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

June 3, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L081 - Mon 3 Jun 1996 / Lun 3 Jun 1996

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

OPTIMIST CLUBS

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

EDUCATION FINANCING

SENIORS' MONTH

SACRED HEART SCHOOL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

ONTARIO HYDRO

NATIONAL UNITY

OBSTETRICAL CARE

RENT REGULATION

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

ONTARIO HYDRO

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

HIGHWAY 7A

RENT REGULATION

TAX REDUCTION

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

TAX REDUCTION

HEALTH FACILITY

CHILD CARE

NURSING STAFF

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

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

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COLLABORATION ENTRE CONSEILS)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer and laid upon the table a certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of York South.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers):

"Mr Claude L. DesRosiers

"Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

"Room 104, Legislative Building

"Queen's Park

"Toronto, Ontario

"M7A 1A2

"Dear Mr DesRosiers:

"A writ of election dated the 11th day of April 1996 was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Helen Gamey, returning officer for the electoral district of York South, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of York South in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Bob Rae, Esq, who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of York South has resigned his seat.

This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in York South on the 23rd day of May 1996, Gerard Kennedy has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated the 31st day of May 1996, which is now lodged of record in my office.

"Warren R. Bailie

"Chief election officer

"Toronto, June 3, 1996."

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to this House Gerard Kennedy, member-elect for the electoral district of York South, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and who now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): During the last provincial election, Mike Harris stated that if elected he would "stop imposing southern standards on the north"; this is on page 12 of the Conservatives' document entitled A Voice for the North. Obviously, Premier Harris forgot to share his commitment to northerners with his Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week, the minister announced his panel to work on the overhaul of, in his words, who does what in the delivery and funding of many government services. The panel, chaired by Toronto's former mayor David Crombie, includes 11 members, 10 of whom reside in southern Ontario and one from the Premier's riding.

If Premier Harris's Minister of Municipal Affairs and, more importantly, northern Ontario's equivalent to Casper the ghost, the Minister of Northern Development, think this is the way to consult with northerners, they're very much mistaken. Northern municipal leaders want to know why they are not being represented on this panel and why the Minister of Northern Development did not insist on a representative from both the northwest and the northeast.

The complex and unique challenges we face in northern Ontario cannot be solved by a southern Ontario panel and a one-size-fits-all government. I'm astounded that the Premier and his Minister of Northern Development would allow any provincial panel to review such an important issue to the north without northern representation.

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Last month in Vancouver and Saint John, women began a march across Canada, a march with a message for our federal and provincial governments. We demand an end to government policies that offload economic problems on to the backs of the most vulnerable women and children in our society.

This Saturday, June 8, at 11 o'clock, the eastern and western caravans marshal in Toronto at Old City Hall and then on to rally at Queen's Park to take our message to the Harris government. I urge as many women and men as possible to attend the rally.

Here in Ontario we've been hit with a double whammy. Not only must we absorb our share of the federal Liberal government's decimation of our social services, such as unemployment insurance or refusal to create a national child care program as promised, but we've had to deal with a stunning array of Harris government policies that disproportionately target women and children, from a whopping cut to social assistance to gutting violence prevention programs and employment equity and pay equity.

The Harris government continues to target women and children to bear the brunt of its cuts so it can give a tax cut to its friends. "For Bread and Roses, For Jobs and Justice" is the theme of this cross-country trek, and never before has there been a more apt time to be demanding all of these.

OPTIMIST CLUBS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise today to recognize the Optimist clubs of Ontario and acknowledge their designation of June 1-8 as Optimist Week in Ontario. The Optimist clubs of Ontario have been serving Ontario communities since 1924 with the founding of the first Canadian club here in Toronto. Optimism has grown rapidly since then, and there are now 350 clubs forming four districts with approximately 14,000 members in Ontario alone.

Optimist clubs consist of civic-minded men and women who have come together to provide service to youth and to their communities. They recognize that they must contribute something to the life of the community from which they and their families enjoy daily benefits. The principles espoused by the Optimist clubs can be a positive lesson for all Ontarians.

I would like to ask all members to congratulate the good men and women of the Optimist clubs of Ontario for the important service they provide and to join with me in recognizing the following individuals seated in the west gallery: Helmut Reinhardt, governor, midwestern district; Angeline Wilson, governor, southwestern district; Raymond McKenna, governor, central district; and Yves Berthiaume, regional international vice-president. Please join with me in applauding the efforts of these people.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Yesterday Italy celebrated its 50th anniversary of the Italian republic. Fifty years ago, the democratic state of Italy was born. "La festa della republica," as it is called, marks an extremely important recurrence, as it holds half a century of Italian history, marking the beginning of a new freedom built on a past that had its soil devastated by wars.

Thus Italy and Italians everywhere, in every part of the world, celebrated yesterday with pride the accomplishments of the last 50 years.

The Italian community in Ontario also joined in the celebrations. They celebrated the freedom, the opportunities and the tolerance they have found in their new home.

Italians accepted and enriched those values and built upon that freedom and opportunity. They continue to make their contribution with their hard work, skills and trades, as well as through culture and artistic initiatives.

Equally, Italians are proud of this, our new home, for they and their families have embraced this land and all it holds.

On behalf of the leader of the Liberal Party, our caucus and indeed every member of this House, I would like to extend congratulations to Italy and the Italian community.

Remarks in Italian.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The Minister of Education and Training goes from community to community in this province and says that $400 million can be taken out of the education budget without affecting the classroom. I want to read part of a letter that's been written to the Minister of Education and Training from hundreds of parents in my constituency.

"We are concerned that the most recently proposed cuts will definitely impact on the classroom. The Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education is proposing the dissolution of our behaviour improvement class, removal of all our speech program assistants, twinning and clustering of principals, cutting seven classroom teachers (6% reduction), 10% cut in the elementary budget across the board, elimination of all lunch-hour supervisors, thereby lengthening the school day, as well as busing and supply teacher reductions....

"This board has already surpassed the administration/school costs 40/60 ratio with a ratio of 37% administration to 63% school costs.

"The current grant reductions have augmented adversity... More cuts will directly impact the classroom.

"More education cuts are being anticipated for next year also. We are going from severe crisis to chaos. The cuts to education need to stop."

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have the pleasant duty of officially declaring June Seniors' Month in Ontario. The essence of Seniors' Month is to celebrate the contributions our seniors make to enrich our society with their knowledge, their experience, their wisdom and their understanding. Special activities and events geared to seniors will recognize Seniors' Month across the province.

Seniors' Month coincides with the June 1 transfer of the responsibility for seniors' issues from the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation to the Ministry of Health.

Our government is committed to the seniors of the province, and some of these commitments include the reinvestment of $170 million to expand services to seniors and people with disabilities in their homes -- 80,000 people across Ontario will benefit from these increased services; the expansion of the program to detect breast cancer for women aged 50 to 69; and restoring out-of-country OHIP coverage.

The list continues. As a matter of the fact, the Ministry of Health spent 44.1% of its total budget on services for seniors in 1994-95. People 65 years of age and older number 1.3 million and represent 12% of Ontario's population.

The minister and I plan to meet with representatives of seniors' groups over the coming weeks. We look forward to working with them to ensure that their concerns and solutions continue to be heard.

SACRED HEART SCHOOL

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm happy today to speak about the town of LaSalle, a significant town in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich. LaSalle is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in North America, with housing starts up 62%.

The problem is, its success in attracting new families has also forced hundreds of students at Sacred Heart School and other schools into portables. There are currently 11 portables at Sacred Heart in LaSalle. The portables have leaky roofs, no screens and no running water. Temperatures reach 100 degrees on some days and students are sometimes forced to wear their coats in winter. Parent groups have had to resort to purchasing fans for the classroom because teachers cannot open the windows. Imagine 250 students inside the school and 210 students outside in portables.

Today I'd like to ask the minister for special recognition of schools that are suffering from overcrowding and that there be some kind of concession or leeway given to schools like Sacred Heart in the town of LaSalle.

WOMEN'S MARCH AGAINST POVERTY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Last week Sault Ste Marie played host to the Canadian national gymnastics championships. This week we are hosting the march of women across Canada in the name of justice, an interesting juxtaposition.

It's an interesting statement that in 1996 we still have people, women in this instance, who pick up and leave their homes and their children to cross Canada and make a statement to this government and to the government of our country about poverty.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I'm pleased to report that today marks the beginning of Occupational Health and Safety Week in Canada. This is a project that Ontario proudly supports.

Over the course of the week, the importance of workplace health and safety will be highlighted at various events and seminars across the country.

Workplace health and safety is a top priority of this government. We're emphasizing accident prevention and education to promote safe, healthy workplaces and communities. We have recently announced training standards for certified members of workplace health and safety committees that are more flexible and responsive to the needs of the workplace.

Last winter $415,000 was invested in a new young worker awareness program for high school students.

We're also providing technical support to unique private sector partnerships. A month ago the Safe Communities Foundation was launched in Brockville with the goal of reducing injuries and illness by 50% over two years.

We are maintaining the current number of health and safety inspectors, which clearly demonstrates the commitment of this government in tough fiscal times.

A safe and healthy work environment is not a privilege in Ontario, it's a right, and violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act will continue to be prosecuted.

As Occupation Health and Safety Week reminds us, we all have roles to play in promoting good health and safety practices. Together we can make this week's ultimate goal of accident-free workplaces a reality.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We have a guest in the east gallery today, the former member for Eglinton, Dianne Poole. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): The people of Ontario want effective and responsible environmental protection. They also want assurance that positive economic ventures and hard-earned tax dollars are not tied up by costly and inefficient government regulations and programs. This is the underlying principle for everything we do at the Ministry of Environment and Energy, including the comprehensive review of our regulations and approval processes and the business plan announced last week.

Today I would like to inform the honourable members of a series of proposed amendments to Ontario's environmental legislation. These improvements will help us meet our commitment to providing maximum environmental return for the tax dollar. The amendments cover four areas:

(1) The approvals process with regard to certificates of approval. We propose straightforward procedures for activities that have predictable and controllable effects on the environment. The current system requires a specific set of rules and a certificate of approval for each and every project. This is not only unnecessary but costly and time-consuming for everyone involved.

We would establish effective, predictable regulations containing specific rules for certain classes of activities. As a result, an activity carried out under the regulations would not need an individual certificate of approval. The types of activities and the standards to be imposed will be decided through full consultation. For all other activities, the existing approvals process will remain.

This improved approvals process will ensure top-quality protection for the environment at a lower cost to Ontario taxpayers. It will also provide clarity and certainty for industry, municipalities and the small business owner.

(2) The Environmental Compensation Corp. This corporation has averaged compensation payouts of about $69,000 per year over its 10-year life and has cost the people of Ontario almost $3 million to run. This is not a responsible use of taxpayers' dollars. We intend to wind down the business of the corporation.

Environmental safeguards are in place; they remain in place. The owners and controllers of spilled material continue to be responsible for cleanup and compensation. That law is clear and unchanged.

(3) Repealing the Ontario Waste Management Corporation Act. This ends the final

chapter of a 15-year, $145-million waste of taxpayers' money in a failed, futile attempt to site a hazardous waste facility.

(4) The recovery of administrative costs. We propose an amendment giving the Ministry of Environment and Energy authority to recover administrative costs for specific services.

The amendments I have just outlined will improve the Ministry of Environment and Energy's ability to meet its responsibility, encourage economic growth and renewal, and deliver better environmental protection at less cost to the people of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I must say that what I've observed this afternoon is one more step in the minister presiding over the complete demise of the Ministry of Environment of Ontario. You are now having, from under your feet, the resources taken away to do the job the Minister of Environment is supposed to do in this province. You are weakening the regulations. Any legislation you bring in will not be designed to protect the environment but to protect the interests of major developers and the corporate sector in this province.

What you have done is have the government of Ontario take away all the tools you could possibly have to carry out your responsibilities. The best thing you could have done this afternoon was walk into the Premier's office and tell him you would refuse to make this statement.

One example from the statement is the relinquishing of the necessity for a certificate of approval. To contemplate that this government could possibly have these various initiatives undertaken without a specific certificate of approval is almost unbelievable. A certificate of approval allows for public scrutiny and sets specific standards for specific projects. It is absolutely essential to being able to carry out the responsibilities of your ministry.

Your ministry seems to be turning over its regulations to people who are not committed to protecting the environment in this province but simply to shoving aside anybody who has any environmental conscience in this province.

What we could hear right now is the applause in the boardrooms of the major polluters in Ontario, who will be quite delighted with exactly what you're doing.

At one time this ministry had a lot of resources to be able to carry out its responsibilities; it had good equipment to be able to do so; it had adequate staff to be able to do so; and most of all, within the cabinet and within the province, it had the clout to carry out its responsibilities.

I express sympathy for the minister in terms of the fact that the government is taking all those away from you and leaving you with a shell of a ministry. Then what they will do, I tell the minister, is just cast you aside and start anew with someone else, and you will have done the dirty work for the others in the government who did not want the Ministry of Environment to play a significant role in the government of this province.

We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars cut from the budget of the Ministry of Environment, a budget which when you compare it to other ministries has never been a large budget. We will see taking place much less enforcement of the rules and regulations we have in this province.

That will be to the detriment of the people of this province, those who are concerned about the environment. But I say to the minister in the House, the other people who will lament this are the good corporate citizens who have spent the necessary funds, who have trained the staff, who have purchased the appropriate equipment, and who have an environmental conscience. Those people count upon government to fairly and strongly enforce the laws within the province, and they're the people who will lament this as well as the people who are concerned about the environment, which I contend is the vast majority of people in this province and people of all political affiliations.

You have reduced environmental research in this province. You have eliminated various structures which ensure that the environment is protected. Your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing presided over changes to the Planning Act which again developers in this province will applaud but which, I assure you, in the long run will not result in good planning decisions made.

I suspect the next thing that will happen is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission will disappear somehow, with its role and responsibility given over to individual municipalities, which of course have a vested interest in the development as opposed to preservation. You've already diminished the role of the Niagara Escarpment Commission by taking away the staff they have had to carry out the responsibilities. You have broken faith as a government with the member for Carleton, my friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who worked so hard to develop the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the very important role it played.

What you are doing today is that you announce very little, but what's not in this announcement is as important as what is contained in it. You are totally weakening any efforts that have been made in this province over the years to protect the environment on behalf of the present generation and generations to come.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): We are disappointed that the minister didn't make an announcement on new action to protect our air and our health. With yesterday's high pollution levels, we expected the minister to announce that she may be bringing in a mandatory vehicle emission testing program.

Instead we learn that the minister is bringing forward new legislation to deregulate environmental protection. This is another example of this government doing less. For instance, you have repealed the OWMC Act, but where are your plans to deal with hazardous waste? You have none.

This legislation, titled the Environmental Approvals Improvement Act, is a farce. It is about more deregulation. It is about shutting the public out of decision-making.

The amendments being brought forward and the permit-by-rule concept simply do not take into account the local impact of the new approvals that will be given. Instead of bringing in a smog action plan during Clean Air Month, the minister introduces legislation that could very well lead to more air pollution and more smog. Under the permit-by-rule system being proposed, as long as you meet the guidelines in the rule cookbook, you can pollute. No consideration is given to local impact, and because of this system the local environment could get much worse.

Also, public participation in environmental decision-making, guaranteed under the Environmental Bill of Rights, will be diminished. People will have less of an opportunity to comment on new proposals that could contaminate local air quality. Instead of bringing in legislation to include people in environmental decision-making, this legislation will help to exclude them.

This is not an improvement to the approvals system; this is just the beginning of getting out of the business of approvals. This legislation is being brought forward to deal with the massive cuts that are being made to the Ministry of Environment and Energy. One third of the workforce is being laid off.

This legislation doesn't address the real issues about reforming the process. I agree that reforms to the approval process are needed, but this legislation doesn't even achieve them. For instance, a new company with a new technology is still required to get a site-specific permit, but it is also required to prove its technology time and time again. If you want to improve the approvals system, why not use a technology approval so that new technologies don't have to spend the money every time they seek to set up an operation? We agree on the need for site-specific permits, but why does a company need to prove its technology time and time again?

If this had been real approval reform, the legislation would have dealt with this issue. Instead, this is simply a communications effort, trying to hide the fact that this government is deregulating environmental protection and is simply doing less.

Your government has systematically dismantled environmental protection in Ontario over the last year.

You have, for example: refused the local option to protect local air quality; withdrawn Ontario's ban on the construction of new garbage incinerators; killed the successful green communities program; terminated funding for the popular blue box program; slashed funding to the Niagara Escarpment Commission; eliminated funding for municipal household hazardous waste programs; killed the CURB -- clean up rural beaches -- program; weakened numerous clean water regulations under the MISA program; begun dismantling Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights; dismantled Ontario's environmental safeguards under the Planning Act; killed the Ontario Waste Management Corp and the province's hazardous waste reduction strategy; eliminated grants for environmental research -- the list goes on and on.

I'm only halfway through.

Minister, you and your government are a hazard to the people's health in Ontario. It is time for you to stand up for environmental protection instead of dismantling the environmental safeguards that have been put in place for decades in the province of Ontario. We know that no one else in your government will stand up to protect the environment and human health, but the least we can do is expect that from the Minister of the Environment.

I say to the Premier who is sitting here today that replacing the present minister with another person who can do your dismantling for you and communicate it better will not work. The people of Ontario are on to you, and this is yet again another example of the dismantling of environmental protection in Ontario.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. I have here a copy of the Ministry of Transportation's record of driving and safety violations that have been piled up by Jarsno Equipment Inc from May 30, 1991, until August 31, 1995. The record shows that Jarsno recorded more than 161 convictions or accidents throughout Ontario during that time period.

As you will well know, during the period of time that Jarsno was piling up this appalling record of driving and safety violations, that company was owned and operated by none other than your now Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen. Premier, I ask why you could appoint someone to your cabinet whom you knew was running a company that routinely broke the laws of this province.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): When I appointed Mr Snobelen to head up the Ministry of Education, I appointed one of the most capable, brightest people, concerned about young people in this province, concerned about education in this province, quite understanding of the kind of change that needed to be brought from the disaster of the last 10 years. Quite frankly, I did not go back over and read any records of something totally unrelated to that role or of something that, if you're imputing a motive in there, may or may not be true. Given your record, it probably isn't.

Mrs McLeod: I have a transcript of the record, the records of the Ministry of Transportation. This is the disgraceful record of the safety violations that were piled up by Jarsno during the time period I have just described. These records are readily available, Premier. They would surely be part of any routine check you were doing, particularly as you were appointing somebody to your cabinet who had been running a trucking company.

Premier, it's absolutely clear from this record -- and this is just five years; we could not get records from before that period -- that the Minister of Education ran this company with what can only be described as an absolutely cavalier disregard for the laws of this province. The violations that are listed here include speeding and safety violations that endanger motorists, and excess weight offences that are creating equally dangerous potholes on our highways.

Premier, this really is all about the standards you set when you appoint people to your cabinet. So I ask you again, how could you appoint someone to your cabinet who was running a company with such a shocking safety record?

Hon Mr Harris: I have explained to you why I appointed the honourable member to the cabinet, and would stand by that and believe that was a most appropriate decision. I can't comment on any record. It's an arm's-length process from the government of the day, so I have no way of knowing whether that's the best record in the whole province of any trucking company, the worst record, an in-between record. I have no way of knowing whether Mr Snobelen was involved in any of those. Quite frankly, it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Mrs McLeod: I find that quite amazing, that the standards of conduct by someone whom you are about to appoint to your cabinet are irrelevant. The charges are certainly done at arm's length, Premier, but as I indicated, this is a public record; this is information that is readily available and would have been readily available to you on a quick check. Since you appear not to be aware, I will send this particular copy of the record if the page will take it over, because I want you to see the kinds of convictions that have been registered against Jarsno Equipment.

According to just this abstract, Jarsno was involved in some 28 accidents, had trucks detained on 26 occasions for equipment problems, and was convicted of 107 other violations. Just about every month for the past couple of years, Jarsno has been convicted of operating overweight vehicles, a practice that makes these trucks, as you know, a lot more dangerous to other motorists as well as causing damage to the highways.

There are violations there for speeding; there are violations for using defective and improper tires; there are violations that occurred throughout the province, from Windsor to London to Halton region, Newmarket, Kitchener, Woodstock, Hamilton, Oshawa, St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Brampton, Metropolitan Toronto. You know that last week your Minister of Transportation -- he will remember -- announced that he was cracking down against truckers who committed these types of violations.

But I think, having appointed someone to your cabinet who had such a shocking record of violations, you are operating by the motto of, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Premier, I ask if you do not see a double standard here, and ironically that the standard you set for the public is higher than the standard you set for a member of your cabinet.

Hon Mr Harris: No, I don't see a double standard. What I see is an opposition party so bereft of any ideas -- I am assuming that everything that I have appointed the minister for and he is responsible for, he is doing a 100% job and there is no criticism of that or of me or of the government or of any other minister, and you're quite happy with everything else -- that now you feel compelled to delve into somebody's background under a former government that has absolutely nothing to do with his portfolio. It has absolutely nothing that I can see to do with any policies the government is taking.

So that's what I see: an opposition party leaderless, desperately in need of moving up the leadership convention.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mrs McLeod: What I see is a Premier so unconcerned about standards of conduct for ministers he appoints to his cabinet that he doesn't even do the most basic check on their records of conduct in their private lives.

The Speaker: Who is your question to?

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will pose a second question to the Minister of Environment and Energy because I am anxious to raise again an issue which we have raised in the past and on which we have received only evasive answers from this minister, and now this weekend we have a report that Ontario Hydro is justifying the suppression of a safety review of Ontario's nuclear plants on the basis that the release of this report could somehow affect negotiations with private investors.

This is a statement of the freedom of information and privacy commissioner: Ontario Hydro has described to him "current negotiations with potential private sector partners regarding one of its nuclear plants, and submits that unduly critical public releases could reasonably be expected to raise concerns with these potential partners" -- hardly a reason to suppress information about the safety record of nuclear plants from the public, Minister, but it does make it pretty clear that you are planning to privatize at least part of Ontario's nuclear energy system.

Minister, I call on you today once again to provide this House with details of what you're planning to sell off. Are you planning to sell Bruce? Are you planning to sell Pickering? Are you going to sell Darlington? All of them or none of them?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): There are no plans at this point to sell any part of Ontario Hydro.

Mrs McLeod: Ontario Hydro has said to the privacy commissioner, in justifying the withholding of the peer review on the safety of nuclear plants, that it is in negotiation with potential private sector partners. It is Hydro's submission -- not rumour, not speculation, Minister; it is Hydro's submission -- that it is involved in "ongoing international negotiations" for a "multimillion-dollar contract," and they don't want to release the report because they don't want those negotiations to be put at risk. Those are Hydro's claims. Those are their statements, Minister. Clearly, whether you know it or not, they have started the business of selling off Ontario Hydro's assets.

I think perhaps you need to remind them that you have an independent commission that is supposed to be doing an independent report on the future of Hydro. I think you need to tell them that it just might be appropriate to wait for the recommendations of that commission before they start their negotiations.

You are Minister of Energy. Were you aware that Hydro had already marched ahead and started its negotiations for privatization before the Macdonald report was ever tabled? Do you approve of Hydro's entering into these negotiations at this time, and can you tell us what the point is of having an independent commission to make recommendations to you when Hydro is already engaged in negotiating the selloff of its assets?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Again I say that any decisions made about the future of Ontario Hydro or any changes to that organization at all will be made by this government as we see fit.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I wonder when the minister -- I'm trying to find words that you will consider parliamentary -- is going to be forthcoming with the people of this province about what they fully intend to do with Ontario Hydro and the privatization of Ontario Hydro. Minister, you can't pretend, surely, that you're being kept totally ignorant even of the reports that we are now reading in the press of what the privacy commissioner has been told by Ontario Hydro. We want to know -- the public has a right to know -- what your intentions are.

As the chairman of Hydro says, he is talking about privatization and intends to proceed with privatization as Hydro enters into negotiations with international potential partners for multimillion-dollar deals. Minister, we need to know whether or not Ontario Hydro has already decided what parts of Ontario Hydro it is going to sell off and we need to know if the Macdonald commission, that independent commission that has been appointed, makes a recommendation that goes against what Ontario Hydro is planning to do, whether you are going to accept those recommendations.

You know that any decision to sell off parts of Hydro has enormous and long-lasting impact on the future of this province. You simply can't stand back and let Ontario Hydro forge ahead and do whatever it wants to do. Will you at least assure us today that you will order Ontario Hydro to cease any negotiations it is having until such time as your independent commission report is public and your government's response to it is made public?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Once our government came into power we determined that there was a concern about the rise of Ontario hydro rates. One of the first things we did was to put a zero-average rate freeze to encourage stability for rates in this province. The Macdonald commission is seeking advice and concerns from people across this province about what next steps to take. Once that advice is delivered to the government and we decide to go forward, we will thoughtfully and carefully consider what is best for the people of Ontario.

We will consider the rates, we will consider the affordability, we will consider the reliability and we will consider the safety of the electrical interests of the people of this province.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is to the Premier. I am disappointed that the Premier, the first day the House sits after his return from Quebec City, where he encouraged the Premier of Quebec to attend the first ministers' conference at the end of this month, didn't find it useful to make a statement to the House on the discussions he had with the Premier and the government of Quebec.

Considering that the Premier of Quebec and the government of Quebec's main aim is to break up this country, could the Premier of the largest province in the country please make clear what he said to the Premier, what was discussed with the Premier of Quebec and what he expects will be the nature of the discussions in Ottawa with the other first ministers, as a result of his discussions with Monsieur Bouchard?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Some of the discussions involved things around: "How are your kids? How's your family? How have you enjoying being Premier for such a short period of time?" In other words, it was kind of getting to know each other and getting to know a little bit about one another. I would say that was actually perhaps the most significant part of the meeting, the first introductory meeting -- very important, I believe, for the premiers of the two largest provinces to get to know one another.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Then you were wasting taxpayers' dollars, Premier. You should have discussed something substantial. It's an important issue.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Essex South.

Hon Mr Harris: I see the Liberals think that's wasting taxpayers' dollars, to get to know fellow premiers and what not. I happen to believe that has been a very effective role played by David Peterson, by Bob Rae and, previous to that, by Bill Davis and by John Robarts, and I think that is an important role. I understand the Liberals don't agree with that, but I'm sure the leader of the New Democratic Party would agree with me.

The second part of the agenda dealt with those areas we felt were of mutual interest to unemployed Quebec workers and unemployed Ontario workers: jobs, policies we could take and what we could do together to improve that. We had very good discussions, I might add, in this area on freer trade between the provinces, removing some of the barriers that exist already in the existing agreement that was signed by your party, particularly with the leadership of former Premier Rae and the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, currently vying for higher office within the party, the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

We agreed that it was going to require initiative at the level of the Office of the Premier in Quebec and here to ensure that that agreement that was signed is enforceable and works better and --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr Wildman: While I appreciate that it is important for the premiers of the two largest provinces in Canada to begin a dialogue and get to know each other and to learn about each other's concerns and the concerns of their respective provinces, I am concerned that the Premier was quoted in the press, I believe coming out of the scrum he and his colleague from Quebec had at the National Assembly, stating in answer to a question about Ontario's view of the possibility of a unilateral declaration of sovereignty by Quebec something to the effect that the Premier of Ontario hasn't discussed that and hadn't thought about it.

Is it the case that as Premier of the largest province in this country, you haven't thought about either the efficacy, the legality, the constitutionality or the possibilities and effects that such an action, if contemplated by Quebec, might have for the country?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly we've thought about it and thought about the effects, but we have not spent an inordinate amount of time looking at the legality. The meeting I was responding to questions about was between Mr Bouchard and myself. It all flowed out of, "Did you talk about national unity, about separation, about the Constitution?" I said, "No, we did not," and Mr Bouchard said, "No, we did not." Mr Bouchard did not wish to discuss those items and I couldn't see discussing them all by myself.

Mr Wildman: Does that mean that the Premier raised these issues with the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Quebec indicated he didn't wish to discuss them? If the Premier of Ontario did indeed raise these with the Premier of Quebec, what was the intention, what is the view of this government with regard to the federal government's position vis-à-vis that possibility and the Quebec government's apparent view that it is within the realm of possibility?

Hon Mr Harris: It was very clear from discussions with officials before I went to Quebec City that Mr Bouchard did not wish to discuss the Constitution so I clearly did not go there to discuss it. We had agreed that we would discuss those areas that we felt were of benefit to Ontario and Quebec -- workers, jobs, those who are unemployed, those who were on welfare -- and if there were mutual areas we could discuss and agree upon, we both agreed, officials to officials and then ultimately I with Mr Bouchard, that this would be a productive meeting.

We, in the scrum afterwards, agreed quite publicly to say we fundamentally disagree on separation of Quebec. I am a federalist. At one point Mr Bouchard said, "I don't hold it against Mr Harris that he is a federalist and I am not." That does not preclude the fact that he is Premier of the province of Quebec, will be for a considerable period of time and there are areas that are beneficial to Ontarians that we can discuss and work on, so we did so.

With regard to the federal position, it depends on which day I hear them talking about it.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Minister of Health. This weekend Sudbury joined the growing list of communities that will no longer have obstetricians providing care to new patients. All of the eight obstetricians who provide care announced this weekend that they will no longer be taking any new patients as of June 1. On average in my community there are 180 deliveries per month, so the consequences of that action are very dramatic.

My constituency office has received a number of calls from women who are terrified that they will not be able to receive the care they need when they need it. This is a crisis in the province. What action are you taking now to guarantee that women will have access to care when they need it?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for the question and indicate, as I did last week in this House, that the government has made an offer to the obstetricians. We made that offer last week. It was a very generous offer responding to their concerns, particularly on the malpractice insurance side, on which we're waiting for Justice Dubin to make his report for a final resolution of that matter, a matter that's long overdue in this province and should have been tackled by previous governments, including the government of which the honourable member was a member.

Also, at noon today we had a meeting with the OMA. We're trying very hard to try and come up with some solutions to this problem.

Ms Martel: I'm glad there have been some negotiations and I'm pleased there's the review, but you should have looked at this issue and the impact it was going to have before you announced the review and took the action you did. The fact of the matter is that in my community, at the end of last week, family physicians who are providing care to pregnant women got a letter from all of the obstetricians and all of the family physicians who are providing obstetrical services or who are delivering babies.

The letter said clearly that there would be no new patients taken on as of June 1 and suggested that people would have to refer pregnant women somewhere else. The letter went on to say that women perhaps could be referred to Timmins, Toronto or the United States for obstetrical care when they need it.

This is an unacceptable situation. It's unacceptable for women who need care in our community and it's unacceptable for family physicians who are trying to respond to a flood of calls now from their women patients who are terribly concerned about what's going to happen to them after their seventh month of pregnancy. Minister, what concrete action are you taking that you can tell to this House today about what we're going to do to resolve this situation?

Hon Mr Wilson: I can assure the women and children of this province that the ministry takes the responsibility to deliver health care services very seriously and contingency plans are being developed should services be withdrawn. But members should know that we are trying to live within the $3.805-billion budget set by the previous government for physician services. There are 35 specialty groups in the province and the game plan appears to be that each one of them, one at a time now, will start to threaten to withdraw services to try and blackmail the government into more money.

We don't have the $500 million more that the highest-paid profession in Canada and Ontario wants, so we're working with the Ontario Medical Association to fix problems that neither of these parties did anything about in the last 10 years, a completely broken system with respect to physician payments. They allowed the number of physicians to exceed the growth in population. You didn't bank on the money. You started this crazy clawback system which nobody likes. We're working with physicians to try and find --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I'm having a hard time hearing, but I think it's time for the final supplementary.

Ms Martel: Minister, when you were over here you had all the answers to all of the health care problems. You're in the government now, and women in my community have been told that obstetrical care will be withdrawn as of June 1. That's what they're facing in my community; that's what they're facing in Windsor and other communities right around this province. It's not acceptable to be told that females who are pregnant can go and access care in Timmins, in Toronto or in the United States.

I want to know from you today, what are you doing as the Minister of Health, who had all the answers when you were over here, to deal with this very serious and very difficult problem?

Hon Mr Wilson: So that we don't have complete panic as a result of the honourable member's --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): You created the problem.

Hon Mr Wilson: I didn't create the problem. That is a complete falsehood on behalf of your government. The issues that we're talking about --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, go ahead.

Hon Mr Wilson: Sorry, Mr Speaker. The issues we're talking about were issues that have been on the table for a number of years in many cases. I can tell the women of Sudbury and Windsor and so on that it is against the law to not provide services, and therefore services will be provided in this province. The physicians themselves know that. Our emergency rooms are open, our ambulances are on alert; 80 more midwives are graduating this year who will be available and general practitioners are still delivering babies. I remind you that we offered that particular group of obstetricians more money last week, including paying their entire insurance premiums, and they declined that offer.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Premier. The Premier earlier this week asked me to take it easy on him and I'm very happy to do that today.

My question is simply about the statements that have been made with regard to rent control, and as a new member I have been given some notes: "Rent control has to go," Mike Harris on October 19, and "Rent control will continue." Which of these statements does the Premier acknowledge? In the Mike Harris plan announced, it promised to lower rents. When will this plan take place and how will the Premier be lowering rents for tenants across Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What we have consistently said is that the failed rent control policy, particularly of the Liberal Party in Ontario and, to a lesser extent but still failed, that under the New Democratic Party, has to go.

By the same token, we have indicated that the existing policy is the NDP policy, and given that it is better than the failed Liberal policy, which was a huge disaster, we would definitely not go back to that, but we would leave it in place until we can seek better rent control, something that is better for tenants, providing better apartments, better price, better options, better maintenance. The minister, you see, has been working and consulting very carefully as to how we can do that.

The commitment is to bring in something better for tenants, scrap the failed policies of the last 10 years, and we are committed to do this.

Mr Kennedy: The promise made by the Premier in the election campaign of York South was to lower rent. It is this government that has cut welfare by 20% and affected 35% of renters. It is this government that has made it so much more insecure for people holding jobs that they're fearful from this government's actions on what's going to happen to their rent. It is incumbent upon the Premier to tell people today: When will their rents be lowered, when will the Mike Harris tenant protection plan come into play, and when will the fear brought on by this government be reduced?

Hon Mr Harris: I would suggest to you that tenants have absolutely nothing to fear from this government, this Premier or this minister. If there are fears out there -- and they are fears -- those fears have been brought out, quite irresponsibly I might add, by members mostly of your party. I would suggest to you that tomorrow morning you will have your first opportunity in that caucus to comment on how irresponsible your party has been in raising these fears.

I want to assure you that you might want to ask tomorrow, for example, why did your party vote against the NDP plan if now you think this NDP plan is so good that you think we shouldn't change it? This would be a very good question for the member to ask.

I wish to conclude with a little bit of advice, but mostly I want to conclude, quite humbly, by congratulating the honourable member on his successful election, I want to congratulate the member on his first day in the Legislature, and I want to wish him success and to try to bring some coherence and some common sense to that caucus that hitherto has lacked it.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Your own ministry states that when the air quality index goes above 32, air quality is unsatisfactory. Yesterday, the air quality index for Toronto was 36. It was 42 in Etobicoke, 39 in Scarborough, 39 in Oakville and 37 in the city of York. Today, Pollution Probe released a new study attributing 380 deaths a year to polluted air in the Metro area.

June is clean air month. The people of Ontario expect you and your government to take action to protect our air. Why don't you and your government commit to a mandatory vehicle testing and emission program?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Thank you for the question opposite. We quite acknowledge that air is a difficult problem to solve in this province. The reasons for polluted air in this province are complex, but it's not just a "made in Ontario" problem, and the solutions to find that will be difficult. The solutions that we are working to right now, the member opposite will know that we have committed to continuing the emission testing program that her government started as a pilot project to determine if this is in fact the way to clean up the air in the province.

Ms Churley: I don't quite understand what the minister meant by "air is a difficult problem to solve." I could say something about air, but I'll pass for the moment. There are airheads and hot air, and I could go on.

Tomorrow, Metro council will be hosting a clean air summit. Metro Councillor Joan King has pointed out that emission testing could be conducted by the private sector without costing the province a dime. Thirty-eight US states have mandatory vehicle emission testing. Vancouver has operated a mandatory testing program for four years. We hear that Quebec is now looking. I don't know if the Premier discussed that with the Premier of Quebec, but they're thinking of introducing a mandatory program for Montreal.

Yet despite all the health warnings we have no announcement from you, Minister, to establish a mandatory testing program to protect our air and health. Instead, we keep on getting platitudes about working with stakeholders and other environment ministers and the federal government. You cannot fall back on the activities of the CCME. These are federal initiatives.

The people of Ontario want you to act to protect their health, Minister. For the sake of those who die and become very ill every year from bad air, will you commit, and I ask you again, today to a mandatory vehicle emission testing program for the Windsor to Ottawa corridor?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Just as a point of interest, it might be useful for my colleague across the way to note that at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meeting on Friday, for the first time in many years Quebec was at the table. The Minister of Environment for Quebec in fact signed on to a very important harmonization initiative that we've been working towards for a very long time, and this is good news for environmental regulation across the country.

I say to my colleague across the way, if solving the air problems of the province is such an easy task, why in the five years the former government had the government did it not solve the problem?

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is for the Attorney General. Two weeks ago in my riding, a 15-year-old youth was repeatedly stabbed in the throat in front of some of his friends in broad daylight. He staggered up the street while his assailant followed him taunting his dying body. The youth's blood drenched the sidewalk. He died. The alleged assailant, a 17-year-old, finished taunting the now lifeless body and calmly walked away to catch a bus.

A year ago, Louie Ambas was brutally murdered, allegedly by a 17-year-old youth. Louie died of 54 stab wounds. Louie's brother, Tom Ambas, is with us today in the members' gallery. Tom Ambas's kid brother campaign gathered at least 500,000 signatures on a petition to change the Young Offenders Act. What do I tell my constituents, Minister, and what can I tell Mr Ambas, who are clamouring for changes to the Young Offenders Act to make it more of a deterrent?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Scarborough West for the question. The Young Offenders Act is currently ill-suited to act as a deterrent and thus keep communities safe. Our province has the highest percentage of Canada's youth court cases. In 1993-94, federal statistics show we had 47% of the country's total for violent youth offences. That's 11,000 out of 23,374 cases.

This morning, the Solicitor General and I addressed the federal committee reviewing the Young Offenders Act. Our objective was to point out to them that we needed a system that was going to have built into it deterrents to keep communities safe, and our first recommendation was that young offenders be redefined as people 15 years or under.

Until the passing of the Young Offenders Act in 1984, the maximum age for young offenders in Ontario was 15 years old, and since that change in the Young Offenders Act, raising the age, there has been a significant, almost a tremendous increase in offences by 16-year-old and 17-year-old youths quite simply because the Young Offenders Act no longer contains any element of deterrence.

We are urging the federal government to make that change as one of the most significant changes it could implement to keep communities safe and to respond to the needs of victims in the province of Ontario.

Mr Jim Brown: People are also clamouring for increased accountability for those youths who commit crimes. Minister, what else can be done to ensure that those who, despite increased deterrence, choose to commit crimes are held more accountable for their actions?

Hon Mr Harnick: The public demands accountability from young offenders for their actions and also from the parents of young offenders. We need to make changes so that legal aid is not given to young offenders whose parents can afford to retain a lawyer privately. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, $16 million was spent on legal aid to young offenders, and it's the best estimate of the Ontario legal aid plan that parents could have contributed about $3 million to $5 million, according to the director of the plan. The fact that parents can avoid paying for lawyers on behalf of their children when they can afford it is the antithesis of accountability.

We're also looking at what they're doing in the province of Manitoba, where they look at civil liability for parents whose children cause damage and at ways of compensation by being able to access and sue the parents who should be responsible for the deeds of their children. We're taking a look at the Manitoba legislation and we're going to study it very carefully.

At the federal, provincial and territorial meeting that I attended a few weeks ago we asked the Minister of Justice whether he would legislate to include this kind of civil liability in the Young Offenders Act so that we could have a national standard, so that we could develop this piece of legislation together. Unfortunately, he was not interested.

NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. You and members of your government have been critical of government monopolies that you believe are not in the public interest. As a senior minister in the Conservative cabinet of Mike Harris, do you believe that control by Conrad Black of 58 out of 140 daily newspapers in Canada, many of them in Ontario, represents healthy competition in the newspaper field, is in the public interest and is in the interests of a healthy democracy?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I say to the member for St Catharines, this government has no intention of telling businesses how to run their affairs. If the newspaper industry is to go the way he says it has gone, we are not going to say anything about that. We don't believe in interference; we believe in free enterprise on this side of the House. That's what's made this province a great province in the past. It wasn't for 10 years, but it's going to be in the future.

Mr Bradley: I'm not surprised to see that the minister would defend the powerful oil companies in one case and now the most powerful person in the newspaper business in Canada.

I know the minister has been concerned about competition -- the Premier is prompting him now. I'll wait till the Premier tells you what your answer should be. This says, "When the dust cleared, one man, Conrad Black, controlled more daily papers than any person in the country's history, and it happened almost before we knew it, because newspaper ownership in Canada has become so concentrated, some would say saturated, and all 34 properties he bought changed hands privately in boardrooms without the bother of competitive bidding and with no possibility that the new owners will be people who actually live in the communities they serve."

Minister, you as a senior member of cabinet have a situation you are viewing where one individual in this country will have a virtual lock, unprecedented control of an important component of the information industry. As a result of his latest acquisitions of newspapers, bought behind closed doors without apparent competition, it is possible that thousands of employees will be turfed out the door, that the print media power will be concentrated in one man's hands, that community control over newspapers will be eroded and that the Canadian press will disappear.

Are you still prepared to stand in this House and defend what Conrad Black is doing and this concentration of power in the hands of one individual? What advice would you give to any who may have jurisdiction and control over this matter, as your cabinet colleagues seem happy to do on certain occasions?

Hon Mr Saunderson: May I say to the member for St Catharines that I don't agree with much of what he was reading out. I think it's a point of view that recognizes -- an attack on private enterprise, and I don't support that.

I would like to say to the member that his federal government cousins could perhaps listen to what he has to say. But I have to conclude by saying that we had 10 years of intervention --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Do you want them to do something? I think you do.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Will you listen to me? We had 10 years of intervention from first this party, then that party over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Will the minister complete his answer.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm pleased that she'll let them listen to me, because when they ask their questions, I sit here very diligently and try to listen to every word they are saying.

I would like to conclude, as I was so rudely interrupted last time, that we had 10 years of intervention from those people there and then from those people over there, and they got us nowhere in this province. We stopped being the engine of growth in this province. We are going to be the engine of growth without interference from government.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. This weekend, the national Women's March Against Poverty entered our province, and next weekend they'll be here at Queen's Park.

One of the major reasons for poverty among women and children is the non-payment of family support by non-custodial parents, so it's rather ironic that this event occurs at the same time as your ministry is trying to get its communications spin on your plans to decimate Ontario's successful family support plan. It's really ironic because, as your own marketing and communications strategy and the business plan for FSP says, Ontario has the best and most cost-effective per-case plan in the entire country, yet however you spin it, you're planning to downsize and centralize that plan that has helped thousands of women and children to collect the support payments that are owing to them.

Your own communications plan admits that the transition period will see a service reduction to clients. Your own plan admits that women's advocacy groups, that all of the stakeholders, will see your plan as a reduction. In fact, your communications strategy says very clearly that it is your plan to close all eight regional offices and two central inquiry sites and to centralize the core business, with a staff reduction of 335 people, in order to meet a constraint figure of $8 million over two years from a budget of $22 million, a budget that that particular plan more than doubly compensates the province for in non-tax revenue through assigned cases.

We heard this morning from a parent who talks about how important those regional offices are in following down these schemes. How are you going to explain to a person like Cheryl Van Weston why you're going to take away the services that have meant everything to her in trying to support her child?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I've indicated to this House before, the importance of having a family support plan that works is paramount to this government. The number one goal we have is to increase compliance. We have to make sure that parents pay their child support, and we are exploring solutions that will work in this province.

I need only take a look at some of the comments that have been made by members across the way: Mr Gilles Morin has said, "I've received many verbal complaints regarding this problem"; Mike Brown, "I wish to bring to your attention a matter of vital importance to my constituents who are single parents relying heavily on support payments"; Dwight Duncan, "I have been contacted by a constituent regarding your ministry's 1-800 number; my constituent has experienced great difficulty in accessing this line."

Quite simply, what we are trying to do is look for ways to enhance our ability to collect the moneys that are outstanding, mostly to pay the support that children need in this province. I'm asked by members of the opposition to do something, and then when you go to look at making plans to make the plan better they say, "Oh, leave the status quo; we don't want a situation where we're going to have to adjust employment and maybe change the way we do things," because everybody wants to protect their own little constituency. But it is unacceptable that $900 million remains outstanding to children.

We are looking for ways to do better and collect that money, better than either of those two parties has done in the past.

Mrs Boyd: You talk a really good line about customer service, but let's face it, the real driving force here is your government's desire to cut spending. The only way you can do that is to cut your caseload, and your plan clearly says that although everybody will file those enforcement orders, enforcement will only happen when the person complains. If a person complains, then you will enforce; only, your managers will have an opportunity to say, "No, it's not worth our while."

Let me read from the plan: "This will restrict caseload to clients who are truly in need." You also say that your trace and locate activities are going to be centralized, standardized and restricted to what is reasonable, given limited resources. In other words, all sorts of women and children out there will no longer have the same equal opportunity to have their cases pursued that they now have. You are doing less with less, not more with less. When the national women's march comes, how are you going to explain to all those women that you are destroying the most effective family support plan in this country? And you are doing it trying to pretend that you're going to do more with less.

Hon Mr Harnick: If this plan was so effective, why am I getting all the complaints from the member and her colleagues? As of now, today, 6% of calls attempted by the public get through to the family support plan. We are able to deal with 11 phone calls per half-hour. That's a great endorsement of the plan -- hundreds and hundreds of phone calls and we can deal with 11 per half-hour.

We have people who answer the phone who can't deal with the problems, who have to say, "I'll get back to you." We're going to end that and we're going to create a system where people can answer the phone and actually deal with the problem at the same time. We have letters coming in to the ministry, to the family support plan. It takes 30 days to turn those around, rather than to have someone receive the call and deal with it immediately, and that's the objective that we have.

There is $900 million in arrears, and if that's a ringing endorsement of the plan this member says is the best plan going, then I'm not satisfied and we're going to do better.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Over the last 10 years we've seen a serious neglect of the road system in this province. It's staggering the extent to which our vast network of roads was allowed to deteriorate over the last 10 years. I had occasion, particularly in 1993 and 1994, to travel this province extensively. Whether it's the Trans-Canada Highway in the north or Highway 401 down in southern Ontario, it's abundantly clear to anybody driving our roads that they have never been in worse shape. We once had a road system that was the envy of everyone else in North America. I am chagrined to say that is not the case today.

Recently, you announced that you will be committing more dollars to repairing our highway infrastructure, an infrastructure that's an integral part of the Ontario economy. I applaud this reinvestment, particularly the expansion of the budget for the funding of road rebuilding in northern Ontario.

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

Mr Gilchrist: However, if the ministry's focus is on rehabilitation of our existing highways, does this mean that all expansion will be stopped?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for Scarborough East, and I couldn't agree with you more: With the lack of attention paid to our provincial highways in the past decade, we find ourselves in a very deteriorating mode. The Provincial Auditor said that over 60% of our provincial highways need immediate attention to make sure they become viable once again.

I would like to say to the member that even though we have made available over $100 million more to rehabilitation programs for the provincial highways, we have not forgotten about expansion mode. Expansion mode is still part of this government's commitment to our economic growth, which depends on highway infrastructure. We are certainly not going to forget about expansion mode.

Mr Gilchrist: Inasmuch as there's a major project which directly affects our riding, the ongoing expansion of the 401 through the Rouge Valley, and recognizing the cost not just to the trucking industry but to all the travelling public to ensure that the roads are brought up to the standard which was the hallmark of this province prior to 1985, could the minister enlighten the House as to which expansion projects will continue or proceed?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to inform the member that whatever projects we had committed to, we are going to go ahead with. To give you a for instance, we're going to go ahead with Highway 401, Milton to Cambridge; the Queen Elizabeth Way, Hamilton to St Catharines; also Highway 403, Brantford to Ancaster; Highway 416 south; and also we're going to be doing Highway 69 from Port Severn to MacTier, to name just a few projects, because this government is committed to economic development, and our highway infrastructure is very key, very vital.

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, over the past year you've stated that we have too many people in Ontario jails, and you've also said we've got too many jails; I suspect in the next couple of weeks you're going to close some of those. We also know from various reports that have been released over the past months that our jails are overcrowded and the conditions are very poor; in fact, some of those reports have said they're inhumane.

I understand you're about to close some of the jail supervision programs across this province. In fact, in Sudbury they have had confirmation that this program is going to be closed. As you know, this program gives people who have been granted bail but can't come up with the money or don't have a guarantor some supervision so they don't have to go to jail. You know dangerous offenders don't get bail so there's no threat to society, so why would you be putting these people in jail and closing this system?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I read those press reports over the weekend as well, and I guess the member is adding fuel to the fire with respect to the growth of rumours related to decisions that may or may not be taken by this government. I recall the leader of his party having a press conference some time ago announcing with great fanfare that we were going to cut the OPP by 30%, which over the course of time proved not to be the case at all.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Only because the questions were asked.

Hon Mr Runciman: No, not at all. In fact, I indicated in response to a question that all programs the two ministries are responsible for are under review. Final decisions in respect to the area you raised have not been taken. We're certainly considering the concerns. We're meeting with the groups that provide that specific service to discuss the pros and cons of the program. We will make a decision in the very near future, but no final decision has been taken.

Mr Ramsay: As you know, 25% of the people who have been on this program are either acquitted or their charges are dropped, so we know that 25% of the people in this program are innocent, and if you put those people in jail I think you'd be going very counter to what you've been saying in this House for the last year. What you'd be doing is basically giving those innocent people an all-inclusive package into the Ontario jail system. I don't think you want to be the minister of tourism to jails in Ontario.

But that's not just sad, it's also very costly, because you know that the bail supervision program costs $3.50 a day to administer and that most jails in Ontario are up to $120 a day to supervise an offender in our jail system.

Minister, when you're looking at rationalizing the system, why would you be closing a system that's very cost-effective and keeping non-violent offenders out of the jail system, 25% who are innocent, and throwing them into jail at a cost of $120 a day?

Hon Mr Runciman: That's a legitimate question. We have had a survey conducted, a report prepared with respect to the success of the program and whether it's accomplishing the goals that were originally set out and what the costs are associated with that in terms of the cost of the corrections system versus the benefit. My staff are now reviewing that report. It's going to be part of the deliberations in terms of making a decision on this program. That's all I can say at this point. No decisions have been taken.

I'm certainly going to weigh the concerns you've raised here today. As I said, they're valid, and we're not going to be cutting off our nose to spite our face in respect to this kind of decision. It has to make sense, it has to make business sense, and it has to be in the best interests of all Ontarians.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is again to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I want to come back to the question around Hydro privatization because I found your answer to the Leader of the Opposition very puzzling. It was our government that brought Hydro under control and froze rates, and it was Hydro's own report that said rates would go up if Hydro were privatized.

I want to come back, however, to the secret document that Hydro won't release. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has said no to Hydro's attempts to suppress the peer review on the safety of Hydro's nuclear plants. Hydro argued that it should be able to keep the document secret because releasing it could jeopardize privatization discussions it was having with private investors. They could not have been clearer. Hydro is eager to privatize. It's so eager to privatize that it's suppressing reports on safety.

Minister, I just don't understand this. Why are you allowing Hydro to secretly hold talks on privatization and at the same time suppress safety reports that get in the way?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): It would be inappropriate for me to interfere in the activities of Ontario Hydro as they're undertaking their day-to-day business. What I can say is that with regard to the peer reviews, I had said from the beginning that these are very important documents, that they are designed to be held in secret, that they are designed for frank and open discussion. I have always said and I truly believe, as both governments before me did, that the integrity of the process is dependent on the confidentiality of the documents.

Ms Churley: It's clear that your answer sends one clear message: For your government, privatization comes ahead of public safety, and protecting the peer review report comes ahead of public safety.

Minister, the privacy commissioner said, and let me quote, "Unable to accept Hydro's position that the results of the peer evaluation program should not be disclosed to the very public whose concerns about nuclear safety the program was designed to allay," yet you've chosen to side with Hydro -- and you're accountable -- and suppress the peer review, all because, as Hydro has admitted, it might disturb talks with private investors. This is a very serious situation. The privacy commissioner has said it should be released. Are you disagreeing with the privacy commissioner?

Hon Mrs Elliott: The first and foremost issue is how to maintain the safety of any nuclear facility operated in the province of Ontario. I understand that Ontario Hydro is examining the decision by the freedom of information officer and we will await to see what their actions will be.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I wish to express my dissatisfaction with the Minister of Environment and Energy's answers to both my questions today: my questions on vehicle emission programs and also on the privatization of Hydro and the release of the peer review report.

PETITIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is 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 name as I agree with it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas secure funding for long-term-care facilities is in jeopardy caused by this government; and

"Whereas residents in long-term-care facilities have the right to obtain good levels of care in order to ensure a healthy and safe living environment; and

"Whereas patients' needs and their wellbeing are being threatened if staffing levels are decreased;

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

"We, the residents, families and visitors of Extendicare York" -- that's in Sudbury -- "wish to state that we have grave concern over the March 28, 1996, announcement of funding to long-term-care facilities and would like nursing and personal care staffing levels to remain at 2.25 hours per patient per day at the very minimum."

I agree with the sentiments in this petition and have signed my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I would like to present to the Legislature a petition signed by 2,259 residents of Ernestown township in Lennox and Addington county.

The proposal of Warden Kelly Hineman for last Wednesday night's meeting involves severing those portions of Ernestown township south of 401 and east of county road number 6 and adding them to the Kingston governance review area, and the balance of Ernestown, including the industrial area, would form a new township with the village of Bath, South Fredericksburgh and Amherst Island.

They would like to express their opposition to Mr Hineman's plan and insist that Ernestown township not be subject to any plan which would include severing the township.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend, and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operation of social housing co-ops."

I've affixed my signature.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to the Legislature.

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

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

It is signed by over 400 residents in the province of Ontario, and I have affixed my signature to the petition as well.

HIGHWAY 7A

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to present a petition from the citizens of Durham East, specifically from Port Perry, and I would read it as follows.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Port Perry find the existing crosswalk on Highway 7A unsafe for the following reasons:

"The existing sign and pavement markings are not clearly visible to eastbound traffic coming over the crest of the hill only seconds after the speed limit is 80 kilometres per hour;

"A serious accident has already taken the life of one child and injured a crossing guard;

"The crosswalk is heavily used and more than 60 more homes are currently under construction south of Highway 7A;

"Highway 7A is a busy route seven days a week, a route used by both consumers and commuters the same each day of the week;

"All extracurricular school activities and summer sports are located at the parks and schools to the north of Highway 7A, requiring use of the crosswalk throughout the season;

"Therefore, since the Ministry of Transportation has refused to install an overhead lit crosswalk sign on the King's Highway 7A at the entrance of R.H. Cornish Public School, just east of Old Simcoe Road in the hamlet of Port Perry, notwithstanding the Scugog town council has made four separate formal requests since August 1994, including discussions at the Ontario Good Roads Association conference,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to take the following action."

I affix my name.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, believe that rent control abolition would lead to a steep rise in rents due to a persistent shortage of affordable housing in Hamilton-Wentworth. Tenants who are the most affected by ongoing mass layoffs, wage cuts and hiring freezes, and senior citizens on fixed incomes will suffer greatly if rent controls are abolished.

"We are not in favour of any proposed abolition of rent controls by the provincial government and would urge the Legislature to reject any such measures."

I will sign my name to the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

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

"Given that the proposed cuts in income tax will mean even more devastating cuts to social programs, including education and health care, we ask the government of Ontario not to proceed with the cut in income tax promised during the election. The few dollars we would get are not worth the extra user fees we will have to pay, the cuts to services we all use and the hardships it will cause."

I have affixed my signature to the petition as well.

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition from the corporation of the township of Lavant, Dalhousie and North Sherbrooke to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas municipalities are facing large premium increases from their insurers; and

"Whereas these increases are caused by large court settlements where the municipality is a codefendant; and

"Whereas the other defendant does not have sufficient coverage to cover its share of the award and the municipality is held responsible to pay the difference, regardless of the degree of responsibility,

"Be it therefore resolved that the township of Lavant, Dalhousie and North Sherbrooke request the province of Ontario to amend the Negligence Act and other pertinent legislation to protect municipalities from `joint and several liability.' A municipality should not be held responsible to pay more than its share of liability."

That's signed by ratepayers and council, and I affix my signature.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): 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."

In agreement with this petition, I affix my signature.

HEALTH FACILITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, strongly believe that Rainy River and the surrounding areas have waited too long for the new health care facility. Multiple costly studies have placed our project as the number one priority for the district. The issues relating to a crumbling facility, physician retention and distance to a secondary health centre all necessitate a new facility in Rainy River urgently. The funding is available. Move forward with our project."

CHILD CARE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads in part:

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to retain high-quality, accessible, licensed, non-profit child care as an option for Ontario parents and children."

I have affixed my signature.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas most primary care in hospitals is done by registered nurses; and

"Whereas nursing is an honourable profession with a long history of maintaining quality health care; and

"Whereas the health care system in Ontario is undergoing several cost-cutting measures by this government and nursing staff are carrying the brunt of much of this cost-cutting; and

"Whereas health care workers should not have to carry the cost of the entire health care system when the system is utilized by all persons living in the province of Ontario;

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

"That registered nurses of Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital would like you to be aware of their concerns regarding the ongoing discussions between the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses' Association.

"We are a non-union hospital. It is our understanding that a wage rollback of 20% to nurses' salaries is being contemplated. We have fought very hard to maintain nursing as a profession. While we recognize the necessity of cutting costs to the health care system, we believe that nurses will be unfairly penalized if this proposal is allowed to go forward.

"Despite wage freezes, there continue to be layoffs of nurses in hospitals. Job security has ceased to exist for us. Nurses are having to cope with increased acuity of patients, heavier workloads and still provide the quality of care for their patients.

"Nurses continue to keep updated in regard to their education in order to keep abreast of changes in the health care field, often at their own expense and time.

"Pay equity originally compared nurses to pastry chefs. We fought hard to dispel this image and to be recognized for our role in maintaining quality health care for our patients.

"Wage rollbacks will put us back into the kitchen as salad tossers. Health care workers should not have to carry the cost of the entire health care system when the system is utilized by all persons living in the province of Ontario.

"This burden must be shared by all as in any democratic society."

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I have a petition from my constituents which I will read in part.

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party is considering the privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly that the board remain a crown corporation," because they have some concerns about what privatization of that organization would do. I would like to table this petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the public secondary 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."

This petition is signed by over 20 individuals from the community of Atikokan.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition, along with the other 3,000 names.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here from people from Atahualpa Co-op Homes and Cliffside Court Housing Co-op. It's a lengthy petition and it concludes by stating:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I am presenting it on their behalf.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Mrs Elliott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to improve the Efficiency of the Environmental Approvals Process and Certain Other Matters / Projet de loi 57, Loi visant à améliorer l'efficience du processus d'autorisation environnementale et concernant certaines autres questions.

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

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

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COLLABORATION ENTRE CONSEILS)

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide for co-operation among boards / Projet de loi 58, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation afin de prévoir la collaboration entre conseils.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The bill amends the Education Act to provide that coterminous school boards should negotiate agreements in respect of the joint provision, purchase or use of certain services, equipment and facilities. The bill also provides that coterminous school boards should cooperate to eliminate duplication and achieve cost savings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 49,

An Act to improve the Employment Standards Act / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à améliorer la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I believe the member for Hamilton Centre had the floor when we last adjourned.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to resume my comments on Bill 49. I want to begin by stating that the government labels this "An Act to improve the Employment Standards Act," and I believe during my comments last Thursday I said that at the end of my remarks I would attempt to make the case, and I believe I have made and will continue to make the case, that this is not any kind of an improvement to the Employment Standards Act, but indeed this is taking away rights that workers and unions have had -- and deserve to have -- in this province for a long time.

I would remind everyone that this bill was brought in in a way that was meant to suggest it's nothing to be excited about, that it's merely housekeeping, a little bit of clarification; that the real reform -- damage, if you will -- will not be concluded by the government for another year yet.

Of course we realize, with the government caving in to the pressure that we in the NDP mounted here, that this is far more than housekeeping. By agreeing to four weeks of public hearings -- two weeks across the province in the summer, a week here in Toronto and a week of clause-by-clause -- we see a clear admission that this is not just housekeeping, it's not just clarifying anything; there are significant changes contained in this bill, changes that take away, not improve, rights.

They don't improve anything except maybe the government's ability to deny workers their rights and turn this into a province that more reflects their beliefs, which are more properly placed in the southern United States, in right-to-work states. We've heard previous members bragging about what's going on with social assistance and other things in Michigan. That's more rightly where their thinking is, and to that degree it may improve things for them and their wealthy and influential friends, but there's no improvement here for the average working person or the unions that represent them in the province.

It was interesting to note just today the

article in the Toronto Star by Jonathan Eaton, a Toronto lawyer and freelance writer.

He says in part, "Alarm bells should be ringing for many Ontario workers in light of changes to the law recently introduced by the Progressive Conservative government." That certainly reflects the reaction I have been having, personally and in calls to my office in Hamilton and here in Queen's Park, from people all across the province who are now beginning to realize that this is not just a simple housekeeping bill but that fundamental shifts are taking place within the Ministry of Labour and within the laws that govern the rights of workers that were not clearly articulated by this government.

If ever there was a minister and a government that misled the people of Ontario and directly Ontario's labour leaders, it's what they said this bill was about versus the reality of what it is truly all about.

In recognizing what's happening, people now are becoming very concerned about what this government is doing and they're very pleased there will be an opportunity during the course of the summer to comment and make submissions on this bill.

I mention again that this is all part and parcel of the government's cutting, slashing and burning of public service to provide the money necessary to pay for their 30% tax cut, and we know that this 30% tax cut is going to benefit the very wealthy and privileged in our society much more than it will the average working person. In fact, over 50% of the $5 billion that tax cut costs will go to the top 10% of income earners.

This is yet another piece of that, and unfortunately the damage along the way is that workers' rights will be taken away and the ability to enforce whatever minor rights are left has been damaged by laying off over 450 people from the Ministry of Labour. It's my understanding that up to 45 people from the employment practices branch alone will be laid off as a result of bringing Bill 49 in place, which is why it was brought in now, by the way, rather than waiting for the year-long reform of the entire bill.

All this is being done to save money: Lay off workers and pay for the tax cut that's going to benefit their most wealthy friends in the province of Ontario. That's the name of the game, and I believe that the facts as they come out will not only illustrate that but prove the point.

I move on and talk about the various pieces of this bill. I already mentioned a few on Thursday. There is more.

It's hard to believe that in a bill that was supposed to be a housekeeping bill there are all these significant issues, but there are. I emphasize that for the workers of Ontario this bill is their bill of rights. This law is the only law, the absolute law that provides bare minimum standards for working conditions, methods of payment and rights that workers have in the province of Ontario. This is the absolute bare minimum, and that applies not just to unions but to non-union workers.

I suggest that for non-union workers this is an even more important piece of legislation, because if you have a collective agreement, particularly with one of the larger, more influential unions, you are on the cutting edge of having some of the better rights and protections that exist through the collective agreement. As we know, historically that's why unions came into being. It was an attempt for workers to bargain and speak as one voice in an attempt to balance out the absolute power employers have in the workplace.

If you don't have that collective agreement, the only thing you have is this workers' bill of rights. So for anyone watching who either works in a non-union shop or has a relative or a friend who works in a non-union shop, this is of particular concern to you. Without this, without the Employment Standards Act, the workers' bill of rights, you have nothing.

I would suggest it's not an exaggeration to suggest that this is like messing with the Charter of Rights nationally. Can you imagine a federal minister saying, "We've got just a few little clarifications, a couple of commas to change, a few words here and there, not a big deal," only to find out that there are substantive changes within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? For workers in this province, that's what the employment standards law is about. It's your bill of rights and you are losing rights you now have, and this government tried to say there's nothing you need to worry about.

And don't forget, this is only the first small step. The larger reform -- and in the context of this government, any reform means takeaways and denial of rights -- is still to happen. The government's going to take a year to take a look at the entire Employment Standards Act, and at the end of the day we know workers will have even fewer rights than they have now. So this is a phenomenally important journey we're beginning with this government, and the working women and men of this province need to pay particular attention to what's happening.

I'm so very pleased that there will be public hearings in the summer, and I'm convinced there will be a tremendous response by unions, by community groups, by legal clinics, by people who are experts in the field who will point out that yes indeed, workers are losing rights from their bill of rights as a result of the government's Bill 49.

I want to move to the issue of maximum and minimum claims. It seems like a fairly innocuous suggestion, but the reality is that there are significant losses of rights in this particular part of Bill 49. What it says now is that the right to make a claim, if you believe you are owed money from your employer, is once again being capped. Our government in 1991 removed the cap that was there; it was at $4,000. We eliminated that because there was a tremendous amount of criticism for that cap being in place.

The government pulled a cute one, really interesting to watch. The parliamentary assistant last week, I believe, got up and wanted to ignore the fact that right now there is no limit and wanted to talk about where it was before 1991 compared to the limit of $10,000 they're placing on it. Fair enough; they're allowed to put whatever spin they want. But no one ought to be fooled into believing that somehow this government is improving anything for anybody.

The reality now is, regardless of how much money you're owed, you have a legitimate, fundamental right to lay a claim through the Employment Standards Act which is enforced by the Ministry of Labour, and you're about to lose that right if it's over $10,000 -- gone. You do not have that right as it now exists, because this government is taking that right away. That was supposed to be "just a minor little housekeeping matter, nothing too significant."

But you do have the opportunity to take it through the courts. The government says, "We haven't denied you all the rights; you can take it through the courts," and then they move on to the next issue. Let's just take a look at what that means for people. Because they've also eliminated your right to go back beyond six months -- you used to be able to go back up to two years for money owed; now you can only go back six months -- you've now got to make a decision about whether you're going to take your claim into the civil courts or whether you're going to forgo any money above $10,000, just consider it lost money, and go through the employment standards.

I see one of the backbenchers shaking his head no, no, no. Yes, yes, yes. Read your own legislation. That's exactly what this says to people. You have a choice. You either go to the courts or you give up that amount that's over $10,000, particularly if it takes you past the six months, and then you can take it through the employment standards, as you currently can.

What does that mean? It means, first of all, that we're going to be clogging up the court system more than it is right now. It costs more for a court proceeding than it does for any kind of procedure within the Ministry of Labour. It also suggests -- well, it doesn't suggest, it says very clearly -- that people are going to have to pay their own legal fees, a right they once had in law. The bill of rights was there for them, and their right to have those rights enforced and protected by the government is gone, because now they have to pay to hire a lawyer, which they didn't have to do before.

We also know that a lot of people are going to have to take even more time off work to attend court proceedings.

More and more, when you look at this issue, you see very clearly that this $10,000 is not some innocuous little thing. It can have significant impact and in most cases it affects people who have the least ability to defend themselves, they have the least ability to access the legal system without having to pay for it because they probably don't have a whole lot of lawyers in the family or living next door to them. That's not the world we're talking about.

When we get down to the Employment Standards Act, we're getting down to the most vulnerable people in our society and we're talking about their rights and their ability to have those rights protected and enforced. That's what's being lost here.

I might add that if they decide to go through the court system, the records indicate they're looking at between three and six years to finally satisfy that claim. For a lot of workers that's a disaster, because these again are the most vulnerable in our society. They're the least of our population who can afford to wait three to six years to get the thousands of dollars that are owed to them.

We also know the government is setting a minimum. What's that minimum going to be? We don't know. They haven't said. So far, Bill 49 will merely give the minister and cabinet the regulatory power to set a minimum. What does that mean? What it means is that the new law allows the government, by regulation -- and regulations are set in cabinet behind closed doors. They are for all intents and purposes -- and I've been there -- secret meetings because nobody else can watch and listen and see what's going on.

It's in that cabinet room that regulations are set and the debate takes place, and then they're published afterwards for people to look at. But the actual debate and decision take place in the cabinet room. It doesn't take place here. What Bill 49 does is give the government the ability by law to set that minimum by regulation.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Come on, David.

Mr Christopherson: The parliamentary assistant is screaming, "Come on, David. Come on." The fact of the matter is, that's exactly what you're doing but you don't have the guts to say what you're going to set it at. All you do is give yourself the power to set a minimum by regulation. Nowhere in here do you say what that amount is going to be.

What are you hiding? What is it you're planning to do after the light goes off Bill 49 and you can make a regulatory decision inside the cabinet room that you don't want to tell the people of Ontario about? What is it that's there? That's how you're doing this. There's no reason not to tell the people of Ontario what the minimum is. When we talk about this minimum, what does it mean?

It means that if they set it at $100 or $250, if you've been ripped off for $250 or less in vacation pay or overtime pay or regular wages or in some other method, you cannot any longer have your right to that money enforced by the Ministry of Labour -- they're out of the business; they don't do that any more -- and you've got to go back to the civil courts. The answer of the government is that you've got to go to Small Claims Court. There we go again, talking about your having to pay legal fees, that you're going to have to take time off work, that you're going to have to go to a court.

Before, your rights were enforced by the Ministry of Labour, and we believe that's the way it ought to be when you talk about minimum standards and rights. That's what we're talking about here.

Why are they doing this? The more people they can take out of the Ministry of Labour process, the more Ministry of Labour employees they can lay off and the more money they can save to pay for the tax cut. That's what's going on. There are over 450 employees of the Ministry of Labour who aren't going to be there when this government is finished with that ministry. There's over $40 million being spent to protect workers' rights that won't be there any more. That's the reality. That's what they're doing with this clause.

We know they want to take things out of the ministry and push them into the courts, yet at the same time they tell us they're trying to save money inside the courts. We're probably going to have to follow the whole process through to see what changes they make to the court system to determine just how much workers will lose. We know they've lost already, but if they make further changes to the administration of justice and the court system, it is possible and probably likely that workers and the most vulnerable will not have the same kind of access to justice they have now.

Next I want to talk about the issue of private collection agencies. We hear the government trumpeting the sound that if it's in the public sector it must be inefficient and if it's in the private sector it must be more efficient. An awful lot of them on the government side believe that as an

article of faith, in every instance, time after time, no matter what, if it's currently in the public sector and you've got a chance to move it into the private sector, that makes this a better world.

I would be the first to admit there are instances where you would want to look at the private sector to provide certain services, but I also believe there are fundamental services that belong in the public sector because they make for a better society and stronger and better rights for the average working person. That's why this government has so much trouble understanding a lot of these things.

They don't think about it from the point of view of the average working person out there slugging it out; they take a look at this from the viewpoint of those who already have the best benefits our society has to offer by way of privilege and access to power and money. From the other world, things look a whole lot different. This government almost always believes -- look at their speeches, listen to their comments, look at their legislation and you will see it -- that if you can move it to the private sector, it's bound to be better.

Let's zero in on this instance. What we're talking about here is the ability and the plan and the intent of this government to move the collection of money owed to employees, to working people, from the Ministry of Labour into the hands of private collection agencies. We also all understand that the sole purpose of any private corporation is to make money. That's why they exist, that's their raison d'être, that's the whole point, and I don't have a particular problem with that. In and of itself, I don't have a particular problem with that.

But to set it in its context, I don't ever want to see our police run that way, I don't ever want to see firefighters run that way, I don't want to see our hospitals run that way, and I think there's a case to be made that the collection of money owed workers under their bill of rights ought not be run that way.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): So what's your point?

Mr Christopherson: Here's the point: The government is allowing private collection agencies the ability -- and I think this is the key point -- to broker a deal between the employer and the employee for an amount that represents only 75% of the money in question, and then the private collection agency also takes out the cost and they also make sure they've got their profit margin. We've already agreed that's the purpose of any corporation. But the money for that, in my opinion, is likely to come from --

Mr Stockwell: Don't agree if you don't like it.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the member for Etobicoke West come to order, please.

Mr Christopherson: That could likely be a fair deal, because that person has a sense of what their rights are and what they may or may not be able to bargain for. That's a situation that doesn't exist now with the Ministry of Labour. The whole point of the Ministry of Labour being there is to make sure as a priority that that employee gets every dime and nickel and penny they're owed. That's why you have a bill of rights, that's why you have a minimum standard of employment and that's why you have a Ministry of Labour to protect those rights. The whole thing is now flipped over.

Now there's a dispute, and someone comes in whose sole purpose at the end of the day is to make money off the exercise of closing this file.

I submit to the government that an awful lot of employees will face a tremendous amount of pressure -- not illegal pressure; I'm not suggesting that kind of wrongdoing, although that may or may not happen, but I'm not suggesting that -- tremendous pressure to settle for less than they're entitled to in order to get the matter resolved, to get the money they need, because they're not sure of what the alternatives are and they're not sure of what their chances are for success with the alternatives.

So I submit there are workers in this province who will not get what they're entitled to as a result of this government's move to privatize that collection.

Again we're talking about the workers' bill of rights, the minimum right workers can expect when they go out to work every day, and this is what's being taken away. All of this is under the umbrella of

An Act to improve the Employment Standards Act. There's no improvement there. There's no improvement when workers do not have a representative of the Ministry of Labour come into their workplace with the ability to go through records and ascertain whether this employee is entitled to their wages and then make sure the money they're owed is given to them. That's all this is about. Let's not forget that this is not about some kind of new added benefit for anybody in the province. We're talking about the ability of the average working person to make sure they get what they have worked for. That's what the Employment Standards Act is about.

I believe there's going to be a difference in the attitude of an individual who comes into a workplace whose sole purpose is to make money and profit -- again, I recognize that's fine in its place, but I think there's a difference between someone who goes into that workplace whose purpose is to cut a deal, close the file and make a profit versus someone who is told every day at work, "Your job is to make sure that workers out there get the money and rights they're entitled to." I don't think it takes a tremendous leap of faith to believe and understand that at the end of the day you're going to get a different outcome for the workers with those two approaches.

This government is so hung up on saving money -- we've seen it in health, we've seen it in education, we see it in social services -- that it does not look at the impact on the average person. When there is any kind of loss or shift, of course they trot out the tax cut: "There's your 30% tax cut. When was the last time you had a tax cut?" You all know your mantra and you give it.

But the reality is, for most of the people who have to rely on the Employment Standards Act to protect their rights or to make sure they even have any, they're going to see diddly-squat in terms of any kind of benefit of that income tax cut. We know that. If they're lucky, it's a couple of bucks a week -- if they're lucky. For minimum-wage earners, it won't even be that. By the time we take a look at the increase in user fees and property tax increases and costs in education to offset these tremendous cuts in transfers and when we look at the services that are just plain gone to those workers, this is no fair deal for them. There's no fair deal for them.

That's why this government tries to pretend everything it's doing is only eliminating fat, eliminating inefficiencies. That's what they talk about. But I've given the example here before, as I do with labour issues, on education. I see some students here today. I was in a high school in my riding not that long ago; they're using textbooks 20 years old -- in some cases they're not even using textbooks, they're using photocopies -- and they're giving the textbooks over to the next class before they're finished because there's not enough money.

If you're a worker earning minimum wage and the best you can hope for for your children for a better future is the school system, you tell me how they benefit. You tell me how we benefit as a society when we save millions of dollars in the Ministry of Labour but we leave people vulnerable and we don't make su