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

April 24, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L063 - Wed 24 Apr 1996 / Mer 24 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE

GREAT RIDE TO BEAT CANCER

SUPER CITIES WALK FOR MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

PERRY STREET ARENA

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

EDUCATION FINANCING

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

POLICE SERVICES

TEACHERS' SICK LEAVE GRATUITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

NORTHERN ONTARIO

VULNERABLE ADULTS

TAX REDUCTION

BUS TRANSPORTATION

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

RENT REGULATION

TAX REDUCTION

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

TAX REDUCTION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

BUS TRANSPORTATION

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Workplace safety and workers are important. On Sunday, April 28, the labour movement in Sudbury will honour those who were killed, injured or disabled in the workplace. Union workers all over will be remembering the terrible sacrifices made by thousands of fellow workers. In doing so, it is hoped that everyone will reaffirm their commitment to taking the necessary steps to end carnage in the workplace.

The Sudbury District Labour Council celebration will take place in the lobby of Civic Square starting at 10 am.

The United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500, will conduct its ceremony in the Steelworkers Hall at 12 noon. Guest speakers will be Gerry Lougheed Jr, Leo Gerard and Julien Dionne. Sudbury was one of the first regions, if not the first region, to declare April 28 as an official day of mourning in Canada.

Latest statistics indicate the number of time-loss injuries in the mining sector was 5,582 in Canada, 673 occurring in Ontario. There were 145 fatalities in the mining section, 35 occurring in Ontario, for the 1994 work year.

Out of respect for the dignity of those who have been killed, injured and disabled and the surviving members of their families who have lost loved ones, we ask this government to reconsider its decision to remove the mandatory requirement for inquests into deaths which occur in mines and on construction sites. Show you care for workers and workplace safety.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to give recognition and compliment to all those who work in the public service of this province, and I mean every level of government and every transfer agency or organization in Ontario, those who work in the very honourable and noble field of public service.

You in many significant ways make our communities what they are. You are the health care workers, social workers, educators, snowplow operators, jail guards, police officers, researchers, secretaries etc. Yes, those of you so often abusively referred to as bureaucrats are indeed the backbone, that very essential soft underbelly, the very stability of our communities, and I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus want to say thank you.

We also want you to know we understand and empathize with the great anxiety and sorrow you are now feeling as you personally or your fellow workers or some family member are told that under the leadership of the present government you are redundant; you are not needed; we can do better with less. That is not my sentiment. We need what you do more than ever before and recognize the very valuable contribution, often at great sacrifice to personal life and family, you make to the life of our communities.

You are our friends and family. You are our neighbours and colleagues. Government and those who work in it are a fundamental determinant of health, both economic and social. We salute you.

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Today marks the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On Sunday I had the honour of representing the Premier in participating in the commemoration of the massacre with the Armenian National Committee of Toronto.

Eighty-one years ago today, the deportation and mass killing of Armenian citizens began, and when the bloodshed was over, 1.5 million people had died in the genocide. It was on this day that Armenian leaders were arrested and killed at the order of the Turkish government. This massacre marked the beginning of an attempt to eliminate the Armenian population from the territory ruled by the Turkish government. Few people today remember this holocaust, although it rivals Hitler's worst abuses in its scale and scope.

The Armenians are an ancient national group whose ancestral home was located roughly between the present-day Iran and the former Soviet Union on the east and on the north. In the past 2,500 years, five different Armenian kingdoms existed and the land has been ruled by different oppressors throughout history.

On the anniversary of this tragedy, I rise in this House to remember the people who have lost their lives and grieve with their families who are dedicated to keeping their memories alive.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too want to join with my colleague from Etobicoke-Rexdale and others in marking the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

I know many members are familiar with the words of Reverend Martin Niemoeller, who said:

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

On this anniversary, I think it's important that all of us speak up to ensure this never happens again.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development and Mines, Chris Hodgson.

Yesterday in the House I turned over to you hundreds of letters from the people of Cochrane concerning the relocation of the Ministry of Natural Resources regional office from Cochrane to the city of Timmins, creating a loss of 42 jobs.

The decision to do this was dropped on the town of Cochrane in a fax, with no forewarning, no consultation, no concern for the people involved. Fifty-five per cent of your ministry's staff reductions will occur in southern Ontario; 45% will occur in northern Ontario. Asking 10% of the population to absorb 45% of your cuts is grossly unfair.

The town of Kapuskasing, at a meeting last week, passed a resolution indicating its concern for this situation and deploring the fact that smaller municipalities are being subjected to such measures. Your Premier will be receiving a copy of this resolution.

I would like to ask that you reconsider your decision, Minister, and meet with the people of Cochrane so that you're fully aware of the impact of your cuts on this community. Removing 42 jobs from Cochrane when this community is also expected to absorb cuts from other ministries in your government is more than a community of 4,600 can bear.

GREAT RIDE TO BEAT CANCER

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today to inform the House that on Sunday, April 28, 1996, the Canadian Cancer Society will be holding its annual Great Ride to Beat Cancer in our area of Durham region. I am proud to be the spokesperson for this bike-a-thon to raise money to help beat cancer.

The event will commence at Durham College in north Oshawa and will feature three different bicycle tracks: 27 kilometres, 15 kilometres, and this year at my request, a kids' track in the parking lot. There are great prizes to be won for those who collect the most pledges, including adult bicycles, children's bicycles, T-shirts and other prizes. Travelodge's famous Sleepy Bear will be on hand to entertain the little ones. This will provide a wonderful family opportunity to participate as a family in an important cause.

All those interested in participating are encouraged to obtain pledge sheets from my office or the Canadian Cancer Society. You don't have to be a great cyclist to participate.

The date is Sunday, April 28, 1996. Rides begin between 9 am and 1 pm. The location is the north parking lot, Durham College, Conlin Road and Simcoe Street North, in Oshawa.

Helmets are required for participants 18 and under and strongly recommended for all riders.

It's a day of family fun to help a great cause in Durham region.

SUPER CITIES WALK FOR MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am rising in the Legislative Assembly today to pay tribute to the hundreds of individuals who participated in the Super Cities Walk for Multiple Sclerosis in St Catharines on Sunday, April 21, and the thousands of people who sponsored walkers in this fund-raising effort.

I was privileged to be asked to be the honorary chairperson of the 1996 walk and to work with so many dedicated individuals who were responsible for the organization and operation of this most worthwhile endeavour.

Multiple sclerosis is the most common disease of the central nervous system of young adults, striking people most often between the ages of 20 and 40. It can cause loss of balance and coordination, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and even paralysis, and it affects 50,000 Canadians.

It was extremely encouraging to see people of all ages contributing through their walking and sponsorships to the raising of funds for research to find the cause, cure and prevention of multiple sclerosis.

Over 800 walkers raised at least $92,000, and for this our community, and in particular victims of multiple sclerosis, are grateful to them, to the organizers and to the sponsors of this outstanding event.

Across Ontario, people who care about people gave their time and effort to the battle against a disease which has struck far too many, and these participants have demonstrated the care and concern that is so prevalent in the people of our province and our community.

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I join today with my colleagues the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and Scarborough-Agincourt to remember all the men and women and children who lost their lives during the Armenian genocide on April 24, 1915. Many Armenians were deported and there were widespread mass killings.

This is a very, very important day to Armenians and I would say to all of us here in this room and to all the people of Ontario to never forget these kinds of atrocities. It's an anniversary that we need to be reminded of year after year, because sometimes in our daily dealings with the events that are happening closer to home, we forget that such things have happened in our past and indeed in some countries continue to happen. I join with my colleagues today to extend my sympathies to all of the families who have been involved in this terrible atrocity.

PERRY STREET ARENA

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise in the House today to bid farewell to the end of a sports era in the city of Woodstock. This past weekend, hundreds of people from across Oxford county and this province congregated in Woodstock to attend the reunion and the closing of the Perry Street Arena.

Originally opened on January 6, 1914, this arena is a large first-rate facility, one of the best in the province at the time. It opened to much fanfare and the headlines in Woodstock's daily newspaper, the Sentinel Review, on January 7, read, "St Michael's Opens Up the Grand New Arena."

Although Woodstock senior OHA team lost the opener 16-4 to the St Michael's team from Toronto, that game marked a new beginning for a long and proud tradition of first-rate sports teams in the city. The opening ushered in an era in which thousands of people filed into downtown core to participate, to view or orchestrate many exciting hockey games, ice skating carnivals and various other special events.

In 1914, the Perry Street Arena also was the only one of two arenas in Canada to boast an automatic stop-time clock. This feature added to the excitement of the game as seconds ticked away until the closing buzzer rang and many exciting finishes. The cost of watching one of these games ranged from 25 cents to 35 cents in 1914, and was said to be one of the best deals around. This building is a piece of history of Woodstock and holds a special place in many of my constituents' hearts. It was a place where many first learned to skate, played their first game of hockey or had the opportunity to watch one of Woodstock's many fine teams take to the ice --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired. Would the member take his seat, please.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the winners of the YTV achievement awards. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. The Conservative policy document New Directions: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, was very clear. It said: "Without basic language and mathematics skills, these young people have no chance of acquiring the more advanced skills and knowledge they will need to compete for jobs, advance academically, or fulfil their personal goals and dreams."

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I don't think it will surprise the Leader of the Opposition that our party, which released the blueprint on education in 1992, has not changed either the importance that we place on education or the importance we place on the math skills and language skills she refers to. We continue to encourage a curriculum in Ontario that emphasizes those core subjects that prepare young people for the future, and we will continue to do that in the future.

We are now looking at making changes to the secondary school system that have been recommended by not one but two royal commissions, to go to a four-year program of secondary school. The most recent royal commission suggested that the fifth year of high school currently in Ontario does not serve our students, is of no use, so we are going to a four-year program. We're joining the rest of the jurisdictions in Canada, in fact the rest of the jurisdictions in North America.

Our commitment is to have a more relevant secondary school program that keeps high exit standards for those who are going to university that also focuses attention on that 60% of our high school students who leave high school and go into the world of work. We think they're important too.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd like to compliment the Leader of the Opposition once again, as I have most recently, on her imagination, because she's done a good job of imagining what we might be intending to do. Perhaps I can clear it up for her.

We are reforming the secondary school program in Ontario. We are going to a four-year program, as we told the people of Ontario we would and as we promised we would in the Common Sense Revolution. When we do that, we will have a more relevant program, a more challenging program for our students. We will expand -- I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to note this -- the core curriculum, the amount of time students spend on core subjects; we will have a more demanding curriculum, because we think that's what parents in Ontario want, we're sure that's what taxpayers in Ontario want, that is what will serve the students in Ontario best and that is what we are doing.

You have said that you are planning to give students an academic credit for finding a summer job. Let me be clear. We support co-op education, we support apprenticeship programs, but a student-arranged program, be it a summer job or any other, is a far cry from co-op education or apprenticeship training. There is no standard, no evaluation, no supervision and no guarantee that it relates to any training for any job at all. You are not allowing students to have this as an option. You are denying them classroom education. You are forcing them out of the classroom and into this work experience for 20% to 40% of their time.

You will save money doing that, Minister, because there will be fewer credits in the classroom, fewer teachers and a lot fewer dollars, and that's what this is all about, but your policy will lock thousands of students into low-skilled jobs from which they have no escape. How do you justify setting this kind of trap for young people just to find money to pay for your tax cut?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's very difficult to explain what we might or might not do in the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition, and so I suppose in the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition we might or might not do anything. I can tell you what we are doing, Mr Speaker. What we are doing is working with an advisory council made up of the education community. We are going to prepare a draft document of what we might possibly do in a four-year program. It will be based on best experiences of other jurisdictions and the best advice we have from educators.

When we have that draft document, we will work with educators, with parents and with students across the province to design the best curriculum for our students, the best curriculum in Canada. That's our intention.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Given his draft document and what it will do to destroy public education in this province, I sincerely hope that before the official draft document comes out they've gone back to the drawing-board, as they had to do on the toolkit that became more of a demolition kit with explosives going off everywhere you look, and it's one of those explosives I want to ask the minister about.

Minister, in answer to a question on Monday you said you'd not made any special deals with school boards to implement your spending cuts. I want to turn to a different kind of special deal today, because we have some information that indicates that you forced the Metropolitan Toronto School Board into a backroom deal, one that allows you to pick the pocket of Metro taxpayers for some $65 million, money that is supposed to be used for local education.

According to our information, here's how you're going to take the $65 million from Metro ratepayers: You're going to reduce the funding for special-needs students; you're going to stop paying for special access students, the students from separate school boards who use public school facilities; and you're going to basically do a paper shuffle, which means you get more money by stretching the time you take the money over a longer period of time.

Minister, will you confirm the existence of this agreement with the Metro Toronto board? Will you confirm that you forced this deal on Metro school board trustees so that you could take $65 million from the pockets of local taxpayers in Metro Toronto?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): What I believe the Leader of the Opposition is referring to are the arrangements made by the Ministry of Education and Training with the Metro board as a result of the social contract, and the permanent savings that were entrenched in the social contract, in that fairly articulate description of the mechanisms that were used by the Metro board and the Ministry of Education to have those savings happen relevant to the social contract. As I'm sure the honourable member is aware, the social contract has expired.

We are seeking permission in Bill 34 to enter into an agreement with the negative grant boards in Ottawa and Metro Toronto, and when we have passage of Bill 34 we'll discuss this with representatives of those two boards.

I can assure the Speaker and the member opposite that the Metro board and the Ottawa board are sophisticated people who represent the interests of the people who elect them, and I expect that they will do that in their discussions with us.

Mrs McLeod: I take that as confirmation of the backroom agreement that was reached with the Metro Toronto board of education and it does take me back, Minister, to hearing you repeatedly say in this House that you are confident that the Metro Toronto school board would voluntarily give you $65 million of local taxpayers' money. Let me say this to you directly: The Metro Toronto school board is not giving you this money voluntarily. They are giving it to you, Minister, because you're forcing them to. They are giving it to you because you put a gun to their head and you threatened them with even a worse deal if they didn't give this to you.

Minister, I understand that one of the options you considered is that if the board didn't go along with this deal, you would have forced the board to cover the cost of teacher pension contributions, which is currently borne by the province. That was just one option, a big gun to the Metro Toronto board's head. Isn't it true that you used this political blackmail to arrive at this secret deal with the Metro Toronto public school board, and isn't it true that if Metro didn't agree to this deal you were prepared to take other steps to grab $65 million you are not entitled to in order to pay for Mike Harris's income tax cut?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again let me compliment the Leader of the Opposition on her use of imagination. I have never seen such a stunning demonstration of a use of imagination in one single afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition purports to know what I think. I don't know whether she knows perhaps how I feel. I'm not sure, but her imagination is very fruitful.

I don't know where this conjecture comes from, but I have no difficulty in understanding that the Leader of the Opposition probably has some difficulty herself in understanding the concept that there is in Ontario but one taxpayer, the taxpayer who pays residential taxes, the taxpayer who pays income taxes and what we are up to as a government, in concert with school boards, is to create a school system that has higher value for those taxpayers, that has higher student achievement for a lower cost.

That was the objective of this government and I expect that to be the objective of every board of education in the province.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I have no difficulty at all understanding ministerial blackmail, extortion, bullying, intimidation, call it what you will, even though I have never seen it before, and there is no doubt that's what we are seeing here.

This minister is also seeking to grab $10 million --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'll take your point of order up after question period is over.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You can't pick and choose when you take a point of order.

The Speaker: If it has to do with what's transpiring now, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I'd like to ask you if "extortion" and "blackmail" are parliamentary words in this chamber under your Speaker.

The Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member that was asking the question, and I had some doubts myself of whether it was parliamentary or not. However, if the member asking the question feels that it was unparliamentary, I would ask her to withdraw.

Mrs McLeod: No, Mr Speaker, I do not, and I would happily seek your guidance in choosing any of those words at all to describe what is blackmail, extortion, bullying or intimidation.

I say to this minister, on the same issue, that you are also seeking to grab $10 million in property taxes from local taxpayers in Ottawa, and in the same way, I believe, you are prepared to place a gun to the head of the Ottawa Board of Education to make sure you get the money.

You will know there was an

article about this issue in last Thursday's Ottawa Citizen. It questioned -- a question we all have -- why the Ottawa board would voluntarily write you a cheque for $10 million of their taxpayers' money, and a source within the Ministry of Education is quoted as saying, "We think they'll cooperate in the end." Now we know why.

Minister, are you preparing to blackmail the Ottawa board in exactly the same way that you have blackmailed the Toronto board and will you stop blackmailing these boards?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The flights of fantasy, the imagination, the conjecture continues in question period today. This must be the Walt Disney version of question period.

I can only assume that this kind of conjecture and these flights of fantasy, these questions of blackmail must be predicated on the member's past experience. I don't know what else they would be predicated on.

I can assure the member opposite of this, that I believe -- I'm not sure that she believes this, but I believe -- that the boards of education across the province are committed to the same thing as this government is committed to, and that is delivering a higher value to the taxpayers of Ontario. That's better student achievement for fewer dollars, and that's what we all intend to deliver.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. I want to say that we all know that a deal was worked out with Ms Vanstone, that it's already in place and you're just waiting to announce it.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question, though, is related to the quality of education in this province, and I think back to when the now Premier was the leader of the third party and stood in this place and emphasized at every turn the need for core programs in education and criticized any perceived move away from the protection of core programs.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I hope the member opposite's comments on flipping burgers, the somewhat flippant comments, if you will, don't want to treat with any disrespect the people who do that for a living and people who have actually started their careers in the service industry. I hope that's not intended.

I can't inform the honourable member of decisions that this government has not made. I obviously can't inform him of commitments we don't have. I can tell him the commitments that we do have: We have a commitment to expanding the core curriculum in our secondary school program; we have a commitment to having a more demanding curriculum in our secondary school program; we have a commitment to maintaining high standards of student achievement for those students who are university-bound, and we have a commitment to the 60% of students who leave high school and go to work. We think those young people are important to the future of this province.

Mr Wildman: I don't need any lectures from this minister about being flippant in this House. This guy is more flippant than any other member on the government side.

Bill White, principal of Stephen Leacock Collegiate in Scarborough, stated yesterday that the document that was published was "conceived in obsessive secrecy." The minister has said that he intends to get input from educators and boards and parents over the summer. We know that is an inadequate approach to getting public input and input from those with expertise in the field.

Will the minister at least agree to slow down this process and give teachers and parents and students the opportunity, a real opportunity, to have input into these changes, keeping in mind the commitment his leader made to increasing core programs and protecting core programs rather than replacing them with whatever is being proposed in this paper?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the honourable member for the subsequent question, because it gives me a chance, for the third time today, to say publicly and say on the record that our party is committed to expanding the core subjects that are taught in our secondary schools. We think that's an important part of the quality of our education program.

The discussion paper that's being speculated on by members opposite this afternoon has not been released. It is not finished. We have got an advisory committee together of people from the education community, a fairly broad group, to produce a draft document. We intend to take that draft document and work with parents, with teachers, with educators, people in the education community, to produce -- and I'll say this again, because I'm proud to say it -- the best secondary school program in Canada, bar none.

Mr Wildman: First this minister created a financial crisis in education and now he's trying to create a curriculum crisis.

I have with me over 2,000 postcards from people in Simcoe county addressed to the Minister of Education and to the Premier. I would send these over. These cards say: "Don't cut back on student opportunities. Cuts to public education hurt students, and parents have a right to protect their future." Is the minister prepared to commit the resources, financial and expert, to ensure that we have the proper mandatory evaluation and monitoring of these work-related programs to ensure that they are part of an excellent education system and that they will meet the needs of students today and in their future?

Are there going to be the resources required to ensure the monitoring of the programs chosen and how they operate?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The taxpayers of Ontario currently contribute about $14 billion to our school system, and that's a lot of resources that we get from them. We intend to create a school system that represents a better value for those taxpayers, for parents and for students. We will do that.

In terms of co-op we have not, as I've said, announced our intentions for a four-year program. When we do, we'll do it in draft form. We'll talk to people who have experienced co-op education. We'll make sure it's a quality program. I have been to a variety of schools over the course of the last six months, I've witnessed young people in co-op education programs and I can tell you what they've told me. They've told me that those are very valuable experiences for them.

Again, 60% of our students in high school do not go to university; they go to the world of work. They want to make a contribution to our province, and I think that co-op is making a significant contribution to those young people. We intend to expand and improve that program.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Last week the House passed my resolution calling on the government to establish timetables for sunsetting persistent toxic chemicals that affect our health. In doing so, they recognize the serious health effects of air and water pollution. It's time for you to take action to protect human health.

Would you agree that when it comes to human health, precautionary principles should prevail, meaning that if there is any doubt about the health effects of a pollutant, we should effect and exercise extreme caution in allowing that pollutant to continue to be emitted?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I agree with my colleague across the way and I think every citizen in the province would agree that with any toxic substance there should always be caution taken.

Ms Churley: Metro council is considering proposals for garbage incinerators. One site that is being considered by a private proponent in my riding is the old Commissioners site in south Riverdale. Minister, your own ministry has linked dioxin to municipal solid waste incinerators. Many recent studies have shown that there is zero, no safe level for dioxin. It is a known to be a very dangerous carcinogenic. Your government is now allowing incinerators after our government said no.

Your talk of reform to the Environmental Assessment Act has many people concerned, and now more concerned than ever. A full EA would require Metro to demonstrate the need and alternatives to the incinerator. I'm sure you would agree that Metro should look at all the alternatives before proceeding with something that would seriously endanger human health.

I'm asking you, Minister, will you commit today to a full environmental assessment where Metro will have to demonstrate the need for the incinerator and provide alternatives?

Hon Mrs Elliott: The environmental protection of air, water and soil for the people in this province is our ministry's foremost consideration. My colleague across the way talks about incineration. Yes, it's true that we have lifted the ban on incineration.

We are very proud of the fact that when we did lift that ban to once again allow incineration as an option for dealing with waste problems in Ontario, we put incineration among the strictest controls in the province, unlike the opposition across the way who, while they put that ban on incineration during their term of government, allowed incinerators that were still operating to continue in the province of Ontario and kind of forget that while they talk about how terrible incineration really is.

We have said from the beginning that dealing with waste problems is the responsibility of each individual municipality, and they must determine what is the best option for their individual needs and the citizens of their area.

Ms Churley: Minister, talk about doublespeak. It's time for you to start saying what you really mean here. We are talking about putting a huge garbage incinerator in the heart of downtown Toronto in a residential area and in the heart of the film industry in the city of Toronto. You didn't answer my question.

On October 23, the member for Ottawa South asked the Premier, "Do you still...believe that Ontario's dumps" -- and he was speaking to dumps -- "ought to be the subject of full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act?" Your Premier answered, "Yes, I do."

You have on several occasions contradicted the Premier and said that indeed you are reviewing the EA process -- and don't laugh; I have many clips of it here. Here today you, as the Minister of Environment and Energy, still have not given me an answer. Are you ruling out a full EA or aren't you? I am asking you once again to commit today to my constituents in Riverdale and to the people of Ontario, because dioxins spread far and wide, that you will commit to a full environmental assessment before any incinerator is built anywhere in Ontario.

Hon Mrs Elliott: As I said earlier, we have lifted the ban on incinerations, and in so doing we have put incinerators back in Ontario with among the strictest standards in the entire world.

When I campaigned to run for this office, I can tell you that I heard from people all across this province who said that the environmental assessment process as it relates to waste is broken. In my own municipality and the municipalities all across this province we've spent millions of dollars and we've spent years of frustrated efforts trying to find landfill sites or solutions to deal with our waste, and they have failed miserably. That tells me the environmental assessment as it deals with waste does not work and is in need of dramatic reform. We are doing that.

We have not yet finalized how we're going to do that, but I can tell you that we have enormous support in making those changes that are desperately needed.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy also. We know the Ministry of Environment has had a 30% staffing cut, we know the Ministry of Environment has lost $200 million worth of funding, we know the Ministry of Environment has not presented to this Legislature a core business plan, and yet we are presented with a wholesale weakening of environmental regulations across this province.

I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that the member for Lincoln, that known advocate of weak environmental regulation, is in charge of this process, could she tell me and commit to me that she will not be weakening the various regulations, all 80 of which are under her control, with regard to the environment?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Like all ministries, my ministry is taking its share and doing its part to help restore this province to fiscal soundness. I think we only have to look at countries such as those in the eastern bloc to determine what happens when an economy falls apart, what terrible things happen to the environment. I am firmly convinced, as is this government, that a healthy balance between a healthy environment and a healthy economy is absolutely essential.

There are 80 regulations in my ministry, some of them much older than I am, that need to be carefully reviewed to avoid duplication with other ministries, to avoid overlap with other regulations, and I am very comfortable in undertaking that review. I think it will be good for the province of Ontario and for the citizens who rely on those regulations in their daily activities.

Mr Michael Brown: She gave us no commitment at all regarding whether these regulations will be maintained. For example, I want to tell the House that she's talking about effluent monitoring and effluent limits; she's talking about gasoline volatility; she's talking about air contaminants; she's talking about deep-well disposal and she's talking about hauled-in liquid industrial waste disposal sites, on all of which her government in previous incarnations did not have a strong record.

What we want to know from the minister is what kind of public consultation process will take place? The one that is being advertised over the EBR registry these days is totally unacceptable. You have talked to your friends so far, but you have not talked to the broader Ontario public. We want to know what kind of public consultation process will be involved so that we and the public of Ontario can be assured that we have strong environmental regulations in this province.

Hon Mrs Elliott: With regard to regulatory review, all I can say is that it's about time we did some housekeeping in many of these ministries to clean up and make our regulations more effective and useful.

We are receiving submissions from people all across this province today, and I would say that if there is any citizen or any member of this House who has ideas or requests, we are most welcome to receive them at any time.

We believe that probably around the end of May we will have the first stage of our regulatory review finished, and there will be an opportunity for public consultation and comment on that review over the summer.

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question was for the Solicitor General, who does not appear to be here again this afternoon, so I will direct my question to the Attorney General, who is the chief law officer of the province.

You and your party, and certainly your leader Mike Harris, used to say that there was only one taxpayer, and we agree. That's still true, but huge cuts to municipalities are hurting the people of Ontario. One of the ways that they're hurting us is in terms of public safety issues, which we heard yesterday are very important to your government.

I wonder if you know that there's a huge battle that's brewing in Wallaceburg, Ontario, between the police services board, the council of the town and the police association about how that particular municipality is going to offset your government's cuts in money transferred to the municipality.

The chair of the police services board and town councillor, Ron Tack, has said, and I'll quote him from a letter that he wrote to the Solicitor General: "Mike Harris has told us to be lean and mean. He has challenged us to make creative cuts, but he hasn't given us the tools to do our job. Now we face roadblocks. Taxpayers are the ones who are suffering."

The other side of this comes from Sheri Oliphant, who's the head of the police association, who says: "This government made a promise that policing would not be cut, but municipalities need to come up with the money." She goes on to state: "There is a high crime rate in Wallaceburg and we can't afford to lose officers."

Because of these cuts the town of Wallaceburg and the police services board together have laid off two probationary cadets and a probationary dispatcher. As a result, they have been taken to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, which is responsible for maintaining public safety in terms of police services boards' decisions.

My question is that since the Common Sense Revolution states funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed, how is the town of Wallaceburg to implement these cuts in its policing budget and why did you lead people to believe that you could implement your irresponsible tax cut without --

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

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It's my understanding that the reductions to municipalities are about 2% of their total spending. It's also my understanding that in reading the

article that the member has obviously read that was in the Globe and Mail yesterday, the town of Wallaceburg asked the police force to look for imaginative ways that cuts could be made and that they, in essence, refused to do so. This, I believe, is something that they found necessary to do. In fact, I think that the police wanted no

part in dealing with looking for any means to reduce expenditures.

I certainly don't want to comment on what is now taking place before a board and deal with any of that, but I do think that the town asked the police service to look and see if they could make cuts and they refused to do so.

Mrs Boyd: This is not a question of what's happening in front of that board. It is just an example of what's happening all over the province with respect to public safety because of your massive cuts to municipalities.

Let's talk about what your promises were with respect to law enforcement. Under the Common Sense Revolution, page 28, "The province should be working directly with police forces in the province to determine their staffing needs, and with municipal governments to establish mutual funding arrangements to meet those needs."

Again in the Common Sense Revolution: "The people of Ontario are rightly concerned about community safety in our province, particularly the increasing incidence of violent crime. That is why funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed."

The government is telling the municipalities that they must cut millions of dollars out of their budgets without raising taxes, and we've heard again and again your Treasurer say things like: "There should not be hundreds of millions of dollars in increases in user fees by municipalities. If there are, then those municipal leaders are quite frankly not doing their jobs and they are not thinking through restructuring."

You promised policing would not be cut. You promised it again and again. You admit in the Common Sense Revolution that funding restrictions have direct effects on the ability of the police to meet the needs of their communities. This isn't about the OCCPS; it's about funding cuts to municipalities that are putting in danger the people of Ontario because public safety is being endangered. I ask you again, what do you have to say to municipalities who are trying to preserve public safety?

Hon Mr Harnick: What I have to say is that the municipal reductions are 2% of total spending and 2% is easily achievable if people work together to look for the best ways to do it. Quite simply, when we have $100 billion in debt, 2% of reduction in spending is not a lot to ask for.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Forty-eight per cent.

Hon Mr Harnick: I remind the member who made the allegations a moment ago that those allegations are just incorrect. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Force is about to add 300 officers to their force, the most hired in decades. The Ontario Provincial Police has added front-line police officers to its force and they in fact have a greater complement of officers now than they had before. So I say to the member that the premise of her question and the facts she leads with are wrong.

TEACHERS' SICK LEAVE GRATUITIES

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training.

Interjections.

Mr Froese: I'm sure the member for Sudbury wants to hear this question, as indeed do all the members of this House.

Recently I read a story about how the Sudbury boards, both the separate school board and the public school board, have been required to pay some $2.6 million to retiring teachers in one year for unused sick leave. I'm concerned about this payment and such payments that might affect other school boards across the province and indeed the school boards in the Niagara region.

Minister, is this an extreme example of millions of dollars flowing out of local school boards to fund retirement gratuities for teachers or is this payment common?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for St Catharines-Brock for the question. I think everyone in this chamber should be aware of the fact that taxpayers are very concerned about this subject. I've had a lot of calls from taxpayers throughout the province over the past few days about the stories that have emerged about the $8.2-billion deficit that taxpayers are responsible for in the teachers' pension fund. A lot of taxpayers were disturbed and very concerned to find out that next year the provincial government will contribute almost $1 billion to that pension fund.

In addition to that, on the subject the member has brought up, which is sick leave gratuities, the school boards and teachers' unions have negotiated packages throughout the province that have teachers get sick leave gratuities when they retire. In fact, by some estimates --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know the people across the way here may not be interested in this, but I assure you their constituents are.

This has amounted to a $1-billion unfunded liability on behalf of the boards. The taxpayers will have to pay for these sick leave gratuities and they are very concerned about it. Over the next five years, almost 20,000 teachers will be retiring and this will mean the taxpayer will be responsible for $600 million of these sick leave gratuities.

Mr Froese: The figure of $1 billion owed by local school boards in unused sick days seems almost too much to comprehend. Minister, are the school boards prepared to meet the burden of this debt?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the honourable member. That's what's disturbing for the taxpayers. In fact, the billion dollars or so is an unfunded liability. As many as half of the school boards in Ontario have made no provision at all for sick leave gratuities, and again, it will represent $600 million over the next five years.

To help school boards and the teachers' unions arrive at some arrangements that may be more palatable to the taxpayers of the province, we have put a provision in Bill 34 that will end the provincial requirement, the requirement in the Education Act, for 20 days of sick time per year for teachers and will allow school boards to negotiate a package with the teachers' unions that is more representative of the normal packages for sick leave across the province and in the private sector.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Numerous houses in the Hamilton beach strip in my riding were covered by coal dust in an incident where it blew across the harbour in January 1994, coming from local industry. Almost two years of investigations by your ministry, and there were charges being laid against Stelco and Dofasco as a result of the incident. The process was lengthy, it was complex and to quote your district supervisor, Mr Slater, "It's a long, drawn-out process when going through formal charges."

On Friday these charges were dropped when the crown attorney representing the Ministry of Environment said, "These trials would be lengthy and expensive when considered in relation to the gravity of the alleged offence." Maybe, Minister, it's a coincidence that your reduction package of two weeks ago labelled these complaints as a nuisance and low priority and these charges were dropped. Can you tell the House today why the charges were dropped and what you are going to do to protect the residents of the beach strip in Hamilton and across Ontario from these types of incidents?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): The first thing is that we want to assure the people that if environmental laws are being broken we take this seriously and that polluters will be prosecuted by this government. Prosecutions or charges of such sort are handled by members of the Attorney General's office.

The information given to me indicates that the charges in this case were laid. They relate to coal dust believed to have been blowing in January 1994, causing discolouration of harbour ice and snow, and that there were 11 complaints of dirty cars, windows and porches.

I'm advised that the reasons the Attorney General's prosecutor withdrew the charges were the following: More than two years had passed and the problem seemed largely resolved; both companies had taken a number of positive steps since these charges were laid and there had been no recurrence of these events in almost two years; the scheduled trials of the charges would have been lengthy and expensive without assurance of conviction.

Mr Agostino: Minister, you've told us absolutely nothing new in your response. Basically, talk is cheap and the platitudes you're giving today on the environment are cheap. Ministry of Environment officials tell us these charges were dropped due to a new political direction. It's clear, Minister, that you have set this political direction. You have set this political direction by a 30% cut; you eliminated 750 positions. The direction has been set by the fact that you have labelled these type of complaints as nuisance and low priority within your own ministry.

The message you're sending out is that environmental protection in residential neighbourhoods is not important, that enforcement is not important. You're going to stand on the sidelines and watch 20 years of progress go down the drain as a result of your gutting of your ministry. Your decision to drop these charges were a result of the message you have sent out and your ministry has sent out that this is not a priority.

Minister, will you stand up today and take full political responsibility for these charges being dropped and give us the specific details of how you are going to continue to enforce environmental standards in Ontario with this 30% reduction in staffing?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I indicate once again that we believe environmental laws must be strongly enforced in this province, but there are many ways of achieving the same environmental standards, and not necessarily through prosecution. These decisions of whether or not to prosecute are made not by my ministry but by lawyers from the Attorney General's office who rely on their best advice and their best knowledge on whether or not to proceed.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. You know that a few weeks ago in this House, your government made announcements in regard to the business plans of all the various ministries within the government of Ontario. Specifically within your own ministry, you announced that through these business plans, "The ministry will continue to phase out economic and social funding (capital and operational) over the next two years," for all economic and social funding programs.

Does this mean the elimination of programs such as the unincorporated community capital assistance program, that it will be gone, a program that pays for infrastructure in small northern communities? Does this mean that the small communities improvement program, the supplementary northern assistance program and the medical and dental assistance program that goes to fund both capital and operational requirements of medical and dental clinics in remote northern communities will be gone? Minister, can you verify that these are the effects of your decisions as they relate to your business plans?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): As the member opposite knows full well, we're trying to re-establish the northern development ministry on priorities instead of being a cheque-writing service or a top-up ministry.

We've consolidated the infrastructure to say that roads are important. The reduction in the road budget will be $5 million this year and in the following year another $5 million, and that bodes well when you look at our priority of infrastructure. We also recognize other remote communities' access. If you look at that, we've maintained the funding for that. The heritage fund is said to be a priority and we've maintained the funding for that on the capital.

On the operating side, we've left intact the front-line services, and I think the member would realize that's after talking to northerners when they said that they wanted to have front-line services intact. The member knows full well that last week's announcement meant that all the northern development offices are left in these small communities, as well as the mining and recorder offices.

Mr Bisson: I find it somewhat interesting, because in speaking to your own staff within your ministry in northern Ontario, they confirmed that in fact this is what's going to happen, that you're pulling the funding away from all those programs that are necessary and crucial for your ministry to support northern communities and northern residents.

I want to draw your attention, Minister, to a document that was put out by the then leader of the third party, Mike Harris, back in January 1995, A Voice for the North. It's interesting, because when you read in regard to northern Ontario, it says that in the Tory document A Voice for the North, released in 1995, it says you will re-establish the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines as the senior ministry for northern Ontario. Minister, it already was before you got here. You're the guy who's dismantling it. You're taking away all the programs for northerners and for northern communities.

How does cutting funding for these key programs make your ministry the lead ministry when you won't have any programs to deliver to northerners in northern communities?

Hon Mr Hodgson: What we found when we did the consultation prior to the last election on the tour around northern Ontario was that they wanted a change in the direction. They didn't want the northern development ministry just to be a cheque-writing service or a top-up from other line ministries; they wanted real input.

Delivering programs is based on northern priorities, and that is consolidating the capital. Instead of just saying, "Because of this line budget, we can get this leftover program and this one," we wanted to go to the priorities that exist in each community. When we talked to people they said they wanted the front-line services and access to the government, and that's what we prioritized on, the northern development offices. All of them are intact. A couple of weeks ago the rumours were that we were closing all the front-line offices. That's what you were on to a couple of weeks ago.

I think you'll find that this business plan refocuses our ministry so we have input on policies before they become in effect, and that's what a lead ministry is, to take the concerns of northerners so that they have the front-end impact on policies that are made in Toronto.

VULNERABLE ADULTS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last week, the honourable minister announced our government's new initiative for vulnerable adults. This new initiative was designed to replace the former government's Advocacy Commission.

A number of my constituents in Scarborough Centre have contacted me with questions as to how effective this new initiative will be. I would ask the minister to explain to this House how our $3-million initiative will result in more services that are as effective or more effective than the $18-million system provided by the Advocacy Commission.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the honourable member for Scarborough Centre. First of all, I believe that all three political parties in this House agree we have a duty to respect the autonomy and dignity of our society's most vulnerable members. This was totally apparent during the committee hearing deliberations on Bill 19. But if we differ, it is in our approach to how we provide assistance to the most vulnerable.

The Advocacy Commission, which was created by the previous government, was a very bureaucratic, intrusive and costly response to addressing the needs of vulnerable adults. The key to our initiative is really how we're going to spend the money. Most of this $3 million will go directly to community-based services, which means no new bureaucracy and no new legislation. It is a matter of doing better with less.

Mr Newman: I would ask the minister if she would please explain to this House how the $3 million will be allocated.

Hon Ms Mushinski: Almost all of the $3 million will be spent in the community. There is no new bureaucracy to support this $3 million. About $2.25 million, which is almost double that of the 1995-96 community action fund allocation, will be used to support community organizations for projects that support the coordination of community-based advocacy services, the development of training modules for professional bodies, the training of volunteers and promotion of the use of volunteers and the development of information and other resources helpful to vulnerable adults and their families.

The remaining funds will be used to support an information and referral service and a clearinghouse for information and training resources and to support the strategies to deal with abuse and neglect.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the impact of the tax cut on the revenues of the province. We know you'll be proceeding with the tax cut in a couple of weeks; we know that the Premier said the costs will be roughly $4.5 billion. The thing we find surprising is that the government has said that the tax cut will fund itself. In other words, you'll cut the taxes, but that will generate so much extra economic activity that you will actually get back the same amount of revenue in taxes as you would have got without the tax cut. For many people in the province, that came as a bit of a surprise.

Because this is absolutely fundamental to the government's economic plan, will the Minister of Finance table in the House the study that led the government to conclude that the tax cut will fund itself?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is there a back of an envelope there, Ernie?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Sorry, I couldn't help but find some bemusement about the member for St Catharines's interjection. However, as I'm sure the honourable member opposite will be aware and already anticipates, there is no study reflecting the statement that he's just made. However, obviously the approach taken by the two previous governments of increasing rates of taxation -- they increased, for example, combined over the last 10 years, personal income tax in the province 11 times. Despite the fact that the last government increased the rate of taxation, it received less revenue, so we know that approach certainly doesn't work.

Mr Phillips: Let me be very blunt. The Premier has said publicly many times that the tax cut will fund itself. I think the Premier just simply made that up. This is snake oil economics. You have no evidence to support that, but he is saying that publicly. This is absolutely fundamental to your plan: It will fund itself. The Premier has said it. The money markets believe you have some evidence of that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We do.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "We do." All I am saying, Minister, is this: Because so much of the future of this province depends on the credibility of the Premier on financial matters, and because he has said publicly that the tax cut will fund itself, this is extremely important. I say once again to the minister, you owe it to the House, you owe it to the people of Ontario, to table the evidence that led the Premier to conclude that the tax cut will fund itself. Will you table whatever information you've got that led the Premier to reach that important public conclusion?

Hon Mr Eves: I believe that over time indeed the tax cut will fund itself, and then some. Talking about a snake oil statement, I presume the member opposite has some respect for the following people who appeared before the finance committee and testified that in fact the tax cut will create jobs and more revenue for the province of Ontario: the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Patti Croft, chief economist, Canada Trust; Bill Robson, senior policy analysis, C.D.

Howe Institute; the Ontario Natural Gas Association; Wallace Kenny, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Don McIver, chief economist, Sun Life Assurance Co; Peter Woolford, senior vice-president, Retail Council of Canada; the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association; Judith Andrew, director of provincial policy, Canadian Federation of Independent Business --

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

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines regarding bus deregulation. As minister, you are responsible for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, and as such you will know that the ONTC's bus service in the north represents the only line-haul carrier north of Bracebridge on the Highway 11 corridor and the only line-haul carrier operating north of Sudbury on the Highway 69-144 corridor.

In its 1996 business plan, the ONTC said this about bus deregulation, and I quote: "The anticipated deregulation of the bus industry in 1998 is a serious threat to bus operations, which has been a marginal commercial business for the ONTC."

Minister, your legislation will directly impact northern communities like Kapuskasing, Timmins, Hearst and Cochrane. I want to know what you are going to do to protect northern transportation for people who are living in our communities.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): The Northland corporation, through the ONTC, has a board of directors, and their staff are looking into this and drawing up an analysis on the impact.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You are the minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's why we have a board, I say to the member from Cochrane. When their information is available, I'll make it available to you as well.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time for oral question period has expired.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to standing order 32(a), which reads, "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matter of which the House should be informed."

Earlier today --

The Speaker: Order. There's nothing out of order.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On another point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked the Minister of Finance if he could name one economist or one person who says the tax cut will fund itself, and you cut him off before --

The Speaker: Order.

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health will begin to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled on June 1, 1996; and

"Whereas health care experts have asserted that user fees for drugs could jeopardize the health of individuals who cannot afford to pay for their medication; and

"Whereas Ontario's ex-psychiatric populace rely heavily on prescription drugs to remain stable, and mental health care providers and the general public are scared of the outcome if these patients cannot afford to buy their medication because of the $2 dispensing fee when it is normal policy to only prescribe them a two- to three-day supply of medication to prevent potential misuse or an overdose; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee and will not even cover the costs of extra emergency services nor repeated hospital services. The $2 copayment will consequently not lead to cost savings but rather increases in the case of expensive health care services; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal this user fee plan before it takes effect on June 1, 1996, because of the potential dramatic increase in emergency and police services, and the suffering and misery of human lives -- especially psychiatric outpatients and those who depend on medication for their daily survival."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition from people opposed to rent control. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Name names.

Mr Bisson: Derwyn Shea.

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

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

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

I've signed that petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition forwarded to the member for Eglinton, which I'm presenting today. It is in regard to tax cuts, and it's signed by approximately 40 citizens of the riding of Eglinton.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): "Whereas the Common Sense Revolution states that a Conservative government `will not cut health care'; and

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

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

I affix my signature to the petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have yet another group of petitions, this time from the people of Toronto, from Moss Park, which read:

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

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

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

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition signed by some 98 people from my riding with regard to fathers who do not pay support for their children. It appears to be in the proper form.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to present a petition which reads in part:

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

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

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

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

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

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

This is signed by a number of individuals who live in Eganville and Pembroke, Ontario, and I have affixed my signature as well, as I agree with this petition.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Windsor and Essex county, Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the following:

"Whereas children are our most important resource and are Ontario's future; and

"Whereas the Ontario Child Health Study, 1988, indicated that at any given time, 18% of children and adolescents require mental health services; and

"Whereas recent research studies have proven the positive results and cost-effectiveness of mental health treatment for children and adolescents; and

"Whereas the 95 children's mental health centres in Ontario serve over 85,000 children and their families each year by providing quality programs to address urgent and serious problems; and

"Whereas the cost of providing treatment to children in 95 mental health centres across the province is less than the cost of running one large urban teaching hospital or school board; and

"Whereas mental health service for children and adolescents is not a guaranteed service, unlike that provided for adults; and

"Whereas there are significantly fewer options for treatment and support to families available in communities as a result of past and pending budget reductions;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislative Assembly to continue to invest significant resources in children's mental health programs. Our future depends on it. Give children's mental health centres a mandate to continue their work with children and families through appropriate legislation."

I join with the thousands of other fellow citizens in my home town in signing this petition.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a very short but important petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we believe that the family support plan is a viable and necessary service provided by the government of Ontario;

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

"That the proposed centralization of the family support plan will have a negative impact on the children who are supported under this plan and should be cancelled."

I affix my signature to the petition as I believe in it.

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Niagara region has one of the highest per capita populations of seniors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Niagara region ranks 32nd out of 38 health regions in long-term-care funding and that more individuals wait for support services from the March of Dimes than those who actually are served by it; and

"Whereas Alzheimer patients who critically depend on support services in order to cope in a more humane way with this devastating illness continue to suffer from unacceptable delays in receiving respite care; and

"Whereas more than half of all Ontario families waiting for Alzheimer-related respite care reside in the Niagara area;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to adopt the plan by the Niagara Regional District Health Council which would help improve the way vulnerable people are treated in the Niagara area."

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Martin, on behalf of Mr Laughren, from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's seventh report.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

Mr Palladini moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 39,

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

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

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

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The purpose of this bill is to prepare Ontario for a more competitive intercity bus industry. This government is committed to breaking down barriers to economic growth and investment, and we are committed to tackling the red tape that restricts private sector ingenuity. That's why we are introducing Bill 39 to allow an orderly transition to economic deregulation and to remove barriers that restrict the intercity bus industry. Ontario can look forward to this transition in January 1998.

Ontario's scheduled, charter and school buses, as well as parcel express services, have been regulated for more than 70 years. The intercity bus industry is the last transportation mode in Canada where market entry is restricted. Canada and Ontario have grown and flourished in those years. The intercity bus industry has to be able to compete, to make taking the bus an attractive travel option. At one time it made sense to regulate the intercity bus industry, but the time has come to let the industry decide how best to meet the diverse needs of the communities it serves.

In fact, the 1992 Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation recommended relaxing the regulations on the bus industry.

Deregulation will create healthy competition. I'll give you an example. Today, a bus company with exclusive charter rights in a particular community can charge its customers higher prices because there is no competition. After deregulation, several companies can compete for customers by offering lower prices and more services to meet the demand.

Another benefit of deregulation is improved industry flexibility. If a travel company needs to charter buses for tours, it will be able to hire one bus company for all of its tour routes. Right now, such a company operating in four or five communities might have to deal with as many bus companies.

Deregulation will also improve customer service and promote more and better service options. For instance, one entrepreneur has indicated she would like to offer an exclusive, high-quality service for business travellers. She wants to create a service where customers can relax in a comfortable and spacious van, watch videos, read the newspaper and enjoy a coffee and a snack. I think this is a great idea, and I bet travellers will think so too.

These are just a few examples, but there are many more benefits of removing economic regulations on intercity buses. It will open up opportunities for entrepreneurs to seek out markets and offer convenient new services to Ontarians.

Of course, we don't expect the industry to wake up tomorrow and be fully prepared to compete. Some 70 years of restrictions have influenced the market. With that in mind, we consulted with the industry and came up with a solution that reflects their recommendations. We are setting up an interim regulatory system during the 21 months leading up to full deregulation. The intercity bus industry has agreed to pay the costs of the interim system. It includes a new Ontario Highway Transport Board with a more streamlined procedure, cheaper operating costs and a full cost-recovery strategy.

This interim system will give the industry stability and bus operators time to prepare for a more competitive environment, plus it will give us a chance to work with the federal government and other jurisdictions to encourage deregulation of the bus industry in other provinces. In this way we can ensure Ontario bus companies have fair access to other markets within Canada.

Finally, I'd like to point out that during this interim period we will also set out a process to promote the creation of viable services that respond to the needs of small towns and remote areas. Our goal here is to encourage local entrepreneurs or smaller operators to take over services from existing bus operators who are thinking of downsizing.

I'd like to take this opportunity to reassure the public, and especially people living in small communities across Ontario, that this government is looking out for you. We are committed to working with the bus industry and local community groups to help you keep your local bus service and potentially see that service improve.

A regulated system cannot guarantee service to small-town Ontario and we know that the current system is not. In fact, in the past 15 years, more than 400 communities across Ontario lost their bus service. By removing restrictions on the industry, we can only improve the chances for these communities to get the services they need. When the demand is there, market forces will encourage the private sector to create more local bus services.

In fact, I think people who live in small towns across Ontario will find that their local bus service is an important link in the chain of intercity travel. After all, passengers from smaller towns often transfer to larger buses to get to a central location. Without these so-called feeder services, the larger bus companies would probably not have enough passengers.

However, if some bus companies choose to withdraw their services from communities during the next two years, this government will require they give us and the community fair warning. Bus companies planning to abandon a scheduled service will have to give 90 days' notice, instead of the current 10 days, and those planning to cut bus service by more than one quarter must give 30 days' notice. That's three times as long as required now. Plus, we will require bus companies to continue to provide service until a replacement is found or until the notice period expires, whichever comes first.

During that time and in cases of serious hardship, the company must work with the local community and other interested groups in a reasonable effort to find a replacement.

In fact, some local entrepreneurs have already expressed interest in replacing abandoned services or implementing new services to compete with existing bus companies across the province, including northern and southwestern Ontario. These people came forward in response to the negative -- in my view, unfounded -- criticism expressed by those who oppose deregulation.

I'd now like to talk on the other important issue, that is, the issue of public safety. At the Ministry of Transportation, the safety of the travelling public is our top priority. I assure the people of Ontario and members of this House that we will take all necessary measures to ensure the safety of the intercity bus industry.

The increased competition that comes with freer access to the marketplace will not compromise public safety. Deregulation of the bus industry will only affect the economic aspects, such as market entry. This government's existing and planned safety measures, including those announced in my ministry's road safety plan, will uphold the intercity bus industry's excellent safety record.

First of all, the road safety plan includes a safety rating system that will help us measure the safety performances of both truck and bus operators. A truck or bus company safety rating will be available to the public or anyone interested in doing business with them. This puts pressure on the industry to make safety a priority.

Secondly, the road safety plan also calls for increased fines for truck and bus operators who don't meet the standards for safety. Plus, imposing a system like demerit points on truck and bus drivers for industry-related safety offences may also be an option.

Before being allowed on the highway, new bus operators will need to demonstrate that they understand all the safety requirements by completing a written exam. Plus, new bus companies can expect our enforcement officers to audit their place of business within six months of starting up their service. Of course, we will also conduct regular on-road safety blitzes on intercity buses just as with trucks, to sniff out the bad operators and to get them off the road.

We are taking steps to ensure that when deregulation does take effect, we don't have new bus companies arriving on the scene with a view to make some quick cash without the appropriate attention to public safety. That's why we are increasing the insurance requirements for bus operators. This way, we deter fly-by-nighters and encourage only those bus operators that are serious about providing a safe service for the public.

Finally, this government is advocating a national review of bus safety to consider whether special bus safety measures should be in place right across Canada.

Bill 39 responds to the red-tape review that this government promised in the November 1995 economic statement. The Ministry of Transportation has been working with the Red-Tape Review Commission to remove unnecessary or unfair barriers to business growth and job creation.

Deregulating Ontario's intercity bus industry will do just that, and more. I am confident that deregulating Ontario's intercity bus industry will ensure appropriate levels of service based on market demand and the needs of the travelling public. I am confident it will encourage innovation on the part of the existing industry and the many potential newcomers, and I am confident it will ensure a safe, efficient and healthy bus industry.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to divide the time, or the first 90 minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: With whom?

Mr Colle: Just to divide the time.

The Deputy Speaker: With whom?

Mr Colle: On our side, we want to divide the 90 minutes. Just two of us want to speak.

Interjection: Mr Conway and Mr Colle.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the time be split between Mr Colle and Mr Conway? It is agreed.

Mr Colle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the minister has found out, like certainly I've found out, that this is a very complex issue. It's not as easy as it looks at first blush. There are many different views on deregulation and the busing industry. If you talk to people who are in the industry, they have different views. I think there is no real true consensus of what the ultimate solution is, so it is not something that I think anybody can say they have the definitive answer on.

In other words, how do we provide cost-effective, regular bus transportation across this province and at the same time allow the providers to work in a competitive environment and serve the consumers, the bus customers who are in every community across Ontario?

Again, it is a real challenge to do that, and I think the providers over the last 100 years have known how difficult it is to meet the challenge of Ontario's geography, the distances. Certainly distances sometimes between communities do not make for a profitable enterprise. It's certainly easy to provide bus service perhaps within the Golden Horseshoe, the GTA or near Windsor, but then when you have to service northern Ontario and parts of middle Ontario it becomes quite a challenge to offer regular service.

I think this bill is an attempt to deal with that. The bill is a bit schizophrenic, because originally the ministry and the government announced that they were going to deregulate the bus industry and they were going to do it almost overnight. But I think what happened was that as soon as they made that announcement, they realized it wasn't as easy as that, that instant deregulation caused a lot of problems.

The first one they didn't anticipate was that you couldn't do it unilaterally, because as soon as you deregulate the bus industry in Ontario, it then allows for the bus companies, especially from Quebec, to come into Ontario and operate within Ontario, thereby in essence poaching on businesses here in this province. If you were to deregulate instantly, you would have a problem competing with Quebeckers who could come in and set up shop anywhere in Ontario,

whereas Ontario companies would have a difficult time doing that in Quebec. Therefore, the government had to take a step back and realize that you just couldn't carte blanche deregulate. In fact, if you notice when this was first announced by ministry officials, they have a very different

interpretation of what was to come with deregulation from what we have before us in this bill.

I guess this was never announced in the House, but this is by Frank D'Onofrio, associate director, Ministry of Transportation. He spoke to the Ontario Motor Coach Association, September 21, and he said: "You're probably wondering what the future will hold. I would like to share with you some of the elements to be found in the future to deregulate the system." First of all, he said, "Safety and proof of insurance would be the only criteria you would need." Nothing else would be required but proof of insurance and safety; then you can get a licence.

He also said: "The provision of bus service will be driven by market forces. If there's no demand there is no service." It was from a purely, as I say, market-driven approach, that there be no interference from government, that you were going to go out there and the market would decide what bus service would be available.

He also said at the time of this announcement to the motor coach industry, "There would be no requirement to prove public necessity and convenience." In other words, the public didn't count. Just as long as you went out there and provided a service, you didn't have to prove it would certainly meet the needs of the public and be convenient to the public.

He also said. "There would be no provincial involvement in resolving unfair competition." This is one of the top bureaucrats in the Ministry of Transportation. He said that the province shouldn't be involved in disputes or in unfair competition. He said the federal Competition Act should get involved.

But as you can see, the government has changed its attitude, because what it's done basically is said, "We were going to deregulate back in September last year," but now they are going to regulate. They still have a regulatory board in place. They've kept the board; fewer members; they're still going to regulate. So these grandiose plans to let market forces decide the bus industry and bus service have basically been thrown out the window.

This statement also said: "Given the current fiscal situation in this province, there will be no provincial government subsidies to ensure the continuation of unprofitable scheduled services" in rural and remote areas. "Again," he said, "no demand, no service." Simple market forces.

The most interesting thing he said was that there was a question on what to do with this. Do you go cold turkey into deregulation or do you phase it in? Speaking to that point this upper-level bureaucrat said: "There are varying points of view as to whether deregulation should be phased in or whether a `cold turkey' approach should be taken, that is, the bus industry is regulated one day and deregulated the next -- the lessons we learned from truck deregulation do not support a transitional approach."

Back in September, the upper level of the bureaucracy was saying that they were going to go cold turkey, that there'd be an announcement and you go right into pure deregulation. It was very plain here. They said that when they went into a transitional phase with trucks, it didn't work. What they've done is they don't want to go cold turkey; they want to go half-baked. So this is one step towards deregulation, one small step, and three steps back. That's what this bill is all about.

To put this in context, what we're talking about in this bill -- Madam Speaker, you would know how important public transportation is to ordinary people -- is we're talking about providing simple bus service to small communities like Actinolite, Barry's Bay, Carleton Place, Cayuga, Eganville, up in the valley, Killaloe Station, Kaladar, up on the way to Ottawa, even the town of Oakwood on Highway 7 near Lindsay, Strathroy, Sutton, Wasaga Beach, Geraldton up north, Hanover, Havelock.

All these small communities are wondering what is the future of public transportation. Because a lot of people cannot afford automobiles. In some families you may be able to afford one automobile, but certainly not the second or third one, therefore, there is a reliance on public transportation. I know that's hard to imagine for people who live in an affluent community who have the good fortune to have three or four cars in their family, but in many small towns in Ontario there isn't the luxury of having three or four automobiles.

In fact, in many communities I'm sure there are people who can't afford that first one, so the bus is their link to appointments with doctors, with other professionals, for family visits, for getting to work or whatever it may be. That bus is their link to employment and their link to good health, therefore whatever happens to buses and their service availability is critically important to these people who may not live in communities where regular bus service makes a profit.

These are the people we've got to think about who live in smaller towns and cities across this province. They're the ones who should be consulted along with the people in the industry. There should be a formal process of consultation not only to talk about deregulation; as the minister legitimately has said, he does want to try to provide better service, and there may be ways of doing that, but you have to have a meaningful role for representatives of people in small communities to see how they can provide this better service.

In terms of experience with deregulation, the minister often mentions the fact that 400 bus routes have been lost over the last number of years with regulation in place, as if that proves that regulation doesn't work. The American experience is quite interesting. When Ronald Reagan, the guru of common sense, of snake-oil economics, deregulated the busing industry in the United States in 1982, over 50% of the bus routes were lost.

In Canada you say we've lost bus routes because of regulation; in the United States they still lost bus routes with deregulation. Deregulation or regulation is not a panacea either way for producing more bus routes and good service. There's no direct correlation. In some cases there may be, but there are other factors which will dictate whether or not bus routes are profitable. There are demographic changes; there are changes in the economy of communities where factories close, factories open; there are also changes in terms of lifestyles.

If you look at the North American experience over the last 10 years, there obviously has been a massive movement towards the private automobile. A lot of people have used more private automobiles, therefore there are fewer customers for the bus systems across Ontario. Just to perhaps emphasize that fact, the American experience has shown that deregulation has cut back on the bus systems across the United States.

In the UK Maggie Thatcher, another guru of trickle-down economics, deregulated what cows eat, so cows began to eat sheep leftovers, and we have the roots of mad cow disease. She also deregulated the bus industry and what happened there is very interesting. In essence, the bottom line in the UK was about a 25% reduction in the number of people using the bus systems. Sure, profitable routes remained intact, but overall the number of available buses and service diminished. You can't say that deregulation will increase passengers on your buses, nor will it necessarily increase the number of routes.

There are other variables, as I said: the economy of areas, lifestyle changes. We also have a population that perhaps is reliant on other alternatives besides the buses that were there once before.

In terms of the legislation itself, it's very interesting that this legislation has quite an arbitrary tone. With the old Ontario Highway Transport Board, you could appeal a decision of the board; you could appeal that through Divisional Court and you could also appeal it to the cabinet. Bill 39 takes the right of appeal away, so if you don't agree -- by the way, I think it ends up being a one-person board you'd go to. Therefore, the decisions of the board are final; appeals to Divisional Court and even petitions to the cabinet are no longer available.

I don't know why they wouldn't allow people -- and I'm not just talking about small bus carriers or a person who owns a limited line; it could be one of the major carriers -- to appeal a decision of this board. This new board, as I said, may end up being the decision of one person. I don't think anybody should have the right to dictate to an industry without the right to appeal.

The taking out of the right of appeal is not a good provision in this bill. If it were left in, it would be a lot fairer in terms of the treatment of people who have to go before this hearing. Remember, this was the board that was supposed to have been abolished. The board still lives, but it has more arbitrary powers, which is certainly contrary to the original cold-turkey approach which was announced but pulled back from.

In terms of the bill itself, we have to look at a number of other factors. I've had a deputation from members -- I think you were at the same meeting when members of the disabled community were very concerned about accessible transportation and the fact that Wheel-Trans cuts had taken place in Metro and they weren't getting the service so they could go to their doctors and their jobs.

The bill before us has made an attempt to rectify an ideological, you might say, challenge for this government. Early on in the mandate of this government, I think all ministers were told, "Go out there and find any regulatory board and get rid of them." In so doing, the Ontario Highway Transport Board was sacrificed on the altar of the Common Sense Revolution.

As a result, it was interesting to note that a number of privately run, for-profit providers in the industry -- the industry is basically a private sector industry that gets regulated -- are upset, strangely enough, by total deregulation. Some of the major providers in the province said, "Total deregulation is nonsense." They do not agree that you should go cold turkey. Therefore we have this half-baked approach, because the private sector knows best. They've said total deregulation may not be the best way to go.

On the other hand, you've got some other suppliers in the private sector who have said, "This government has backtracked." On the promise made by upper-level bureaucrats and the promises made in the Common Sense Revolution about total deregulation, they went out and bought buses because they thought they were going to go into this deregulation cold turkey; they were ready to go. Then, come April, this government said: "By the way, we've changed our minds. We're not going to deregulate.

We're going to almost deregulate." So there are also people in the private sector who say: "Hey, you told us one thing a few months ago. We went out there and spent money to buy buses to get into the business, and now you tell us, `Don't get into the business because we've changed our minds'."

This bill is causing a lot of consternation, not only in Actinolite and Barry's Bay, in the town of Oakwood, in Manilla and Madoc; it's causing all kinds of consternation right here in the big city and the GTA where a lot of the big bus providers are. They don't really understand or know what the government's intentions are. Is this half-baked bill just going to be in place for January 1? Then will there be maybe another interim phase? Or when will they go cold turkey, as they promised the industry?

We have to have some clear policies in terms of transportation. I think the only way you can do that is by having a formal, comprehensive, face-to-face meeting with the people across Ontario, whether they be in Bracebridge, in Fergus. The providers should also be there, the Ontario Motor Coach Association, the small companies, the tour providers and the big companies, along with the drivers, along with the interested advocates of public transportation.

Sit down and work out a comprehensive approach. This has been done piecemeal. All kinds of indications have been given and backtracking on indications, to the point that there's mass confusion in terms of the direction of this government. Those who thought they were going to deregulate are now upset; the ones who were against deregulation are upset; the people in small towns are wondering; the bus drivers are wondering in terms of their future.

This bill has done a great deal to cause consternation across the province. It has done very little to solve the basic issue of affordable transportation on a regular basis to small communities across this province. That's the ultimate litmus test for any legislation that deals with transportation. The bill cannot be used as an ideological tool, which it was initially.

The first objective should be to improve public transportation and to look comprehensively. I've asked the ministry, "Do you have an impact study that demonstrates what the effects will be of the deregulation, or the half-baked deregulation, in this bill?" They do not have one. Before you change an industry, you should at least have an independent analysis of the impact. That's good, sound business practice. The ministry has not done that.

If I were in the private sector or if I were a person depending on that bus in Actinolite, I'd be asking why you wouldn't sit down, have a third party come in here and evaluate the best way we can provide bus service efficiently and economically, taking into account the economic realities of and the needs of the bus-travelling public.

There is no study, certainly none that's been released. Maybe there is one, but as I said, I've asked for one. There is no analysis of the impact, and we shouldn't underestimate what this means. There are thousands of people who work in this industry, who manufacture buses, who clean them, who drive them, and then certainly the taxpayers who use the buses to get to their doctors' appointments, to work and to see their Aunt Lily. They need the buses. This province needs a good bus industry.

This bill, as I've said, is going about it in a way that is not going to contribute to improving the industry, nor will it improve accessible public transportation for all of our good citizens who will rely on regular bus service, and in Essex too, down in the banana belt of Ontario. Every corner of Ontario wants accessible, affordable transportation.

I think you can do it, and that's why I say we should look at the American example and their failures. Look at what's happened in BC, and then bring it into the Ontario context to see what the real impact of it is, because there are many variables in terms of deregulation. What it means to people and whether it's good, bad or indifferent has to be looked at analytically and not just on a dogmatic basis. That is where the government got into trouble on this bill.

It approached it not on the basis of good transportation; it approached it in terms of offering up some regulatory board it thought it could get away with without anybody noticing. But the people of Ontario noticed and, as I said, it's interesting enough, I think the ones that noticed most were the private sector corporations that provide busing across Ontario.

This is why, whenever this government talks about deregulation, I think all of us in this province have to look at these initiatives objectively, because there's nothing that says privatization and deregulation is always good, as this government thinks. There are pitfalls to unilateral deregulation or unilateral privatization. This is a perfect example of it. That's why you cannot accept it as being a panacea, as this government has. That's why they've had to retreat on this. They've had to retreat on this big time because they realized that the people in the business and the citizens pointed out the flaws in it. There are major flaws because of their approach.

I would say to you in closing that perhaps what we can learn from this ill-fated Bill 39 is that you just cannot approach the removal of a service, or the role the government plays in providing a service, without doing an impact analysis of it. You don't have to hire the big, fancy Bay Street consultants, you can do it by going out there and talking to people who are veterans in the industry and sit down and figure out the best way of handling a problem. If you think every regulatory board and every regulation can be tossed out without an impact, I think this government is going to cause itself a lot of grief, as it has in the attempted introduction of this half-baked Bill 39.

I'd say to the members opposite, take a good look at this bill, reminding you that this is a retreat of what the initial intention was. You wonder where they will retreat to next when they get more information about what are the implications of this bill, as I've said, which does very little in terms of solving the affordable transportation problem and helping this industry in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): As was indicated -- and I thank the House for unanimous consent to allow my colleague from Oakwood and I to share the official opposition's 90-minute opening time on this Bill 39 -- I want to join my colleague from Toronto Oakwood in making some remarks about this very important piece of legislation.

I don't see the minister here, though I did hear most of his remarks in opening the debate this afternoon, the second reading debate on Bill 39, which is essentially

an act to deregulate the motor coach industry in Ontario. I want to say at the outset that I will be strongly opposing this bill and I will do so primarily as a member from rural Ontario which well understands that it is going to be hammered and hurt by the implementation of this policy.

I understand, as someone who has over the years watched the regulatory agency, the Ontario Highway Transport Board, manage the affairs of this industry -- in fact, I can think back to a period about 15 years ago, when Mr Shoniker and his colleagues were involved in a particularly interesting set of regulatory matters affecting some of this industry. It's not, quite frankly, something that we've debated a great deal in the Legislature certainly in the time that I have been here.

I understand there are pressures in the marketplace that are certainly causing the minister, the government and the industry some pains at the present time. But I want to say again, I am opposing this policy and I'm opposing this bill because without a doubt in my mind, it is going to hurt and hurt seriously the people I represent in rural Ontario.

I want to begin my remarks this afternoon by asking the House to reflect that we are dealing with a matter of transportation policy and that in this province and country, from the outset, because of our geography especially, issues of transportation and communication have been central to this assembly and to the national Parliament in Ottawa. Why is that? I think it's quite obvious that in a country of some 30 million people with a territory as large as the Dominion of Canada is and certainly as the province of Ontario is, it shouldn't surprise any member of the Legislature and any citizen or any observer of this kind of a debate why issues of transportation would be so very important.

I represent a very large district 400 kilometres to the northeast of this capital city, Toronto. When my American and some of my European friends come, one of the things that they are struck by is what one of them once called the tyranny of distance. I mentioned in a debate here I think just this week that in my county, if you leave the town of Arnprior, which is in the southeast corner of the county, and you go to the northeastern corner of the county, up near Mattawa, you will have driven over 200 kilometres, just within one county.

I'm often embarrassed by the kind of mileage claims that I submit to the Legislature by virtue of my responsibilities as a local member. I'm going to go home this weekend and, over the course of three rather busy days, without any effort, I'm going to drive over 1,000 kilometres just going to events and meetings in my district, and the Minister of Agriculture, if he were here, would say, "I know what that's like."

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): And you have a small riding.

Mr Conway: The member for Rainy River says I represent a small district, and relative to the imperial domain that is the district of Rainy River, he's absolutely right.

It is not lost on me that in Ontario today over 45% of the citizenry lives within 30 minutes or 30 kilometres of this very spot. So we have a situation today in a province with 11 million people where almost a majority of those people live, Madam Speaker, in areas like yours, urban or suburban Toronto. That's clearly affecting the policymaking both of the assembly and of the government.

But I say seriously to the House and to the minister -- I'm pleased to see he's rejoined us -- that from the very beginning of political debate in this country, issues of transportation have been central, and they've been central because, to put it bluntly, we are a relatively few people scattered over an enormous territory. This issue, bus deregulation, is an issue of fundamental transportation policy and justice at a time when there is much change in the land, I accept.

But when I hear people, not just in this government but in other governments and at other times, say to me, "What we really need is a public transportation policy that reflects market pressures. We have to deregulate. We have to let the market decide," let me say that John A. Macdonald had it right 120 years ago when he struggled with his national transportation policy, and when he observed that if we let market policies decide transportation issues in this country, let me tell you, the rural hinterland, the west, the north, wouldn't have very much to say.

There would certainly never have been a so-called national dream, a Canadian Pacific railroad, if we had let market forces decide.

My colleague from Oakwood was rightly pointing out some of what the industry is now saying, and these capitalists are not fools; they understand some of the unique characteristics of the Canadian marketplace. Just as the old CPR syndicate understood 120 years ago, without government involvement and regulation there would not have been a CPR, there would not have been a transcontinental link, because it made no sense economically.

How many times have we been told by everyone from Goldwin Smith to latter-day acolytes of the same policy that if you just look at Canada from the point of view of market forces, there wouldn't be a country? It has only been by dint of political will and regulation that there has been a transcontinental domain that we call Canada and a transportation network that helped give it birth, give it strength and give it meaning. I would be the first to say that politicians of another era got overzealous and did some rather foolish things.

Where we needed really only one national transcontinental, we got three and we're still paying the price for a national rail policy that seemed at times to operate on the notion that you built sections of the railroad, not to carry passengers but to carry elections.

That notwithstanding, I simply want to say to the minister and to the government and to the House that a policy that calls for pure deregulation, that calls for "Let the market decide," is going to fly in the face of a fundamental Canadian reality that has been understood by the political, the business, the labour and the community leadership of this province and country for decades and centuries.

I have before me Bill 39, and I listened carefully to the minister's comments and I don't doubt that he believes what he said. In the first eight or nine months of watching the minister -- I haven't dealt with him too often, but I'm impressed by his interest and by his enthusiasm. He knows a lot more about some aspects of this business than I'll ever know. Since I buy a car every year, perhaps in another life we can do some business.

I want to say to him that, speaking now primarily to my principal concern, which is what this policy is going to do to the rural communities I represent, every day there is a bus that leaves the community where I now reside, Pembroke. That city, located on the Ontario-Quebec border about 90 miles north of Ottawa, is the point of departure for the daily bus to Toronto. The bus to Toronto trundles across the county to Eganville, up to Golden Lake and Killaloe, Wilno, Barry's Bay, Combermere, Paudash, across those Hastings communities of Maynooth, Bancroft, Apsley, on to Peterborough and, yes, its destination is that great metropolitan world in which we are now situate.

I want to tell the minister that in places like Eganville and Killaloe and Wilno and Combermere and Barry's Bay, there will be no bus to Toronto if this policy is implemented.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Do they still have an environmental station in Killaloe?

Mr Conway: No, they don't. The weather station is gone, I say to the member from Halton.

I'm deadly serious about this. I grew up in one of these little towns, and the bus to Toronto was a very important link. It was the only link many of these people had, and it would not have been there had there not been a regulatory requirement on Voyageur Colonial to cross-subsidize that route against their much more lucrative routes that serve in at least one other case another part of my constituency.

I want to be fair. Let me tell the minister and the House, I have little worry about the motor coach industry's interest in serving the Highway 17 corridor from Ottawa through Kanata to Arnprior, Renfrew, Cobden, Pembroke, Petawawa, Deep River, Stonecliffe and on to Mattawa and North Bay, because it is a trunk route from Ottawa. It's actually Montreal-Ottawa-Pembroke-North Bay-Sudbury. That is a very attractive route, relatively speaking, and I suspect that it will do a good business in either a regulated or an unregulated environment.

There will be no difficulty, I suspect, for my constituents who live along the Highway 17 corridor, because it's on a major line, but it is for all of those people in the rural reaches of particularly south-central and southwestern Renfrew county, in Hastings, in Haliburton, in Peterborough county, to name just four areas in my part of the province, that I say to you that without some kind of regulatory requirement, there will be no bus to Toronto. It is simply not going to make any sense.

I did some calling today; I phoned a couple of my bus terminals. It's something I've been planning to do, and I will do it one of these days, because I'm favoured. Her Majesty provides me with a car allowance to drive to Toronto, and I drive it every week. The Highway Traffic Act, the Queen's constabulary and God willing, I'm going to continue to do that for some time. I drive, as I will late tonight, to Pembroke, and it's no problem for me.

Mr Colle: You drive too slowly.

Mr Conway: The member for Oakwood says I drive too slowly. I don't know that that's fair.

I'm telling the minister and I'm telling the House, and I'm sure there are other members here -- I know the member from Hastings and the member from Stormont will understand what I'm talking about. You go to the bus terminal in Barry's Bay or Eganville or Killaloe or Wilno -- and I've done it; I used to be a paper-boy; we used to go to the bus terminal to get our Toronto papers to distribute to the community -- and who's there? By and large, and increasingly, it's senior citizens and it's students.

If you are a young person, a student in Killaloe, and you go to the University of Guelph or the University of Toronto or the University of Waterloo or Brock and you can't arrange transportation with a friend, the way you come back and forth is by bus.

If you're in Barry's Bay, trying to get to Guelph on a Sunday afternoon, if this policy takes effect there will be no bus going to Toronto on any kind of a regularly scheduled route. There may be some charters, there are now, but the Toronto bus going down the road on a daily, scheduled basis carrying sick people to the medical services in Peterborough and Toronto, students to university and college, people who by virtue of either choice or income don't have a car or a half-ton truck, is their only method and means of "public transit."

I asked my staff today to get me the spending estimates of the minister's department. I thought to myself -- and I don't mean this to provoke members from the urban communities, whether they're from Toronto or Ottawa. It's not lost on me where my friend the critic on transportation for my party resides and, quite frankly, what he did in a previous life. But it's interesting reading the minister's spending estimates, and