've only listened to one group of people, the paid lobbyists within the trucking association, and not the people of Ontario.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of outraged citizens across the country in protest of the federal Young Offenders Act.

It seems almost every day I pick up the paper and read about some heinous crime being committed by a youth, who gets a ludicrous sentence. The federal government is sending a message to an entire generation of youth that you can commit any crime, no matter how gravely serious it is, and society will not exact an appropriate penalty.

I have met people who have lost their children, brothers, sisters and friends to teen killers. These people have sat patiently through the legal process and gone through the revictimization of hearing accounts of the death of their loved ones gone over in the courts. They relive the crime because they want to see justice served, because they want the killer to pay for what he or she has done. However, they get no justice. All they get is insult added to grievous injury.

This government has long supported having young offenders tried in adult court for serious offences. Crimes like murder and rape should automatically go to adult court. These are adult crimes, and the offenders deserve an adult sentence.

WATER CLEANUP

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Election campaigns produce strange occurrences. A press release with the Progressive Conservative letterhead was issued on Friday, May 23, ridiculing the investment of over $2 million in federal funding for the environmental cleanup of Martindale Pond and the Royal Canadian Henley Rowing Course, a project that has received widespread support in St Catharines from people of all political persuasions.

Indeed, not only will environmental contaminants be removed from this well-used waterway, but the dredging taking place will enable St Catharines and Ontario to host the 1999 World Rowing Championships, an event certain to return millions of dollars on this wise investment.

It is hard to fathom why the Conservative Party would be so critical of such a beneficial initiative. Certainly Premier Harris and my colleagues the Conservative members for St Catharines-Brock and Lincoln must be shocked and surprised by this PC campaign salvo since the Conservative government of Ontario matched the initial federal funding of $1.5 million, as did the council of the city of St Catharines.

Even committed Conservative partisans must be mystified that the federal Conservative campaign has decided to attack a splendid and progressive project which will help clean up a waterway, provide a habitat for fish and improve a world-class rowing course while creating jobs in our part of Ontario, a project which has brought together the federal, provincial and municipal governments, along with the private and volunteer sectors. Only Jean Charest's Conservatives appear to be offside in this play.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I hope all members of the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wildman: Is this on my time?

The Speaker: No. I'll restart the clock for you, don't worry.

Order. It's statements, and we want to hear the one from the member for Algoma.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I hope all members of the House are aware that the Minister of Education and Training's so-called formula for determining the number of trustees in the new amalgamated school boards is not working. It's particularly problematic in northern Ontario, because in determining the number of trustees, the ministry staff are interpreting the instruction that they take into account scarcity of population as only to be applied in areas where boards actually tax.

That means in northern Ontario the vast expanses of crown land are not counted, even though in order to attend a meeting, a trustee would have to drive through these crown lands. So in Algoma district, district school board number 2 is counted by the ministry as only being 20,000-and-some square kilometres, instead of the real total of 72,000 square kilometres.

As a result, there will be no trustee north of Sault Ste Marie to represent Hornepayne, Chapleau, White River and Wawa. There will be five or six trustees in the city of Sault Ste Marie and a couple east of Sault Ste Marie, but none for that whole expanse of territory and those communities north of Sault Ste Marie.

This is just ridiculous, and the ministry staff says, "You've got four years after this election to campaign" --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements?

HEARING AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): May is Hearing Awareness Month, and I am proud to rise in the House today to acknowledge this very important occasion.

We all recognize that our population is aging, and this, along with the increase in noise pollution, has made hearing loss the fastest-growing disability in North America.

Often referred to as the invisible disability, hearing loss affects one in 10 Canadians. This incidence increases dramatically for people over the age of 65. In fact, more than 50% of our elderly experience some degree of hearing loss.

There are many misconceptions about sound and hearing loss. For instance, some people believe that hearing loss after sound exposure is temporary. This is not true. Some of the hearing loss will be permanent. Another misconception is that if you have a hearing loss already, you don't have to protect against hearing loss any more. This is not true either. Hearing loss accumulates. More exposure to loud sounds leads to more hearing loss.

Communication barriers can be significantly reduced through the use of technology like interpreters, note-takers, closed captioning and assistive devices, but it's noted by the Canadian Hearing Society that increased understanding and awareness lie at the heart of lifting these barriers.

The Ministry of Health provides funding for hearing aids for children and adults through the assistive devices program. Anyone who requires the use of a hearing aid for six months or more is eligible.

Once hearing loss occurs, it cannot be recovered. We need to remember this in our day-to-day activities so that protection and awareness become a fact of life.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I saw him here a moment ago.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): If you ask the question, I think he'll hear you.

Mr Cordiano: He's everywhere, is he?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's ubiquitous.

Mr Cordiano: He's ubiquitous, yes.

Minister, I want to talk today about your MVA property tax scheme, which you renamed CVA, current value assessment. We know that many people across this province are going to see dramatic increases in their property taxes. In some cases taxes will more than double. We also know there will be a massive shift in business taxes from bank towers to small businesses such as barber shops and hair salons. In fact, some reports suggest that businesses will be facing 200% increases. That will force many small operators out of business. You are going to be responsible for that.

Will you today stand up and guarantee to small business that they will not be put under as a result of your property tax increases?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll refer the question to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): As we indicated before, this is a bill that comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I will state the obvious, in that an updated assessment does not generate more revenue; it simply makes it more fair in terms of what each individual taxpayer pays, whether that taxpayer is a residential homeowner, whether it's a business -- a big business, a small business -- commercial, industrial. No matter what the class is, it raises the same amount of money but apportions it more fairly.

Municipalities have been given all sorts of tools to assist the elderly, to assist the disabled, to phase in any increases, to ensure that there aren't big increases and to ensure that not only will people have fair taxes but they will have affordable taxes.

Mr Cordiano: The reality is that you're transferring a massive tax burden from big business to small business. You're telling municipalities to come up with an extra $1.6 billion that they lost through the business occupancy tax, and if small businesses can't afford to pay, you're telling them they should blame the municipalities: "Don't blame the province."

Your government is playing games with the public. Not only are you shifting responsibility, you're also shifting the blame. And that's not the only game you're playing, because you're still downloading over $700 million in responsibilities such as social housing on to the backs of municipal taxpayers. How are taxpayers going to cope with these huge increases? How are they going to know which part of their tax increase is downloading and which

part is from your municipal tax scheme?

Hon David Johnson: It's our position that there won't be any tax increase, and I believe that will be the situation. Indeed, the members of the transition team here in Metropolitan Toronto for example have already discussed that and set as a goal that there would not be any property tax increase. Bear in mind that the education tax, which is largely on the property tax now, is being shifted to the province of Ontario, so there's a great burden that --

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): That's not true, not any more.

Hon David Johnson: Not all of it, but there is a great burden being taken off for education on to the provincial income taxes.

Further, Bill 106 calls for the elimination of the business occupancy tax, which business has been asking to have eliminated for many years. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has requested the elimination. Through this bill, we are eliminating that and taking that burden off the business community in Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: It's very clear that what you've achieved through your MVA, AVA, CVA or BSA plan is total confusion.

The Speaker: With the greatest respect, "BSA" has connotations that are certainly out of order. I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Cordiano: I was referring to a broadly based scheme, assessment plan, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: In future if you could say "broadly based scheme," I'd appreciate it.

Mr Cordiano: Call it what you want, it's all the same. It's mass confusion.

We know municipalities have no idea how they're going to deal with the $1.6 billion in revenue lost through the elimination of the business occupancy tax. We know that downloading social housing and social services on to municipalities will also cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, $350 million to Metro property taxpayers alone. We know also that as a result of megacity, property taxes will go up. But what we don't know and what you're not telling the public is how municipalities and municipal property taxpayers will cope with this additional burden.

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Lawrence. Your time is up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Lawrence, come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: I can tell you how the city of Brampton is going to cope with it. The city of Brampton, in a press release I have, has announced a tax decrease, the first tax decrease.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: I find it interesting, and I'm trying to recall: Who introduced the commercial concentration tax? Which party was it that introduced the commercial concentration tax in Ontario? I notice there's quiet from the Liberal ranks. If there was one tax, one adjustment to the property tax system in Ontario, that was reviled by the business community that the member opposite professes to support today, it was the commercial concentration tax. It's a credit to the NDP government that they undid that damage.

We have gone through a process of --

The Speaker: Sorry. Thanks. Time's up. New question, official opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

Member for Algoma.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, you have the floor.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'll yield to my friend.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll tell you something: I've done it; the government has had the same situation. I called it twice. I looked. I waited. No one stood. The member for Algoma stood. I called him. If the member for Algoma hadn't stood, I would have gone to the government side. I looked back here. Yes, I did.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was waiting for the applause to subside from that side of the House. As it did, I rose. That's when I stood up and you looked this way.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government members, come to order, please. Member for Dufferin-Peel.

You can take your seat now. I appreciate the fact that you may have been confused, but when I called for an opposition question, I called very clearly twice. I know I looked over here and I waited for someone to stand, and you didn't. Now, I really appreciate that you've lost your question. All I can tell you is that in the future you have to be a little more cognizant, I guess. I tried my best and twice I called it.

Mr Wildman: Would it be in order for me to yield to him and move to me after?

The Speaker: You can seek unanimous consent to go back, if you like.

Mr Wildman: I seek unanimous consent to allow the member for Hamilton East to ask a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have to ask for it before you need say no. The member for Algoma is asking for unanimous consent to go back to the member for Hamilton East for a leader's question. Agreed? Agreed. Member for Hamilton East.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I guess I'll have to be kinder with the question now. I appreciate the members across the floor and the NDP members.

My question is to the Minister of Health. There is grave concern with regard to the level of ambulance service across Ontario. There is grave concern across this province as to the impact that your cuts are having on the delivery of emergency ambulance service across this province. We have seen cuts of over $40 million in the last two years both in ambulance operations and municipal ambulance transfer funds.

Two particular examples in my own community in the last week bring this to mind: A 64-year-old woman faints, hurts herself on the way down and is bleeding. Her husband calls an ambulance; 40 minutes before an ambulance appears at the door. A seven-year-old boy, broken leg, waiting to be transferred from one hospital to another; seven and a half hours to be transferred, after repeated calls by the staff to the dispatchers to get an ambulance. In both cases we were told that because of the shortage of funds, they don't have the ambulances available.

Minister, is it acceptable in Ontario today for someone to wait seven and a half hours to be transferred with a broken leg, or someone bleeding who --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Hamilton East.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm disturbed by the honourable member's suggestion with respect to emergency transfers. Ontario has an excellent record across the province, including in Hamilton. We've not cut one penny; in fact, we put $25 million in. I just received an award recently from the ambulance associations for the fact that we'll now have paramedic training across the province in 99% of our ambulances and for the defibrillation --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Wilson: No, it wasn't -- for the defibrillation and medications that the ambulances are carrying with them. No one else in Canada has a better ambulance service than Ontario. There are problems in Hamilton with respect to bypasses occurring, in terms of volume problems at the emergency rooms, but my understanding is the ambulances are operating very well.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Minister, I am really concerned. I was stunned when I read an

article I just received today by fax that rural people are going to be considered second-class citizens. You have supported the Ontario patient transfer services. We know you are forcing the municipalities to take over the ambulance services. We know the municipalities are going to be right up to their necks in debt as of next year. There will not be any tax decrease; there will be a municipal tax increase.

Looking at this, it's going to cost a rural patient, to be transferred to a hospital, anywhere from $103 to $110 for the pickup and then $1.25 per kilometre and $50 for --

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Lalonde: Minister, can you assure the people of Ontario that the Americanization of the Ontario ambulance services will not continue --

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member.

Hon Mr Wilson: The largest ambulance service and one of the best in North America is run by a municipality called Metro Toronto, as are dozens of other municipal ambulance services in this province. Every ambulance service, whether it's the private sector, the municipality or another entity, including the 10 the Ministry of Health operates, signs operating agreements. The Ambulance Act will not change under the Who Does What legislation.

I firmly believe you may even see more attention to the rural problems with respect to transportation, because now local politicians, who are right there every day when it's snowing and it's raining and it's difficult to get around, will be having direct input, in fact taking money from the property tax to pay for those service agreements, and they can build in higher service requirements than are now required in the province if they choose to do that. They certainly have enough tax room to do that.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Three Niagara men, including a St Catharines teacher, were seriously injured in a two-car collision Saturday night in Lincoln. In one of the cars all three of the occupants and the driver had to be extricated with hydraulic equipment. "One of the five responding ambulances had to be called in from Hamilton because of a shortage in the area, said Constable Cliff Priest, one of the Niagara Regional Police officers on the scene."

In light of the fact that in the existing situation you have a shortage of ambulances available and a problem now at emergency centres where people have to go to a critical bypass -- that is, they can't get into the hospital -- how the heck do you expect municipalities, outside of the large ones such as Metropolitan Toronto, to be able to handle the downloading of ambulance services? Are we really going to see now the invasion of huge American companies providing this service, at a huge increase, without the same kind of care and attitude we've had in Ontario over the years?

Hon Mr Wilson: No. The law will not change one iota with respect to the ambulance standards, which are the best in Canada, the best services available in Canada. If there's a problem in a particular area, the dispatch centres -- we have the best dispatch centres in Canada. In fact, they are the envy of North America and of US firms that come up here and look at our dispatch centres. They will remain in the hands of the province.

If there's a particular situation where there may need some beefing up of services, we'd be happy to look at that. But we have the best ambulance services, the best-equipped ambulance services, including our air ambulance services, which are the envy of the world.

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training: Bill 104 received third reading in this House five weeks ago today. Forty-five days have gone by and there still is no Education Improvement Commission. Beyond the initial naming of the two chairs, we've seen no announcement of appointments.

On April 2, the minister said in this House, "If the members of the third party would allow us to get Bill 104 through the House, we'll have an EIC," that is, an education improvement commission. Even if cabinet approved a list of appointments today, it will take some time for the commission to be up and running. Why did this government ram through Bill 104 only to hold up the process of appointing the commission?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'd like to point out to the member for Algoma that he's wrong on two counts:

(1) The government did not "ram through" Bill 104 and (2) the government is not holding up appointments to the Education Improvement Commission. In fact, we're looking forward to going forward with that commission, to having it fulfil its mandate as contained in the legislation.

Mr Wildman: It has taken five weeks. The appointments, if they are going to go forward, will still have to go through a committee process. Meanwhile, boards of education and separate boards in this province have not been able to proceed with capital projects and other contracts to be signed. We've heard from school boards that they cannot get bond holders to issue debentures for capital projects because there is no Education Improvement Commission to give approval.

If we have children returning to overcrowded schools next fall because of your five-week delay in making appointments to this commission, how will you justify that to the ratepayers and to the parents of Ontario students?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the member for Algoma that the Education Improvement Commission will be up and running within the time frame necessary to approve the budgets and programs during this transition period. We have of course retained the co-chairs, and I'm very pleased that we have two very experienced people, Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone, who are working right now with a staff and have already provided this government with some information it has accepted. I know the member opposite knows that those recommendations, as they relate to northern boards, have made some improvements.

The transition is moving very quickly and I think very smoothly. I can assure the member opposite that there are no building projects, as they were proposed, as we have promised to fund -- $650 million worth of funding -- that will be delayed by this process. If those projects are going forward according to their plan, if there aren't any changes, there should be no problem in building those schools and having them ready for our students.

Mr Wildman: The government's falling down on the job. You've left school boards with unanswered questions about how to proceed with amalgamation. You've left boards unable to proceed on capital projects. You've left them waiting to get approval for their budgets as they've struggled to pass those budgets despite your cutbacks.

The minister has created a crisis. There are only seven months left for school boards and the Education Improvement Commission to work out amalgamation. At the same time the minister is turning the curriculum upside down from grades 1 to 9. He's bringing in high school reform that no one is clear about. He's creating chaos in the education system.

How can the minister justify this delay and his lack of action? How can he justify his performance as minister in this regard?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me tell the member for Algoma very directly: First, let's be clear, the Education Improvement Commission co-chairs have already released draft guidelines, and we are working as quickly as possible to help those school boards during this time of transition.

Why are we doing all of that all at once? Because, sir, your government did not. Because Ontario is one of the last provinces in Canada to take on this kind of restructuring, and that is why our students are mired in mediocre performance. We won't tolerate it. That's why we're moving forward, moving forward right now.

PROTECTION OF JOBS

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Premier. The Premier might know that in Sudbury for about three years now Inco has been developing a new high-tech nickel foam battery for a very fast-growing consumer market. This project has meant high-quality jobs for technicians, technologists and process workers. In 1994 the northern Ontario heritage fund awarded a $12-million loan to Inco to help launch the project. It was the largest single investment the heritage fund has ever made. Today we learned that Inco wants to move this entire project to Clydach, Wales. Premier, my question is very simply, what are you going to do to keep those jobs in Sudbury?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am not aware that Inco is proposing to move the jobs or the technology or the process to Wales. I'd be glad to look into it. I don't know on what terms you gave the money, whether it was conditional that should they leave, they had to repay the money, but if you were that judicious, we'd be prepared to look at that.

Mr Laughren: I would remind you that Inco last year made $642 million and over the years it has made literally billions from exploiting the resources of the Sudbury basin. The technology we're talking about is exactly the kind northern Ontario needs in order to diversify its economy. Don't you think that when a company becomes as rich and powerful as Inco has become, the corporation has an obligation to provide opportunities for the people whence it derived its riches?

Hon Mr Harris: I suppose if they're making that much money, it begs the question why your government felt compelled to give them $12 million. Second, if you are now telling me, and you would know the conditions, that the $12 million was given without conditions, then I suppose legally there may be nothing we can do to compel a company to stay.

But listen, we are always concerned when any private sector company chooses any jurisdiction in the world other than Ontario. It's why we are striving to cut the taxes you hiked on top of the taxes the Liberals hiked. It's why we are striving to bring balanced labour legislation. It's why we are striving to make this province more competitive. But we will take a look -- I appreciate the member raising it -- and see if there are any avenues open to us in any of the agreements former governments have made with them that might help leverage keeping jobs --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Final supplementary.

Mr Laughren: I would remind the Premier that this was a loan, it was not a grant, and you would want to know as well that the threat to move this technology and the jobs out of Sudbury was uncovered and announced today by the former member for Sudbury East and the soon-to-be federal MP for Nickel Belt, Mr Elie Martel. This is what Mr Martel had to say about the situation --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Boy, are we grasping. He's in deep trouble.

The Speaker: Minister of Agriculture, come to order, please.

Mr Laughren: This is what Mr Martel said today at a press conference: "The nickel is here, not in Wales. The jobs should be here, not in Wales."

My question once again to the Premier is very simple: What are you going to do to keep those jobs here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: We will continue to clean up the mess you left in making Ontario an attractive jurisdiction to do business, and we will look at whether there are any agreements in place as a condition of throwing this money at a company like Inco, which your government did, whether there are any conditions there, when you loan money or give them money or give them concessions, where you are able to attach anything to the technology. We'd be prepared to look into all that.

I would say this: You quote the former member for Nickel Belt currently, I guess, because the question has been raised in a tight race in the federal election. It was his long-standing policy and yours to nationalize Inco. You had the chance for five years and you did nothing.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, when your government was considering the introduction of VLTs, video lottery terminals, last year you were in possession of the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario report, Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns. You denied us access to that report not only as members of this Legislature in Ontario but also as this Legislature's committee on administration of justice.

Subsequent to that and during that demand, bits and pieces of this report were leaked to the opposition and the public. You were concerned about that and an investigation was initiated. Could you today give us the status of that investigation and when you consider it would be wound up?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): No investigation was initiated by the government or by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I believe at the time the head of CISO, Chief Julian Fantino of London, indicated his grave concern with respect to the leakage of a confidential intelligence report which was supposed to be confined to the policing community. I would suggest the member contact Chief Fantino with respect to the progress of that investigation.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, are you saying to me today you have no knowledge of this investigation and its progress to this date? Do you not have any suspicion that maybe it was the intelligence unit itself that released this report with the approval of Chief Fantino?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not going to speculate on that. As a minister of the crown it's not appropriate for me or any other member of the executive council to be involved in the details of any police investigation. I respect that and I have not asked Chief Fantino or any other member of the CISO organization any questions related to a police investigation.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning I attended with my colleague from Fort York a rally about the future of Doctors Hospital. This is a hospital, as you know, that serves primarily the west end of Metropolitan Toronto and serves a very multicultural population in a multitude of languages. It's a community-based hospital and its future is threatened by your actions and those of the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

This morning the slogan they used was, "Take the bricks, not the mix." They're saying by this that they're not objecting to the move of the hospital to the western wing of the Toronto Hospital, but they are very clearly saying and the whole community is saying, including the earlier commission that looked at this, the district health council, that what you should do is to maintain the integrity of the hospital, maintain it intact by keeping the present governance structure.

They have shown you how that will save money and how that will maintain, most important of all, the uniqueness of this hospital that will continue to have, if you allow it, as its primary function that community-based health care.

Minister, will you ensure that Doctors Hospital continues to exist? Not the bricks and mortar, but the institution.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I saw one of the flyers that was being passed out today and certainly the sentiment there is, as the honourable member has described it, the same sentiment the government has expressed throughout restructuring; that is, the services are to be maintained and enhanced where they need to be enhanced, very valuable services that the staff at Doctors Hospital provide to a wide range of groups in our society, often in their first languages, with the cultural sensitivities that the patients need in order to do well in their journey through our health care system.

The commission will make the final determination. In the public pronouncements I've heard from the commission, they're very sensitive to the valuable role of the services provided by the people at Doctors Hospital.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): You appear to be saying that services will be maintained and that you think the commission will keep that promise, or at least respect the cultural linguistic services that are there. We're worried. That's why they've been chanting, "Take the bricks but keep the mix." They're worried because they're afraid the commissioner is not going to say Doctors Hospital needs its own independent board at Toronto Western. That's what they're worried about.

The question to you is this: In the event that this restructuring committee, through the commission, fails to heed the advice of all the linguistic communities out there -- the Chinese, the Italian, Portuguese, Vietnamese and Spanish communities -- will you intervene, as the boss of the health care system?

Their agenda is what everyone in the health care system agrees about, including those who were out in front of the commission this morning, and that is that our eye has to be on maintaining and enhancing services. I remind the honourable member that I hope he made his submission to the commission, as appropriate, because the commission will make the final determination.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for privatization and relates to the recently announced privatization review framework. In communicating the framework, the minister pointed out that while in the past there may have been a need for government involvement in a wide array of tasks, that same level of involvement may not be appropriate or required today. I'd like to ask the minister to please elaborate on this point so my constituents may better understand the purpose of the privatization review.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): It's important to understand that times have changed since the time when governments got involved in many of the businesses they run. Governments are currently running various businesses throughout their ministries. I think it's appropriate for Ontarians that we take a look at the changing times and changing needs and changing priorities of Ontarians, and the demands of taxpayers nowadays, who are far more attuned to making sure there is value for the money we are taking from them and spending on their behalf.

The framework we've established will make sure that we can perform that assessment and that analysis, to understand very clearly whether or not there are ways in which private sector involvement in public sector activities can help out.

Mr Hardeman: I'd like to ask the minister specifically about the Province of Ontario Savings Office, which has been announced as a candidate for review under the privatization review framework. I have a savings office in my riding, and consequently one of my constituents recently contacted me regarding the fact that it had been referred to your office. My constituent has requested that I ask the minister whether the government plans to sell the Ontario savings offices, and why. I'd like the minister to answer the question, to assist me in answering my constituents.

Hon Mr Sampson: It's quite important to understand that part of the assessment of the privatization framework is an assessment of a range of options, which could include the sale of an asset, could include a franchising partnership with the private sector providers. There are a number of alternatives we could look at, and we will look at, when we take a look at assets such as the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

I want to assure the member that there are no predetermined plans as to which option will work best. That's why we are doing this assessment. That's indeed why we have designed the framework so that the candidates will get a fair assessment of what the appropriate relationship and what the appropriate involvement of the private sector should be in public sector activities.

There is certainly a question that has got to be answered, and that is whether government, given the nature of financial institutions in this province and in this country, should be involved in the business of running a bank. That's indeed the question we hope to get an answer to.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Today, you will be aware that the highly respected credit rating agency, Standard and Poor's, issued a discouraging report card on the Harris government. We now are two years into your government, and Standard and Poor's has refused to upgrade the province's credit rating. You will know that in 1990 Ontario had a AAA credit rating; it was downgraded three times over the last period of time, and each time I remember well your yelling at Bob Rae about how disappointing and discouraging that was.

We now find that Standard and Poor's, after watching you in action for two years and looking at your plans for the future, gives you exactly the same credit rating as Bob Rae.

If you said Bob Rae was mismanaging the finances of the province because he got a AA- rating, shouldn't the people of Ontario naturally conclude that your rating is AA- and therefore you are mismanaging the finances of the province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Phillips: I think the people will take the word of an independent, highly regarded, respected credit rating agency called Standard and Poor's, whose business it is to coldly and objectively look at the way you are managing the finances of the province. That is what they are paid for, and they are concluding that you are mismanaging the finances of the province. They are refusing to upgrade the credit rating of the province, a AA-, the same rating Premier Rae had.

They go on to say that revenue pressures associated with your tax cut are one of the reasons they are refusing to increase the credit rating. They go on to say that in 1998, three and a half years into your mandate, Ontario will have the highest debt-to-revenue ratio among all the Canadian provinces. They go on to say that this rating they are giving anticipates good economic growth. If that doesn't happen, that rating will be at risk.

My question to you again is this: Recognizing that a respected credit rating agency, Standard and Poor's, has indicated to you their concern, will you now listen to a group like them who are telling you that your tax cut is putting Ontario's fiscal house at risk?

Hon Mr Harris: No.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Tomorrow, a conference called Water and Waste Water Treatment in Canada will open about two blocks north of here, and it's all about privatizing our water. As a matter of fact, the conference is sponsored by the Center for Business Intelligence, of Burlington, Massachusetts, and will bring municipal leaders and corporations together to talk about privatization. The corporations are paying $1,700 for the privilege of attending this conference.

On Monday, your government passed Bill 107, which has to do with downloading sewer and water services and ultimately their privatization. Will you today, before the people at this conference get too excited about the possibility of making money out of our water, make a statement in this Legislature indicating that the privatization of Ontario's water supply is not in the public interest and that you will take measures to stop it?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): As I indicated yesterday to another honourable member, water and sewage services in the province of Ontario have remained in public hands for a period of 100 years. There's no indication that's going to change. Municipalities are totally in charge of this. They are fully autonomous levels of government that tax their citizens to pay for these services. They own these services. Therefore perhaps the member opposite should be asking them the very same question.

Mr Laughren: That's a rather disingenuous response, I say to the minister. If Bill 107 had nothing to do with privatization, do you think it's just a coincidence that these companies are flocking to Toronto to talk about the privatization of water? Do you really think that's just a coincidence?

When you are squeezing the municipalities, that makes sewer and water services easy pickings for the private sector. You know what happened in Britain, at least you should, when they privatized the water services there. Now your member for London South, Mr Wood, is heading up a workshop at that privatization conference entitled Privatization and Contracting Out: A Political Perspective. So don't tell me that Bill 107 has nothing to do with the privatization of water. It sure as hell does.

If your government is not in favour of private water, why are these companies flocking to Toronto and why will you not make a statement saying that it's not in the public interest and you will stop it?

Hon Mr Sterling: Toronto is a wonderful convention city. It's a place where conventions from all across North America, in fact North and South America, come to have meetings. There are meetings with regard to different water associations. There was one in London three or four weeks ago. There are all kinds of meetings like these particular meetings going on. I put no emphasis on whether they're meeting in Toronto at this time or in the future on the basis of what is happening here in Canada or in Ontario.

Bill 107, as you well know, is the first time any provincial government has made a stand with regard to discouraging privatization of our water system. As you know from that bill, what it says is that if a municipality should choose to privatize, they would have to pay back to the government all the grants they had received since 1978. What did your government do with regard to this matter?

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. In the last budget the finance minister introduced 20 new tax credits, including an enhancement to the Ontario film and television tax credit which was introduced in last year's budget. Minister, why have you chosen to enhance a tax credit that is already existing and how is this going to help our film industry in Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you to the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick for an excellent question. As I said in the House prior to the break, our moves in this sector really reflect our commitment to doing business differently. Lower taxes encourage investment -- we know that -- investment equals production -- we know that -- and more production means more jobs. This is the best thing we can do in this particular industry. They know how to compete and they are successful. Our job is to create a positive environment for growth in this sector and then get out of the way.

Ms Bassett: In a follow-up to that, I'd like to ask how these tax credits compete with those in other provinces. As you know, a lot in the film industry are like gypsies: They pick up and move where there are tax credits. As you pointed out, we depend on this industry for jobs. Could you just say how we compete with other provinces?

Hon Ms Mushinski: We have certainly identified cultural industries as a core business of my ministry. We expect that the tax credit enhancement that was announced by Mr Eves will result in significant economic benefits, including stimulating an additional $72 million a year in film and television production. More important, the increased activity will allow Ontario's best and most creative talent to stay and work in Ontario; we believe it will create the most competitive environment in North America. Hollywood is going to become known as Toronto South instead of Toronto as Hollywood North.

Elizabeth McDonald, who is the president and CEO of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, said that Ontario, in particular Toronto, is the largest film and television production centre in Canada. There's no doubt that the tax credit will stimulate jobs --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Next question, official opposition.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'm particularly glad to be able to ask it with the Premier present, because we want to know what the minister is hiding. The minister has not explained to the public or to this House the implications of a very expensive doctor deal that came after a year of his mistreating doctors in this province, a deal that's estimated to cost $660 million.

Minister, when I asked your ministry for a briefing on this, I was referred to your office. After 14 calls to your executive assistant, not one of which has been returned, we still don't have a briefing. I called your deputy minister twice personally, and nothing has been returned.

The people of this province want to know what you're hiding. They want to know why you won't discuss how this deal -- that came about, I'll remind you, because of your bungling of the issue the last 12 months -- is going to be paid for. Who is going to pay for it? The patients of Ontario? The nurses of Ontario? Who is going to cover up for you, Minister? Will you stand in your place today and agree to table all the details of this deal, including how it's going to be paid for?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member has made several calls. I'm aware of all of them. He has insisted that only one person can brief him; that's my executive assistant. She is swamped. We've offered everybody else in the bureaucracy, including people who were at the table, to brief the honourable member, and he has declined. Let's get the record straight here.

Second, I have been scrummed on this issue dozens of times. I have given dozens of interviews. I've been on TV with this issue. The only reporter accusing me of not is Jane Armstrong, and I wasn't in the country last week so I couldn't return her call. I have been very forthright; this government is very forthright.

The unratified agreement -- it is not ratified; so the tentative agreement -- is available to anyone who wants a copy of it. You know that, honourable member, so stop spreading this misinformation in the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Health, that's unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw it.

Hon Mr Wilson: I withdraw it.

Mr Kennedy: I will not stoop to the language used by the minister, but I will say a lot of people are wondering why the minister will not answer questions. There are 10,000 people at Doctors Hospital. There is a symbol here, a brick, that I would like to make sure the minister gets today, that talks about their not understanding your not answering the questions.

In estimates, in the information we have been able to get --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Just a minute, member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: There is a question I want the minister to answer. On page 71 of the detailed estimates, there's $435 million cut from hospitals. On page 87, there's $242 million added to pay to doctors.

Minister, your deal is going to cost even more than that. Do you not agree that you're taking away from nurses because of your mismanagement, from basic care, from emergency services we heard about today, from Doctors Hospital, to be able to pay the doctors' deal? Will you tell us also today, since you've offered to answer the question, I'll remind you, how you will make up for the $203-million shortfall in what you've put in the budget and what you've actually done? By the way, Minister, this is for you and the Premier to be reminded about some of the shortfalls.

Hon Mr Wilson: I met with the Ontario Nurses' Association this morning, and they had some of the same thoughts the honourable member had. I was able to explain to them that after many years the agreement finally recognizes what the doctors have been saying all along, and that is that we have to recognize the growth and aging of the population. We've done that at 1.5% a year for the next three years.

It's not more money for individual doctors. Their fees will be exactly the same the day after the agreement as they are today. It is simply allowing them to serve more patients and older patients. If you're suggesting -- because you're all over the map on this issue, typical of you and your party -- that we should lock the doors at a certain period during the day because there's no more money for patients and we shouldn't recognize growth and aging of the population, get up and say that.

Otherwise, support and help this deal to be ratified so we can get on to reforming the health care system, to restructuring it, to finding every dollar through getting rid of the duplication and waste in the system and driving that money to pay for more patients and an aging population. That is needed, whether the honourable member wants to recognize those facts or not.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We can wait.

New question, the member for Algoma.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Is the minister aware that his commitment to take into account scarcity of population in rural and northern boards, as well as the size of population -- that is, the distribution -- is not being properly implemented by his ministry staff?

In proposed district school board 2, the area being counted by the ministry for determining the number of trustees is only the area taxed by the existing board, an area a little over 20,000 square kilometres, instead of counting the whole area of the district board, which is about 72,000 square kilometres. In other words, the crown land is not counted, despite the fact that a trustee would have to travel through that crown land to get to the community where the meeting is to be held.

Why is it that as a result of this, none of the communities north of Sault Ste Marie -- Wawa, Chapleau, White River or Hornepayne -- will have any trustee representation under your formula?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I am pleased to inform the member for Algoma that we have sent out distribution formulas; we have provided those to the boards. If a board has an unorganized territory, like crown land, in their jurisdiction, it's the obligation of the board to treat that land like a municipality. Distribution is the responsibility of both the local education improvement commission and the municipal clerks. Those unorganized lands, the crown territories, will be taken into account and must be taken into account under the directions we've given boards and the municipal clerks and the local improvement commissions.

Mr Wildman: Part of this problem relates to the fact that the minister agreed with the recommendation of the Education Improvement Commission, the designated co-chairs, to put Hornepayne into district school board 2, even though that community did not wish to be put in that board and none of the existing boards believe it makes sense to add another 120-mile round trip to the travelling that will be required to get to the end of the area of jurisdiction they're responsible for.

But the point is this: The minister made a commitment, which I believe to be sincere, that scarcity of population would be taken into account in determining the numbers of trustees. As a result of this decision by your ministry staff and the meetings that have been held between local officials and the ministry staff, the ministry staff agrees there will no representation north of Sault Ste Marie. Their only response is that the communities can lobby for the next four years so that in the election after this year's they might get some trustee representation. Why won't you change it now?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I hope that the member for Algoma didn't hit himself as he passed himself in his earlier argument that the Education Improvement Commission transition process is not under way. It clearly is under way, and yes, we have received a report by the co-chairs of the Education Improvement Commission and we have acted on that to increase the amount of representation, to increase the number of boards, the number of trustees in the north because we've recognized the case for the north, the case for more representation. We've moved on that and moved very quickly.

Let me restate this for the member opposite: The distribution formula we have distributed to the boards recognizes low-density areas and ensures that these areas receive trustee representation. Just once more for the record, it is the obligation of the municipal clerks and the local Education Improvement Commission to identify those low-population areas and to have trustees represent those areas. That is being taking care of. It's in the distribution formula that we have presented, and I can assure the member that this is an improvement on what was first proposed and those people --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

AGRIFOOD EXPORTS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It's a well-known fact that agriculture is the engine that drives the province of Ontario. The province does well when the agricultural sector is doing well.

My riding of Perth has a strong agricultural base. Perth ranks first in hogs marketed in Ontario and second in milk shipped. Perth county has a farming population of a little over 10,000 people and they account for over 6% of the livestock and poultry sold in Ontario. That's over $150 million a year. The farmers of Perth want to see their industry grow and expand.

We as a government are placing a high priority on expanding our agrifood exports. Increased exports not only benefit the agrifood sector but they also create jobs. This is what is important to the people of the riding of Perth. Could the minister please update us on how our export development is progressing?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I wish to thank the honourable member for Perth for his question. I certainly want to advise my colleagues in all sides of the House that we're very pleased to say we had $5.3 billion of agrifood exports in this past calendar year. The government is committed to boosting the agrifood exports with measures like the Grow Ontario program, the sales tax rebate on capital construction, indeed the rural jobs strategy.

It's very important, and a lot of people don't realize that for every $1 billion of exports in the agrifood sector, 15,000 new jobs are created. Last night the Ontario Cattlemen's Association invited me to meet some beef importers from Korea. They tasted some of the best beef that's produced anywhere in Canada.

Mr Bert Johnson: Farmers in my riding have listened to 10 years of rhetoric from the other parties that were in government. For years they have been asking for a government that would act on their behalf. I am aware that the Minister of Agriculture has been acting for the farmers of Ontario. He has been taking

part in trade missions in an effort to sell our top-quality Ontario agrifood products. I'd like to know if the minister had any -- pardon the pun -- feedback as a result of his efforts.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As a matter of fact, I am proud to say I accompanied the Team Canada group to Asia and indeed we are exporting considerably more of our agrifood products to Asia. It was an honour to join the Honourable Ralph Goodale, at his invitation, to attend and to sell Ontario produce. When Ontario agriculture prospers, all Ontarians benefit.

PETITIONS

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : «À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit à l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance de toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord le l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

«Attendu que la fermeture de Montfort éloigne et diminue grandement l'accessibilité à une salle d'urgences pour plus de 150 000 personnes ;

«Attendu que l'on fait disparaître l'hôpital qui a un des meilleurs rendements de la province et qui, pour fins de comparaison, constitue l'exemple de choix du ministère de la Santé ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé en Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de sa communauté.»

Il me fait plaisir d'ajouter ma signature à cette pétition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a petition signed by some 10,000 people concerned about this government's management of health care, and it's to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, strongly support the preservation of the high-quality, affordable and accessible community health care by Doctors Hospital to Toronto's central west-end community. The Doctors Hospital must be retained to manage its distinct ambulatory and community health programs and to continue its 100-year role in listening to and serving the health needs of this diverse community."

It is with great pleasure that I add my name to the hundreds, actually the 10,000, who have signed this petition to the government.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to present a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, strongly support the preservation of the high-quality, affordable and accessible community health care by Doctors Hospital to Toronto's central west-end community. The Doctors Hospital must be retained to manage its distinct ambulatory and community health programs and to continue its 100-year role in listening to and serving the health needs of this diverse community."

This is signed by several hundred people.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I have a petition signed by many residents in my riding who are opposed to the granting of a certificate of approval for a waste disposal site processing facility at 97 Frid Street, for several reasons, which I won't read.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition from 300 or 400 people here in support of Doctors Hospital. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, strongly support the preservation of the high-quality, affordable and accessible community health care by Doctors Hospital to Toronto's central west-end community. The Doctors Hospital must be retained to manage its distinct ambulatory and community health programs and to continue its 100-year role in listening to and serving the health needs of this diverse community."

I affix my signature to this petition.

NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The resolution is:

"Physicians should have the right to prescribe safe, alternative and complementary treatments without fear of being disciplined by the CPSO."

This petition is signed by several constituents from the Athens area and I present it on behalf of the Honourable Bob Runciman.

TVONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

I've also signed the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas in recent years the members of CPF chapters have become increasingly concerned about annual budget meetings in which funding for French immersion transportation and quite possibly the program itself has come under scrutiny by school board trustees;

"Therefore, in an attempt to secure a safe future for the French immersion program, CPF wishes to petition the Ministry of Education and attempt to have French immersion mandated in those school areas which already have the program established."

This is signed by many thousands of concerned parents.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition, a very important one, related to library services, Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, sent to me by Rebecca Frise from Hastings, Ontario. It reads:

"The system of public libraries in this province has successfully and equitably met the needs of Ontarians for nearly a century and a half. This has been done through the effective use of independent citizen boards that have been relying on adequate provincial and local funding. Bill 109 and other initiatives of the present provincial government will irrevocably undo this system.

"I call on the government to withdraw Bill 109 and to:

"(1) provide for the continued existence of county library systems, as already established, and to endorse, support and nurture existing partnerships in keeping with promotion of government policy;

"(2) restore adequate provincial and local funding;

"(3) abolish and forbid user fees; and

"(4) ensure universal and equitable access to library resources and services."

I am proud to sign my name to that petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

"That managing the family home and caring for infants and preschool children is an honourable profession which has been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

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

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

I have identified this petition.

TÉLÉVISION FRANCOPHONE DE L'ONTARIO

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

«Attendu que TVOntario dessert les résidentes et les résidents de l'Ontario de tous les âges depuis plus de 25 ans en leur offrant une programmation de qualité sans aucune annonce publicitaire dont les 70 % sont des émissions éducatives et des émissions pour enfant ; et

«Attendu que TVOntario est à la disposition de 97,4 % des Ontariens et Ontariennes et que pour certaines communautés non desservies par la câblodiffusion, TVO est la seule station disponible, ce qui en fait un réel atout à l'échelon provincial ; et

«Attendu que TVOntario continue de travailler à augmenter ses revenus provenant de l'autofinancement ;

«Nous, les soussignés, adressons une pétition à l'Assemblée législative pour assurer que TVOntario demeure un diffuseur d'émissions éducatives, et propriété publique financée par les fonds publics.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which I'd like to file with the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can read it.

Mr Tilson: No, I'm not going to read it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the government of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that rent control will continue; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those that can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas this Conservative proposal will reduce the stock of affordable housing and encourage landlords to harass long-term residents, pushing them to move out so new tenants paying higher rents can be brought in; and

"Whereas this Conservative proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Conservative government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and to introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas this Minister of Health acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

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

I sign this as well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the government of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris has closed three out of five hospitals in Thunder Bay and two out of three hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas drastic funding cuts to hospitals across Ontario are intimidating hospital boards, district health councils and local hospital restructuring commissions into considering the closing of local hospitals; and

"Whereas hospitals in the Niagara region have provided an outstanding essential service to patients and have been important facilities for medical staff to treat the residents of the Niagara Peninsula and will be required for people in Niagara for years to come; and

"Whereas the population of Niagara is on average older than that in most areas in the province;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Health to restore adequate funding to hospitals in the Niagara region and guarantee that his government will not close any hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula."

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

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a very important petition related to TVOntario and I was very glad to be a part of TVO MPP night last night. I was very proud that several of my colleagues joined me for the occasion. Unfortunately the government members weren't able to make it there, and it's a shame.

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

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

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

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

I am very pleased to sign my name to this petition. The Save TVO campaign is going very well.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a petition to the government of Ontario.

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery; and

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come; and

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

LARRY GROSSMAN

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Earlier today -- I don't know whether this was picked up by Hansard -- when there was an exchange in the House about the future of Doctors Hospital I interjected, referring to a former member for whom we all have a great deal of respect, Larry Grossman, recognizing his role in protecting Doctors Hospital in the past, when he was a member of the House.

I know that Mr Grossman is very ill and I want to assure all members of the House that I meant no disrespect to him. I wish him well. He's a good friend of mine. I join with all members of the House in wishing him a speedy recovery.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

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

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to have an opportunity to add a few comments this afternoon concerning the legislation that's before us. I want to approach it from the perspective of an individual who had the opportunity to participate in the pre-consultation hearings throughout the entire session that they were sitting.

During that process we had the opportunity to receive some 193 different written submissions and approximately 197 oral submissions from different individuals and groups across the province, both here in Toronto and elsewhere throughout different municipalities. Certainly that pre-consultation process added greatly to the opportunity for us as a government to gain a better understanding of those issues that are important to individuals affected by tenant legislation in this province, those being landlords and tenants. It's an important stepping point in terms of providing some good input and direction with respect to the legislation we now have in front of us.

It's important to realize that in an effort to address the issue of tenant-related issues and landlord-related issues, this legislation attempts to find an element of fairness and balance between the differing viewpoints that exist between tenants and landlords in this province. It's one of truly trying to find balance, because clearly there is a difference of opinion, whether you are a tenant or a landlord. Somewhere in between, we need to find a common ground to move ahead in a positive way that finds solutions to the concerns that are expressed by many.

I found it interesting, notwithstanding the opposition we heard from various tenant organizations across the province that was expressed with respect to the contents of the draft document, that there was little to say positively about their personal experiences with tenant legislation as it exists today. I think it's an important point to recognize that there are just as many concerns existing today with respect to the legislation that governs not only their protection, their safety, but their places of livelihood.

This legislation, in an effort to find that balance and fairness, essentially untangles six different pieces of legislation that currently regulate rental legislation in this province. It's an effort to find that balance and move away from the regulatory burden that we currently are experiencing.

At the same time, we want to very clearly provide a foundation of fairness for landlords, and I found it interesting that the member for St Catharines, during our period in this Legislature when petitions are read, raised the issue of affordability for vulnerable people in this province.

It's with interest that I look back upon the history of rent control legislation. It was during the late 1980s, in fact in 1989 during the Liberal period of time, when investment returns in this province were increased by about 30%. I suspect and I hope the member for St Catharines, as a respected former minister of the crown, was equally concerned at that time about the 30% returns that landlords gained off the tenants in this province.

The fact of the matter is that on new units in this province there has been very little development. The rate of return on new units has been virtually zero. That's the stepping point we're moving forward from in terms of trying to find that balance, trying to find the fairness so that there is opportunity for investment, there is interest in creating new units in this province, to provide housing alternatives for individuals who are in the tenant market.

As it stands now, the government spends approximately $18 million annually to administer the system. Even with that expense and given the comments we received throughout the consultation process, it was very evident that we are falling far short of where we ought to be with respect to tenants' rights and privileges and the system they need to provide the protection they're looking for.

Currently under the existing system as well, it could take as much as four months for a landlord to effectively evict a delinquent tenant. I should say it's very evident that most tenants are very forthright and very conscientious as renters of property and there's a minority of individuals who would fall into those classifications as individuals who are not cautious and respectful of the properties they rent.

We're not passing a negative viewpoint on all tenants in this province by any means. I think it's a very small number of individuals we're speaking of. But certainly it's a very important issue for landlords who find themselves in a position where they have to remedy problems with respect to problem tenants and the time frame it's taking them to deal with that process. There has to be some mechanism in place to speed this process and so that the costs associated with this process are brought more appropriately into line.

At the same time, there has to be some incentive provided for landlords to adequately maintain their buildings and ensure that work is being pursued on outstanding work orders. That's generally a very large concern to many in this province. It's conservatively estimated that there is approximately $10 billion of outstanding renovations owed to rental properties in terms of building stock repairs in this province. That's a concern to all, both to those who own the property and obviously to those individuals who are living in facilities that are in desperate need of structural repair.

As I mentioned at the outset, we heard regularly about the experiences tenants have across this province in terms of conditions that are not satisfactory to them, and it's certainly an issue that must be remedied in an effort to move ahead and address their concerns as well as the concerns of landlords.

From my perspective, as someone who sat through the entire deliberations both here in Toronto and across the province, it certainly became very apparent to me that the current situation we have is not acceptable. We must move ahead to provide legislation for tenants and landlords in this province that is respectful of both the industry needs and tenants. I think that consultation process served very well in bringing that issue to light. I fully recognize as well that there's opposition, there's concern, there's some fear. Those are things that the government is fully aware of and sensitive to, but equally, we are committed to providing a very fair tenant protection package system.

Often we think of rental accommodation in this province as being solely owned by large developers and large property owners. In fact, about 80% of all rental buildings are made up of four or less units in this province. I think that brings a very localized perspective to the issue, because that very much means that it's not large developers who are generally occupying the rental market but individuals who are reflective of you and I; friends or neighbours who have a small business investment in various rental accommodations.

Too often too much focus is placed on the larger individuals who are involved in the industry, but we must remain mindful that the largest percentage of them are very much small business people.

Those were the very people, as the committee met, who were most dramatically impacted as we moved from the Liberal approach to rent regulation to that of the NDP. The small business people found themselves in a position where it just didn't make sense any more to have rental accommodation. We heard story after story of individuals who acquired, for whatever reasons, either through personal investment or inheritance, small rental properties and who from a fiscal perspective or a personal financing perspective are simply no longer in a position to maintain and operate them.

Those are the very people we have to be mindful of as we move ahead to establish the new legislation in this province that is proposed under Bill 96. Those are the individuals who have an obviously keen interest in terms of their own properties, how they arrived at receiving those properties, contributing to their communities. Above all, it's more of a personal interest versus a professional interest that would be more reflective of the larger development community.

I think it's important to emphasize the four key areas the bill is addressing. Those areas include the process of keeping the annual rent control guideline at 2.8%. I think it's important to realize and emphasize as well that the 2.8% which is this year's guideline is the lowest in the entire history of rent control. I think that's a very important point to highlight at the outset.

Certainly placing caps on rents is very important as well, because that is generally the fear people have. It's not so much the legislation but the fear of having escalating costs which exceed their ability to house themselves and their ability to choose the apartments of their choice.

As well, as part of the second component, to move it positively, to address the maintenance aspect, as I mentioned at the outset, there is the concern of some $10 billion of outstanding capital or structural repairs that are estimated in this province and the need to provide incentives so that landlords move ahead progressively and in a timely fashion to start to repair and improve the building stock we currently have in the rental housing market.

To encourage the repair of buildings, this legislation allows property owners to recover the money they invest in building improvements. When landlords are prevented from recovering their costs, those repairs are not undertaken. That is certainly the case and certainly the evidence the committee heard as we heard a variety of deputations across the province.

I think it's equally important, though, as you provide incentives for landlords to move ahead positively, that we also have to remain mindful that there is a need, perhaps from a punitive side, to encourage those who are not as progressive in addressing those concerns from a property standards perspective, to provide the appropriate fine framework that would encourage people to be more progressive in dealing with maintenance issues. As a result, we are moving to double that maximum fine, in the area of $100,000, for repeat offenders.

I think that's certainly an enticement, in part, to start to move ahead and demonstrate that the government is very serious about addressing maintenance issues associated with rental accommodations in this province.

The legislation represents in my mind a crucial step in creating a climate where the private market will again invest in the rental real estate market. It has been evident from the outset that the government is very committed to moving ahead in areas of reform as it affects development charges in this province, as it affects reforms to the Planning Act and as it affects reforms to the housing sector or the rental part of the housing sector.

Those actions together, in my opinion, will provide the framework by which we can start to move from a position of inactivity to one where at least there's a recognition that we're attempting to address the various regulatory burdens that exist today in preventing the further development and placing of rental units on the market.

The fourth item, which is very important as well, is the process of streamlining the administrative process. By doing that, we're moving disputes between landlords and tenants out of the courts and into a tribunal system which will be known as the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which in our opinion will be an effective means to deliberate over disputes in a more timely and effective manner than proceeding through the court system.

I fully recognize that we heard on a number of occasions that the court system has been effective in dealing with tenant disputes, but we as a government feel we can improve upon that by establishing a tribunal system and move effectively to deal with those disputes that arise between tenants and landlords.

Equally important to that whole process, though, is the process of cutting the red tape and providing the necessary vehicle to increase efficiencies that will help create a faster and fairer system of rent control in this province.

While some might ask questions, and certainly it's primarily an urban-focused issue, one of the interesting issues that was discussed for I think members from all sides of the House who were representing their various interests on the committee, and one of the issues that we heard frequently -- it affects more rural Ontario and, I would say, northern Ontario -- is the whole issue of home-owned lease-lot communities.

From my personal observation, it's still an issue that's not well understood. It's not well understood from the perspective of the ministry. Certainly there has been, in my opinion, a great deal of emphasis placed on all committee members during the pre-consultation period to encourage the submission of further detail and viewpoint on how to address the issue of home-owned lease-lot communities, because it's critically important, commonly used in communities in rural and northern Ontario, predominantly reflective of seniors.

I think we have to be sensitive to those issues, not only in terms of seniors' ability to pay on properties they are involved in, but as well the ability of those owners who happen to own these communities to meet capital expectation and improvements.

On a regular basis we heard of examples whereby municipalities, either in disagreement or agreement or in conjunction with expectations of provincial ministries of these property owners, who were going to be required to move to a higher standard of municipal service, be it from private water and sewer to a municipal system of some sort -- the concerns they had in terms of their ability to recover costs associated with those capital improvements.

Those were very valid concerns. At the same time, we have to be cautious about the ability of landlords or property owners in those areas to effectively and fairly recover those costs through those individuals who live in their communities. As I suggest, in many cases those individuals are seniors or entry-level people who in some cases have chosen that type of community to live in.

Those were issues that came to the forefront very strongly as we moved out of Toronto as a committee and into other localities where home-owned lease-lot communities are more prevalent.

As we move forward in dealing with this bill and, as I suspect, this matter will be referred for further consideration before another standing committee, I would only hope that those individuals who had concerns centring around this particular issue have their voice heard, that the ministry, the minister, my colleagues and colleagues on all sides of the House who are involved in the committee process take the time to become better informed. I say that respectfully, because as we moved through the province I think all committee members became better informed of the issues associated with this particular issue.

I would again hope that as we deal with this issue in committee, the concerns are heard and are not simply overshadowed by larger, typically urban-oriented, tenant protection issues.

I think those are very important issues that need to be dealt with. As I said at the outset, the consultation provided a very strong basis to lead us into the legislation. It was certainly very extensive, from my viewpoint, and it provides us further opportunity to receive additional input at a later date as the bill moves into further reading.

I know from my own media in the London area; the London Free Press has summarized by describing the grandfathering of tenants under the established rental condition as the right thing to do, because it doesn't necessarily unfairly change the rules in a way that could come to force some people to move out.

Those are important items to remain mindful of, that this is not just a Toronto issue; it's an issue that needs to be addressed across the province. That's why it's equally important to find that fairness and balance that is reflective of all our communities in the province and not simply one or two large urban communities, recognizing that there are some significant challenges here to be dealt with.

I think as well last summer's consultations resulted in four significant changes to the proposed legislation.

One is the issue of lifetime security with respect to rental accommodation should a rental facility be converted to a condominium.

There was the issue surrounding the violation of property standards, that it will not be made an offence, but a work order may be issued immediately.

Those were typical comments that we heard from a practical perspective that just didn't make sense in the original draft document, so we've moved to address those practical observations that so many people addressed with the committee.

With respect to the issue that I raised of home-owned lease-lot communities, there is the issue of the ability of tenants in those communities to pay with respect to capital improvements and the provision that there would be consideration or provisions for anti-gouging rules and the placement of those rules in mobile home parks and land-lease communities when a new lease is entered into. Effectively this is an effort, a first important step, to address the uniqueness of those communities, and one which I felt very positively was an indication that the committee was listening to the comments we received on that particular issue.

The fourth item is the ability to carry forward capital expenditures, which will not be restricted to the two years but will be allowed until the justified amount has been recovered by the landlord. We believe this change would encourage maintenance while protecting the tenant from high rent increases in any one given year.

I said at the outset I wanted to provide some brief comments this afternoon because I have another colleague who would like to address this issue as well, as it is important to her. In

summary, I think it's important to recognize that we, as a government, are making every effort to find balance in the system, fairness between those expectations that tenants have and the expectations of landlords.

I think as well that fairness needs to be achieved because there is a degree of uncertainty in the rental market industry. That uncertainty is not a positive thing. By finding a fair and balanced approach, we're safeguarding ourselves from an extreme that potentially wouldn't assist the rental industry in this province. At the same time, it provides the assurances that tenants are looking for. As we move from a system that really addresses the financing of units to one that protects and follows the tenants, it is one that should be fully considered and given every test, and it's one that is very positive in terms of moving this particular legislation forward into the future.

As I said at the outset, there has been considerable consultation already around this issue. It's one that has a great deal of history in this place, also outside of this place among tenant associations and organizations, as well as within the industry itself. It's an industry of importance, one that, as we move into the next level of debate, I suspect we will continue to hear from on an ongoing basis and continue to receive the valuable input that's important for this sector of the housing industry.

In

summary, the package we have before us is a good, balanced approach. It's one that's good not only for landlords but for tenants. I think it's also good for the economy. As we start to assess not only this legislation in isolation but also the changes we have made to the Planning Act, to the Development Charges Act that I anticipate will be coming forward, and to the Municipal Act in terms of municipal reforms and greater responsibility, I think, by and large, we can look favourably upon the impacts of this legislation and what it means to the housing industry in this province.

There's not an individual in this room who would deny the positive returns and growth we have seen in the housing sector during the last 12 months, one which needs to continue, albeit it has primarily been within the single-family development sector and the resale of existing homes, but a positive climate that's providing growth in the housing sector and development industry. I believe strongly that this legislation will continue to provide us with the necessary steps to provide a strong rental housing market in the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions and comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm very concerned about this issue, particularly when a number of senior citizens probably voted for this government in the last election thinking there wouldn't be any substantial changes to rent control in Ontario, and these same senior citizens and other vulnerable people on fixed incomes are now going to be thrown to the wolves if they decide they're going to move from one apartment to another.

This is in effect the end of rent control in Ontario, rent control which has permitted some increases for landlords to take place but has, overall, restricted the amounts of increases that can take place in our province. I think of students, disabled people and, as I say, our senior citizens and wonder what they're going to do when they find out that they're going to be placed in jeopardy by this legislation, which is catering largely to land developers in this province.

I'm sure they were there in great numbers at the Conservative fund-raiser at the convention centre in Toronto -- which had 2,500 people, probably at about $500 a plate -- there cheering them on. I know that group is going to be mighty pleased with this piece of legislation.

But there are a lot of vulnerable people in society, and they are the people who really require the protection of those of us who are elected to the assembly. A lot of vulnerable people are going to be hurt by this, particularly if they have to move from one development to another, one apartment to another, when they can see a substantial increase in rent; and their incomes are likely not going to increase.

As well, we're going to see very easy conversion from rental accommodation to condominium accommodation. What you're going to find out is that instead of increasing rental stock in this province, the consequence of this bill will be to reduce that rental stock and increase the rents.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): To respond to the comment by the previous speaker, I would like to say that the Tenant Protection Act, as it is called, does not do what it professes to do. I think the aim was to bring some equity to the disparity which exists between tenants and landlords, but unfortunately the bill does not do that.

We have spent some time hearing various people on the issues, and absolutely no one is happy with the legislation as proposed, other than the government, of course. They are happy, because they introduced the legislation -- against the will of tenants, the opposition parties, developers, builders, architects, engineers and what have you. Everyone is unsatisfied with this bill.

Tenants are not satisfied, because it does not offer them any more protection than they have now; whatever little protection exists is being removed with the approval of this legislation. The minister said this will promote development of new rental units, but developers came before the committee saying: "This won't do anything for us. This will not help us to build one single affordable rental unit."

If the government has been listening to the comments of engineers, architects, builders, developers and tenants in general, why don't they come up with something much more acceptable, something much more reasonable, that indeed will bring some equity to the system and bring about a system that will be fair to developers to promote and build new affordable rental units -- there is a list of 30,000 people -- and be fair to tenants as well?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): While I have high regard for the member who spoke, I must say that I don't accept his analysis of the need for this legislation or its impact. Frankly, it's going to mean that tenants are stuck in their rental accommodation. It will mean they cannot move, because if they do, a new tenant coming into an apartment will be subject to a rent increase.

In my area, the committee held hearings in Sault Ste Marie on the paper, and almost unanimous was the rejection of this legislation, of the proposed changes. Of particular interest in my own constituency were the interests of residents of mobile home parks. Many members may not be aware of this, but about 10% to 12% of all the residents of mobile home parks live in my riding, north of Sault Ste Marie. Those people are particularly vulnerable because they own their own accommodation but they rent the lot on which it's located.

If they are unhappy with the situation with their landlord, they don't have very many alternatives, because there are not very many lots available for them to move their homes to. It was pointed out very emphatically by representatives of the public who appeared before the committee that the proposed changes in this legislation would make residents of mobile home parks even more vulnerable.

I have said, in a somewhat jocular way, that this legislation will turn tenants into people who are essentially subject to house arrest, because they won't be able to move. If they move, they face rent increases, and that can hardly be characterized as protection of tenants' interests.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in response to the comments made by my colleague. I certainly appreciate the sincerity of the comments, but the message that came across loud and clear from all the public hearings we attended, I know in my own community of Hamilton and right across Ontario, was very clearly that there was a tremendous mistrust by tenants of the intent of this bill.

Although the title sounded wonderful, although the rhetoric sounded great in terms of the intent of the bill, the reality at the end of the day is that this bill is going to do nothing more than remove rent controls and leave tenants at the mercy of the market forces.

The market forces usually work well to take care of people who are wealthy, to take care of people who are working, own expensive units, who have nice cars, nice jobs. Those folks can probably deal with the changes in the market and those folks can probably adjust to the removal of rent controls, but the vast majority of tenants in Ontario do not fit that category.

The vast majority of tenants in my riding of Hamilton East, which has about 8,000 housing units that tenants live in -- apartment buildings -- do not have the luxury of being able to simply pick up and move and choose another apartment they think they can afford, or, when they move into another apartment, of being able to handle a 20% or 25% increase or whatever the landlord decides.

Most tenants are in that exact same situation. This really is a developer protection act rather than a Tenant Protection Act. This protects the big developers, the big landlords of this province at the expense of working Ontarians, poor Ontarians every day.

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

Mr Smith: It's certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond briefly to the members for St Catharines, Yorkview, Algoma and Hamilton East.

I would say to the member for St Catharines that obviously I don't support the notion that people are being thrown to the wolves or placed in jeopardy.

With respect to the issue of condo conversion, I think it's important to realize that the legislation still retains the first right of refusal to any of those individuals who would be involved in a condominium conversion process. As well, the local official plan still would have the ability contained within it for restrictions to be placed on condominium conversion. Not only are there protections on the provincial side of the legislation but certainly opportunities from the local planning perspective that those interests be protected as well.

The member for Yorkview indicated that no one is happy with the legislation, and I would suggest to him that no one is happy with the legislation we have now. I think we need to move forward. Obviously the Liberal approach is to do nothing and our approach is to move ahead positively, to find a balanced approach to the legislation. It's important to realize that we can't look at this piece of legislation in isolation from the other reforms that are taking place, as I mentioned, with respect to Planning Act and Development Charges Act changes.

I would like to recognize, though, that the member for Yorkview did represent his caucus very well throughout the entire deliberations of the consultation process. We've had the opportunity to exchange ideas on many occasions on this issue previously.

The member for Algoma made reference to the home-owned lease-lot communities, an issue I fully recognize, as I represent a rural community, and an issue that was made very evident in northern Ontario as well; one that requires great consideration, as I said at the outset; one that I hope, as we move to the next step, will be given further consideration in terms of those concerns.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Agostino: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the legislation that's in front of us, the legislation introduced by this government that somehow would like us to believe that it really is a Tenant Protection Act.

When you look at what is in front of us, when you look at the legislation, when you look at the intent, there are many ways one can describe this. The first one that would come to my mind is that it's a continuous attack on the needy in this province and it's part of a bigger agenda that this government ran on, a bigger agenda that this government espoused in the Common Sense Revolution, which they now try to hide and run from, but it's an agenda of trying to attack the most vulnerable in this province.

When you bring in a system that masks as tenant protection but what it in effect does is force tenants either to face big increases when they move or to be prisoners in their own apartments, you are hurting the most vulnerable in this province, people, as I said earlier, who do not have the flexibility, who do not have the income to be able to simply pick and choose the luxurious apartment they're going to move into next; people who are often struggling to meet their rent as it is today; people who are in buildings that do not meet the standards they should, in buildings that are in need of repairs, in buildings that often lack heat, where often the windows are drafty or windows don't exist and elevators don't work.

That is the reality of many buildings across this province today.

Many of these people live in very difficult and harsh circumstances. But at least today they still have that ability not to feel intimidated, not to be stuck in this particular unit. They can try to get it fixed. Failing that, if they're fortunate enough to find something else reasonable and affordable, they still can find another building that is under protection, where rent controls are there today. Under your legislation, all that is gone.

Let me give you one specific, clear example of how this hurts the most vulnerable. Let me show you how it fits in one specific case very clearly this government's agenda of attacking people who are in need in this province. Previous governments brought in programs to help particularly women who were in situations where they were suffering from drug or alcohol abuse.

Under previous legislation, before this government changed it -- and I'll get to how this fits -- if a woman checked into a treatment program and she was on welfare, she could continue to collect her welfare payments for a number of months while still being in a residential treatment program. That means a woman could check into a treatment program for alcohol abuse and continue for up to six months to collect welfare assistance to pay her rent on her apartment so she wouldn't be forced out while she was receiving treatment.

What did this government do? In its wisdom, in its wonderful vision and foresight and compassion, this government changed the legislation. What happens now is that if a woman checks into a treatment program for alcohol or drug abuse, her welfare is immediately cut off. That means she immediately loses her apartment. That means she goes into a treatment program for three or four months, she comes out and she has no apartment. If that's not bad enough, the same woman, once she comes out of this treatment program, will have to find a new apartment, a new rental unit.

I would venture to say that most of these people who are collecting welfare probably aren't very wealthy; that's why they're on welfare. Now they're stuck, because with your legislation, once that woman has lost that apartment because she has made the choice to move into a treatment program, which is a good thing, she now has to move into a unit that no longer fits under rent controls; she now has to move into a unit where a landlord can charge whatever he or she chooses to charge. That's one very clear, very simple example of how your legislation is going to impact the most vulnerable and the neediest in this province.

What do you say to this woman now? What do the Tory members say? The message you're sending is: "Stay on welfare. Continue your drug and alcohol problem. Don't check into a treatment program, because if you do, you're going to lose your apartment because we're going to be taking your welfare away. Then once you come out, you have to find a new apartment, maybe at double what you're paying now."

You're attacking kids, kids living in poverty. You've done that from day one. You attacked kids from day one when you took office. You attacked kids in Ontario the day you cut welfare benefits by 22%. You pounded your chest during the Common Sense Revolution and you pranced out all these people who were living high off the hog on welfare. You abused and stepped on welfare recipients for your political purposes. You cut their benefit by 22% while failing to acknowledge that 400,000 kids in this province were relying on welfare assistance.

So 400,000 kids had their benefits cut by 22%, and you talk about protecting children and you talk about children in poverty and you talk about children's rights on that side of the House. What have you done? You cut their benefits by 22%.

You're now making those children, living often with single parents in apartment buildings now under rent control, prisoners of that building, of that unit, because their parents -- their parent as it is in most cases -- will not have that choice to move once your legislation comes in, because your legislation says that once you move out of the unit you're in, rent controls end both for the unit you're leaving and the unit you're moving into. So you're hurting kids again. You're hurting the most vulnerable.

You have attacked the disabled community. You promised in the Common Sense Revolution you weren't going to attack the disabled community, you were going to spare them, they weren't on your hit list. Welfare recipients were on your hit list, visible minorities were on your hit list, a bunch of other people were on your hit list when you took office, but you claimed that the disabled community was not on your hit list.

They were not part of your target, because it was not politically popular. It was politically popular to beat up on single moms, it was politically popular to beat up on welfare recipients, it was politically popular to beat up on visible minorities, but it was not politically popular to beat up on disabled people, so you claimed in the Common Sense Revolution you weren't going to do that.

What did you do? You cut benefits to disabled people who were receiving welfare. You cut support services. You cut agencies that serve the disabled community. You cut funding to transportation services that serve the disabled.

Many disabled people who live independently in this province live in subsidized apartment units that today they consider affordable. What are you doing to those people under this legislation? What are you doing for the disabled individual in Ontario under this bill? What is in here to protect them if they want to move because they don't like the apartment they're living in, because maybe there's another apartment that's more accessible for their wheelchair, maybe there's another apartment that has consistent heat in the winter, instead of drafty windows? What are you doing to those folks through this legislation?

What you are saying to them is: "You are a prisoner in your unit, because if you dare to leave that apartment, if you dare move, you know what? Rent controls are gone. The apartment you move into is no longer under rent controls. The landlord can charge you anything he wants. You may be paying $300, $400 a month right now, but there's nothing stopping someone from charging you $800 a month for a new unit." You have taken away the protection that was there, so you've hurt the disabled.

You've hurt seniors. Aid for seniors was not going to be cut. That was a famous line in the Common Sense Revolution. Two years after the revolution steamrolled over Ontario, there are still 8,000 senior citizens receiving welfare, because you moved them out of the category, at 22% less than two years ago. That is not cutting aid for seniors? Well, ask those 7,000 or 8,000 seniors if their benefits have not been cut by 22% in the last two years. Ask those seniors who now have to pay user fees for drugs. Ask the seniors whose services you have cut. Ask the seniors whose agencies that serve them you have cut. Ask them if services have not been cut.

You're going to attack senior citizens again through this legislation, because m