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

March 27, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L048 - Wed 27 Mar 1996 / Mer 27 Mar 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

TEEN WORK

TAX REDUCTION

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

VISIT OF MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

EDUCATION FINANCING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOSPITAL ALLIANCE

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS AND CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

ABORTION

CHILD CARE

RENT REGULATION

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

BUS TRANSPORTATION

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

EDUCATION FINANCING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

TRANSITION HOUSE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The constant bullying tactics of the Harris government continue. The government's commitment to end rent controls will have the disastrous effect of forcing many people away from affordable housing. Decent, affordable housing should be the priority for this government, not the wholesale dismantling of rent controls. This plan can only result in forcing the families who can least afford it from their homes.

The government's strategy is simple: First, they wanted to remove the controls which protect tenants from evictions; now they are removing the controls which protect tenants from dramatic rent increases. When you combine the two, it amounts to an anti-tenant agenda. What the government fails to realize is that many families are already stretched to their financial breaking point. The real tragedy in this will be that once families can no longer afford rent increases, their options begin to run out and, sadly, they will have no place to turn.

The fear many tenants feel is real. They see the only form of tenant protection fading away. Rent controls sheltered many tenants from unfair rent increases. I call upon the Harris government to reconsider its decision to scrap rent controls and explore other options which provide more equitable treatment of tenants.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to respond to the fact that the Chair of Management Board has chosen today to break the news blackout around the negotiations and cause all kinds of turmoil and havoc on the picket lines. One would think, given the fact that progress seemed to be made under the news blackout, that perhaps this government really doesn't want a settlement. You really have to wonder when the Chair of Management Board, the minister responsible, says something as irresponsible and, according to the union, as blatantly untrue as what he has said this morning.

The union's position in this is that there are no new demands and they can only assume that the government is looking -- I quote from a newsletter they've had to put out today: "Johnson's goal is to throw OPSEU members off balance and cause a panic on the picket lines. Don't fall for it. Stay strong." This is the kind of message the union has to send out now because the government has broken that news blackout.

The union goes on to say to their own members, "Tell him to shut up and let the bargaining teams do their work so we can all get back to work as soon as possible." That's what it's supposed to be all about: getting this strike over and putting people back to work. If the minister doesn't understand what a news blackout is, he ought to talk to his deputy minister or somebody else who does understand how things work. He's doing an awful lot of damage. The people of Ontario, the strikers and, I would hope, the government want this strike to end, and the way they'll do it is to have the minister shut up about it.

TEEN WORK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise today in the House to recognize a very significant achievement by the youth in my riding. Last summer, some local teens initiated Teen Work, an organization designed in response to teen vandalism in the town of Campbellford.

The project was sparked by Shawn O'Brian, a local youth, and guided by the mayor and the chamber of commerce. It is a unique program designed to help young people between the ages of 13 and 19 years of age understand the challenges they face due to rising youth unemployment and a harsh economic climate.

By attempting to build self-esteem and confidence, Teen Work hopes to encourage teenagers to start businesses of their own. Its main objectives are to reduce the occurrence of vandalism and apathy among the youth of Campbellford, to help teens recognize opportunities to earn money using the resources at their disposal and to prove that youth programs can be cost-effective and self-sustaining.

The project began with no capital funding and relies on a percentage of the earnings generated by its members to ensure its financial stability.

It initially had four members and a project coordinator. Teen Work has since expanded to include many other projects, and by this spring Teen Work will have a membership of nearly 40 teens.

Teen Work is a remarkable achievement. It is a good example of how communities and the private sector can join together to fight unemployment without any government assistance.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I read in the local press recently that the bond rating services are very uneasy about the Premier's election promise to cut provincial income tax by 30%. Specifically, Dominion Bond Rating Service has called the tax cut "the biggest single hurdle to balancing the budget."

All the Premier's friends are abandoning ship. Even his slash-and-burn hero, Alberta's Ralph Klein, has warned the Ontario Conservatives against the tax cut. Several of our esteemed colleagues from the other side of the floor are reading petitions in this House from constituents and taxpayers that question the wisdom of the tax cut.

Yet last week on Focus Ontario the Premier said: "They're all wrong. In the Common Sense Revolution we felt it would take about $6 billion worth of spending reductions to balance the books over five years, but the NDP government's spending was about $2 billion higher than they told us."

I don't know about you, but this sounds like political bafflegab. The Premier told us himself that he's not very good with numbers. Perhaps he should listen to his experts, his own caucus, and the people of Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I read with some interest, following the federal by-elections, the talk once again of the Tories and the Reform Party coming together.

I think it is worthwhile noting that for the people of Ontario, the reality has been that since June 8 we have been governed by the Reform Party in this province.

When we look at the actions of the Mike Harris government in attacking the poor through the welfare cuts, in attacking children through those same welfare cuts and through the cuts to child care, in cutting funding to education, in cutting funding to the very job creation programs that this government says it's committed to, we have seen in instance after instance in the area of health care broken promises and broken commitments, but above all an agenda that is based on putting more power and more resources into the hands of a few, into the hands of the wealthiest in this province at the expense of the rest of the citizens in this province.

That is the Reform agenda across this country, and it certainly is the agenda of the Mike Harris government.

So I was not surprised when I saw the member for Etobicoke West being quoted as saying that he thinks the merger of the Reform Party and the Conservative Party is a brilliant idea, because in Ontario it's already happened.

VISIT OF MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable David Tsubouchi, for his visit to the St Catharines-Thorold area on January 25, 1996. The minister spent the entire day visiting municipal and private groups and listening to their vision of an Ontario that works.

His first stop was at the Niagara region's employment programs department. Over the past 20 years they have truly learned what it means to streamline and reduce duplication while at the same time providing a proactive and caring program to get social assistance recipients back into the working community. In fact, as part of the region's general welfare program they have saved some $11 million over the past four years alone.

The minister also heard presentations from the YMCA, Niagara College and the John Howard Society, which have a great deal of experience with community works placements. Mr Tsubouchi visited Bethlehem Place. They are a second-stage housing complex for the disadvantaged and women recovering from abuse. Their workfare model, which they call BP Works, is forward-looking, as they have included work placement and community works segments right in their environment.

On behalf of all those Mr Tsubouchi visited on January 25, 1996, I thank him for his openness and support.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When Premier Harris contends that his proposed 30% cut in provincial income taxes is not to blame for job losses in Ontario, employees of the Lincoln County Board of Education and the Niagara South Board of Education could be forgiven for not believing him, as will the employees of the two Roman Catholic boards in the area as well.

With 277 Lincoln employees and 282 Niagara staff receiving pink slips this week, the Premier's contention that drastic cuts in provincial funding, necessitated to a great extent by the tax cut, will not affect students in the classroom is simply not believable.

With thoughtful people from all segments of society questioning the wisdom of a 30% provincial income tax cut which will benefit the most wealthy to the greatest extent, a tax cut which will require the government to borrow over 20 billion additional dollars, a tax cut which has been called reckless by the Conservative member for Wellington and is questioned by other Tory members, with this in mind, it is difficult to believe that the Premier would ignore the good advice to abandon this ideological measure which is hurting education and so many other segments of our society to such a great extent. Pause and think. Use common sense.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to bring to the attention of the House and all members, particularly the Minister of Community and Social Services, a case in my constituency. A young woman who is receiving benefits as a single mother has an abscessed tooth that has poisoned her system so badly that her whole face is swollen. Her dentist wants to operate today. He wants to do the operation, the procedure, in a hospital so that the patient can be put under anaesthesia by an anaesthetist.

However, because of your cuts, family services cannot provide this woman with discretionary funding to pay for this procedure. As a result, she has to make a choice between this procedure or cutting back on the funds that are available to her and her family for food and lodging for the rest of the month. How on earth can you put this woman in this kind of a situation?

I call upon the government to reconsider its position on these cuts and to ensure that social workers have discretionary funds which they can allocate in emergencies like this so that people aren't forced to make these kinds of choices. I call on the minister to look into the situation and to act immediately.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to draw to the attention of the leader of the third party that, according to the rules, a leader is not allowed to make a statement.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I apologize. Actually, I was filling in for one of our other members who was supposed to make one and isn't here.

HOSPITAL ALLIANCE

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Yesterday, in my riding, two Chatham hospitals, Public General and St Joseph's, announced the formation of an alliance to better provide community health care.

The move, which I am delighted to endorse, will take place April 1 and is expected to improve efficiency at both hospitals and provide the framework for an $11-million saving objective.

Over the past few years, officials from both hospitals have worked together to come up with a plan to both maximize resources and meet future health care challenges.

Under the alliance, there will be a single CEO in administration, duplication of resources and services will be eliminated, cost-containing efficiencies will be increased, patient access to all services will be improved and strategic planning will be enhanced.

The alliance will be managed by a joint executive committee comprised of six members from each hospital board, the chief of medical staff and a new CEO.

Neither a merger nor an amalgamation, the alliance is best described as a relationship that respects and builds upon the excellent record of care given to the community by the hospitals over the past 100 years.

The emergence of this alliance proves that efficiencies can be found in the hospital system to free up scarce health care dollars for use in other areas.

I would like to commend those who have worked so diligently to bring this concept to fruition. Successfully creating an efficient, effective system which also respects individual preferences and goals is of benefit to everyone in the community.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Yesterday, several members rose on points of order with respect to language used and comments made during question period. I have reviewed the Hansard for yesterday, and I must say to the members that in terms of temperate language and tone, it was not one of our finer days.

To the Solicitor General, I would caution that the remarks made yesterday were inappropriate, intemperate and ill advised. I believe that, upon reflection, the honourable minister came to be of that same opinion, as he saw fit to withdraw the comments and later to apologize to the member for London Centre.

Erskine May advises at page 380 that "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language." It would I think be beneficial to this House if members on both sides carefully consider that advice and address this House with dignity and respect.

For my part, and with your cooperation, I will be vigilant in enforcing your rules that require civil discourse and decorum on the part of all members in this House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Finance. You may be aware that Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, has said that your plan to balance the budget and to cut taxes at the same time will be very difficult to achieve. In fact, to be specific, he said that to do that one has to be more than a politician, one has to be a magician.

The Premier has apparently dismissed these comments from what one might call his soulmate as being motivated somehow by jealousy and by fear. He suggests that Mr Klein is being critical of the revolution because he's actually afraid that maybe Ontario will steal Alberta's jobs. It seems rather bizarre to me that this is a Premier who writes off not only his enemies but also his friends.

Minister, I would draw to your attention the fact that the economist for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association also has had some comments on your plan and on its prospects for creating jobs. He said: "Cutting personal income taxes won't do anything for job creation. People will use their extra cash to pay down their debts, not to buy goods that will create jobs."

You will know that the members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association are the people who are supposed to create jobs, and they don't believe your tax cut will stimulate job growth. The Premier has said that Ralph Klein's views are wrong because he's playing some kind of political game. What ulterior motive do you think the Canadian Manufacturers' Association might have for saying that your plan won't work?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I don't attribute motives to comments that anybody makes with respect to any proposals that the government is making. If we had the taxation rate, quite frankly, in the province of Ontario that the province of Alberta has, we wouldn't see it necessary to cut provincial income tax rates either. I'd love to be in the position that Mr Klein is in, and we wouldn't have to worry about it.

Mrs McLeod: The minister will also be aware that the Premier has been advertising his tax cut as some kind of a "Don't pay a cent" event. He's telling us that the tax cut is going to pay for itself in some kind of an economic surge and he somehow wants people to believe that your spending cuts have nothing to do with your tax cut.

The Bank of Nova Scotia has warned you that the tax cut will require even deeper cutting. The bank has said, "If they continue to push for their tax cut, and I have no reason to believe that they won't, then maybe one way to ensure that the targets and the credit rating can be maintained is to cut spending that much deeper at that particular time." Minister, if Ralph Klein is wrong, is the Bank of Nova Scotia wrong too? Why do they say that your tax cut will require even deeper cuts when your Premier is telling Ontarians that it won't cost a cent?

Hon Mr Eves: We are firmly of the opinion, as the leader of the official opposition knows, that over time a reduction in provincial income tax rates will return itself many-fold to the government of Ontario but, more importantly, to the people of Ontario.

I note that the leader of the official opposition selectively quotes individuals who don't happen to believe that a 30% tax cut is appropriate at this particular point in time, but she did not mention some of the individuals who appeared before the legislative committee on finance and economic affairs who were very supportive of a tax cut, they being Patti Croft, the chief economist of Canada Trust company; Aron Gampel, vice-president and deputy chief economist of the Bank of Nova Scotia; Bill Robson, senior policy analyst, C.D.

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

The leader of the official opposition has been extremely selective as to the quotes she chooses to use with respect to the tax cut. Those people have an opinion, they are entitled to it, but we will be proceeding with our program to put money back in the pockets of hardworking taxpaying Ontarians.

Mrs McLeod: I'm talking about quotes from this minister's own Premier, who has said that the 30% cut in income taxes is not going to cost Ontarians a cent. He says it's going to be paid for some day in the future with some kind of an economic surge.

Last week the same Premier was talking about economic drag. Now we have a much better sense of what he meant by "economic drag," because that's the job loss that comes with the layoffs, that comes with the cuts that this government is making to bring in its 30% income tax cut. Now we have Mikeonomics, the theory that the tax cut is going to pay for itself by creating new jobs to replace all those lost jobs.

Minister, you don't want me to quote the critics, so let me quote your own numbers. If Mikeonomics is going lead to new job creation through this tax cut, why do the unemployment projections from the November economic statement, your own economic statement, predict that the number of people unemployed will go up this year and up again next year? Why do your own numbers predict increasing unemployment if this 30% income tax cut is going to be such a job bonanza?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition is quite aware that in the month of February alone the province of Ontario created 31,000 jobs. To be more specific, Mr Speaker, through you to the leader of the official opposition, here are a few of the most recent comments with respect to job creation in the province of Ontario:

Zellers in Toronto, March 15 of this year, 450 jobs; Manulife Financial, Waterloo, March 6, 300 jobs; Cambril, Waterloo, March 2, 40 jobs; Cosella Dorken in Beamsville, March, 25 to 50 jobs; Ford of Canada in Oakville, February 17, 150 jobs; Honda in Alliston, December 1995, 1,200 jobs; Walt Disney, Toronto, November 30, 1995, 100 jobs.

So there again the leader of the official opposition is being extremely selective in the figures that she chooses and the comments that she makes with respect to job creation. I know that she finds it hard to believe, but reducing the tax burden on hardworking taxpaying Ontarians will indeed create jobs and stimulate the economy in the province of Ontario.

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

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I don't think even the minister believes that any longer. I say to the minister, talk about using statistics selectively -- and my second question is to the minister. Last month there were 7,000 more people out of work than there were the month before. As the layoffs from your cuts begin to take effect, there will be thousands and thousands more out of work, and that's exactly why people across this province are concerned about your tax cut.

Last week, Minister, I asked you how you could justify slashing tens of thousands of jobs to pay for a $5-billion-a-year tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthy. Your response that I found astonishing was to say, and I quote, "We are not taking away thousands of jobs in Ontario to finance the tax cut."

So my question is this: How can you tell the 1,300 health care workers who are being laid off at the Toronto Hospital that they're not losing their jobs because of your tax cut? How can you tell the 400 health care workers at Hamilton General and Henderson hospital that they're not losing their jobs because of the tax cut? How can you tell the tens of dozens of workers at Wellesley Hospital down the street, where their own chief executive officer has said, and I quote again, "The layoffs are the direct result of the decrease in revenue from the Ministry of Health," how can you tell any of these people that they are not losing their jobs because of your $5-billion tax cut for the wealthy?

Hon Mr Eves: Quite simply because they're not. We have not introduced any tax cut to date. What we have done is try to get a handle on the legacy of deficit and debt left to us by the two parties opposite. That's what we've done. We have to get a grip on the fact that the province of Ontario that we inherited on June 8 spends $1 million more an hour more than it takes in in revenue. Nobody relishes having to stand here and reduce expenditures of the provincial government. I wish we would have inherited an $11-billion-a-year surplus, but we didn't.

We inherited an $11.2-billion deficit, and we have to do something about that. We owe it to the people of Ontario and future generations of Ontarians.

Mrs McLeod: That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense coming from a minister whose fiscal plan is to add $20 billion to the debt while thousands and thousands of Ontario workers are laid off -- sheer nonsense.

Minister, let me make it as pointed as I possibly can. Number one, you are bringing in a tax cut that will cost a minimum of $5 billion a year. Number two, in order to fund that tax cut, you have broken your election promise not to cut health care spending and you have chopped more than $1 billion from the budgets of our hospitals. Number three, because of those cuts, because of more than $1 billion taken out of our hospitals' budgets, hospitals are firing tens of thousands of nurses, lab technologists and other vital health care workers.

These are not isolated cuts. Hospital administrators are telling us that your cuts will cost 20,000 jobs at least over the next three years, and clearly the money that is going towards your tax cuts is coming on the backs of the nurses, the health technicians and the patients of this province. So I ask you again, Minister, how can you pretend that these 20,000 health care workers are not losing their jobs in order to finance your tax cut for the wealthy?

Hon Mr Eves: Because they're not. We have not done anything about a tax cut to date, and every measure that we have taken to date as a government is to get the overspending of the previous two administrations under control. What we inherited on June 8 was a government in the province of Ontario that spent $9 billion a year on interest costs alone to service the debt that largely you two created in the past 10 years.

We inherited a government that was spending $7.3 billion a year on all hospitals in the province of Ontario put together, but the previous administration thought it was more important to spend $9 billion in interest costs -- $7.3 billion was the priority they put on hospitals.

The previous government was spending $8.8 billion a year on education, from the elementary system through to and including post-secondary education, colleges and universities. The previous administration obviously thought it was more important to spend $9 billion a year in interest payments than spend $8.8 billion on the education system in the province.

I know they find it difficult to believe. We have not borrowed one red cent to service the tax cut. We have had to borrow money to accommodate the $100 billion in accumulated debt, the legacy of debt left to us by the two previous administrations.

Mrs McLeod: Two facts: The first fact is that $5 billion to $6 billion of the $8 billion in cuts which you're making are to pay for the tax cut. The second fact, Minister, is that you promised not to cut health care, but you need your cuts fast to fund the tax cut you want to bring into your May budget so you've cut the hospital budget by $1.3 billion.

I guess, Minister, the most disturbing thing for me is that there is no one in your government -- not the Premier, not you, not the Minister of Health -- who will even acknowledge that these cuts are having an effect on the quality of health care that all of us receive. So let me tell you, Minister, that when a person at the emergency department in a major teaching hospital in downtown Toronto has to wait four hours for test results because there's only one technician in the lab at night instead of two, that's not efficient health care that you say you're trying to provide; that's just bad health care.

When an elderly woman with terminal cancer presses a button to signal a nurse and it takes an average of 25 minutes for a nurse to arrive, that's not efficient health care; that is bad health care. When a hospital has a ratio of one nurse for 11 patients in a ward with cancer patients and post-operative patients, that is not efficient health care; that is bad health care.

I ask you again, Minister: How can you justify the devastation that is being wreaked on our health care system? How can you justify the tens of thousands of lost jobs and the delayed time for testing and for caring, all in the name of a $5-billion tax cut for the wealthiest Ontarians?

Hon Mr Eves: We have made a commitment that we are going to live up to with respect to an envelope of funding for health care in the province of Ontario, and I would advise the leader of the official opposition to wait until she sees the budget document this spring before she says something that she may live to regret once the budget document comes out with respect to the level of health care expenditures in the province for this year and next year.

I find it passing strange to see the leader of the official opposition's attitude. "Lower taxes equals more jobs" -- I'm reading from a commitment called The Lyn McLeod Commitment to Jobs and Growth. "Lower taxes equals more jobs. Problem: Ontario's rising tax burden is cited by business as the province's number one job killer. Currently, the provincial government takes more money out of Ontario's private sector than do competing US jurisdictions.... Paying higher taxes than their international competitors is the last thing struggling Ontario companies can afford."

That was her position then: Lower taxes equalled more jobs. Obviously, she's again changed her position.

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Solicitor General. Regretfully -- I mean that sincerely -- I want to return to questions and exchanges that occurred in this House yesterday and in the last couple of days. The Solicitor General has made it clear that the comments he made were, in his terms, "personal opinion" and were "taken out of context" on issues that may be before the office of the police complaints commissioner, these comments that could indeed, in our view and in the view of many, prejudice the outcome of that investigation.

I know the Solicitor General may disagree with that, but I do agree with his view that he shouldn't be commenting on an issue before the police complaints commissioner.

His initial comments on Wednesday going into cabinet were, "I don't want to say anything publicly," and then later, "I'm going to let everyone reach their own conclusions." Unfortunately, he did not stop there. He kept on talking. He admitted that he had met senior OPP officials, had viewed the confidential police tape, and every comment he made after that must have been influenced by what he saw on the videotapes. Taking that into account, does the Solicitor General not agree that he has clearly biased the proceedings of the office of the police complaints commissioner?

If he does agree with that, obviously the only step he should take, and must take, is to step aside while that investigation is ongoing. Is the Solicitor General prepared to do that?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Based on the concerns expressed by the third party, I did review the transcript, and I completely disagree with the conclusions he's drawn from the comments I made.

Mr Wildman: The statements are a matter of public record. Yesterday in the House, and I think outside the House, the Solicitor General maintained that any comments he made were not on the subject of complaints before the police complaints commissioner. The minister can't have it both ways. Either he doesn't know what the complaints are, as the Attorney General I think argued, and if he doesn't know what they are he cannot then know that his comments had nothing to do with those complaints or, if he knows his comments had nothing to do with those complaints, he must know what the complaints are. Which is it?

Hon Mr Runciman: I was speaking in a general sense, and it did not deal with any specific complaint. I'm unaware of specific complaints, and any comments I made have no bearing on any specific complaints.

Mr Wildman: The minister has maintained that his comments were simply personal opinion. The Solicitor General doesn't seem to understand that as a minister, particularly a minister responsible for the administration of justice and policing in the province, he cannot have a personal opinion which is somehow separate from his role as Solicitor General.

Yesterday in this House he also admitted to making inappropriate statements about another case, and in doing so I believe that he undermined the administration of justice in this province and specifically undermined his colleague the Attorney General, the current Attorney General. He commented on the Galligan report, and in doing so I believe tainted the administration of justice in this province, and so, regretfully, I call on the Solicitor General to do the honourable thing and to resign. Is he prepared to do that?

Hon Mr Runciman: We have an independent police complaints commission that will deal with the complaints that have been lodged before them. The House leader of our party has announced a public inquiry to deal with the issues surrounding last Monday's regrettable occurrences, and I think the matter will rest there.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Deputy Premier. I'm very troubled by the lack of comment or action being taken by the leadership of your government with respect to the matters we've been raising relating to the conduct of the Solicitor General. I'm troubled because on Monday in this House the Premier stood in his place and seemed confused about the matter, seemed to relate the questions to the public inquiry, as opposed to the very specific matters that we've been raising with respect to the matters before the police complaints commission.

Deputy Premier, I want to know why you are unconcerned. Are you unconcerned because you don't believe it is a problem for the Solicitor General to offer a personal opinion on matters related to policing or to justice in this province, matters that are under investigation? Or are you unconcerned because you believe that his personal opinions he has offered don't relate to the matters under investigation by the police complaints commission?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The member will know that we have, number one, made a commitment with respect to a public inquiry with respect to the events of March 18. She will also know that the Solicitor General, I think, has appropriately and adequately responded to questions that have been asked as recently as a few moments ago by her leader in a very direct and sincere manner.

I think the public inquiry will deal with the events of March 18 and the actions of all individuals leading up thereto, and I think the Solicitor General has made it quite clear that any comments he made with respect to the activities of that day were based on his own personal knowledge of the events of that day.

Ms Lankin: You see, Deputy Premier, the Solicitor General of this province is not allowed to have public personal opinions. He can't express his personal opinions about matters that are under investigation related to the police or to the justice system in a public way.

Deputy Premier, this is about a question of leadership of this government and the conduct of a cabinet minister holding a very sensitive portfolio. I put it to you that the Attorney General said very clearly yesterday, in fact let me quote to you, "Further, it is important to note that no one has any information about the individual complaint filed, no one knows who filed those complaints, no one knows the nature of those allegations."

Yet the Solicitor General continues to suggest, even if we are to believe that the opinions he has offered are only based on his own experience of that day, that it will have no bearing on the complaints that have been filed before the police complaints commission, the complaints which we do not know the nature of, we do not know the allegations contained therein, we do not know who filed them, we do not know with respect to what matters, whether or not in fact they are the same matters that the Solicitor General says he's offering a personal opinion on.

Deputy Premier, you need to show leadership here. Justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to be done. Your Solicitor General has in fact put a cloud over these complaints. It is imperative that you take action; it is imperative that you look into this; it is imperative that you request the Solicitor General to step aside while you're doing so.

Hon Mr Eves: It is my understanding, number one, that the Solicitor General did not comment on any specific case or cases; and number two, as the Attorney General said in this House yesterday, the police complaints commission is totally independent of the Solicitor General of this province.

Mr Wildman: Not any more.

Hon Mr Eves: Yes it is, with all due respect, I say to the members opposite, and that body will determine those complaints. It has nothing to do with the Solicitor General's office. It does not report to the Solicitor General.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Final supplementary.

Ms Lankin: I must say to the Deputy Premier that he shows a lack of understanding of the process. The complaints before the police complaints commission will be reviewed, will be reported out to the commissioner of the OPP, who reports directly to the Solicitor General. Your Solicitor General has offered comments on things he experienced personally, and quite frankly things that he says were related to the OPP videos. There is a standard of conduct here, and the leadership of the government must be responsible for the conduct of the Solicitor General, for the conduct of ministers of the crown.

Let me read to you the standard of conduct that this minister thought was appropriate to read into the Hansard on May 29, 1989. Mr Runciman read into the Hansard, relating back to the days of 1978 and the resignation of George Kerr, the then Solicitor General:

"At the time, he said, `I am the political head of the police in Ontario, and like Caesar's wife, I've got to be above reproach.' As he put it in his letter of resignation to the Premier, `As the senior law officer of the crown, I am wholly conscious of the fact that there can be no suggestion of impropriety on my part that could in any way reflect upon the administration of justice and law enforcement.'"

Deputy Premier, that's the standard of conduct that this minister believed was appropriate then. He should believe it is appropriate now. You are here in place of the Premier today. Please rise in your place and indicate that you will investigate this, that you will review this, and that you will ask the Solicitor General to step aside from his responsibilities as a minister of the crown while you do this so that the people can see there is faith and integrity in the administration of justice.

Hon Mr Eves: The Solicitor General has done nothing to disturb the independence and the credibility of the investigations going on by the police complaints commission. As a matter of fact, it was the commissioner of the OPP who referred the matter, it is my understanding, to the police complaints commission. They are an independent body, they will come to an independent conclusion, and out of that will come some recommendations which I trust will be implemented.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, who has heard me raise this issue several times with him in the past few months.

Provincial roads in eastern Ontario are not only hazardous to vehicles but also to the personal safety of motorists, and many of my constituents found that out last week.

Nathalie and Réal Campeau of Cornwall were driving on the 401 near Long Sault when two of their tires were blown after hitting several huge potholes. As a result of the tire blowouts, the Campeaus lost control, hit the median and their truck flipped over. Fortunately, their injuries were not life-threatening, but the loss of the vehicle may cost Nathalie her new job, since she will no longer have transportation, which her job requires.

In the early 1990s, MTO slashed road repair spending from $580 million to $400 million. In 1994-95, the ministry only spent $202 million, and the auditor's report stated that 60% of the highways are in poor or substandard condition. Your government has cut another $50 million out of the budget alone.

When will this Minister of Transportation recognize that personal injury is too high a price to pay for expenditure control in road maintenance, and when will he commit to fixing these hazardous roads in Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly want to thank the honourable member for the question. It's a very good question and certainly we are concerned with the state of our infrastructure. As the auditor has addressed it, we must put more money into our highway system because it is the vital --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: If the members across the road -- and I use the word "road" -- would like to hear, maybe they should stop talking and listen. You asked the question. I want to give you the answers. Thank you very much.

One of the things we must do is put money back in the infrastructure; we recognize the importance. Unfortunately, because of the type of winter we had this year, potholes might become more prominent. There is a strike going on. We do not have the workers to address some of those potholes that we might have been able to address.

I want to say to the honourable member that I have every intention in addressing these problems and making sure that our highway system is --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You're cutting the funding.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Oriole is out of order.

Hon Mr Palladini: -- industry as well as our citizens.

Mr Cleary: That answer I think is full of bullfeathers. The minister knows right well that I had spoken to him about the condition of the roads even before the strike. Highways 2, 401, 417 and others are in terrible shape. I have not been able to get from the minister an answer as to what he is going to do before he transfers Highway 2 back to a municipal responsibility and some more downloading. Community-minded citizens have been painting warnings around the potholes, which are six inches deep, in order to alert motorists.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That what it says on your paper, John?

Mr Cleary: And the member across the way knows full well about that, the member for S-D-G.

In addition to the Campeaus, I had a visit from a lady from the Solicitor General's riding last week whose tires were blown in the same area after hitting a pothole, and the same week Lee MacEachern was driving on 417 when he hit a pothole and is $1,000 poorer for his experience. Also, another vehicle in the area hit a pothole and went under a transport.

The highways are in desperate need of repairs. The Tory government in the mid-1990s wants to bring us back into the 1940s and 1950s with some of their policies, but needs to realize that the safety of Ontarians should be put first -- just to add $20 billion of borrowed money to the debt just to give an irresponsible tax break to the wealthiest Ontarians.

When will the government come clean with the municipal councils in eastern Ontario and work out a solution on Highway 2 and fix the other provincial roads in eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: The member would like to have the people of Ontario believe that it is a Mike Harris government that's caused all the potholes. We have been in government nine months. It was the NDP and your government that didn't put the money back in the infrastructure when they should have. Now the fault is Mike Harris's government. He would like the people of Ontario to believe just that.

Let me say about the transferring of highways. It is for that reason that we want to make sure that whatever transfers are done are done in an orderly fashion so we can put money back in the provincial highway infrastructure to make sure we can move people and goods around. That is our commitment. And as far as transfers are concerned, we are going to do them in an orderly fashion.

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, Monday and today we've heard the Solicitor General and the Attorney General and then today you all acknowledge, first of all, that there had been complaints about the March 18 incident filed in front of the police complaints commission. We also heard you all excuse the Solicitor General's behaviour in commenting on what happened on that day when those complaints had been filed by saying that he qualified his remarks as being events he personally observed.

As the head of the government in the Legislature, I would like you to explain what the position of your government is with respect to the administration of justice as to when it's appropriate for a minister of the crown to make any kind of comment, personal or otherwise, on an issue that's before a quasi-judicial body, that's under a police investigation or that's before a court.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): As I said, it's my understanding that the Solicitor General did not refer to any particular case before the police complaints commission. The police complaints commission is a body that is independent of the Solicitor General. He has explained the context of his remarks, and there is a public inquiry into all other aspects of the events of March 18.

Mrs Boyd: The Deputy Premier just continues to repeat, and I would say to compound, the error of integrity that has been committed by the Solicitor General. It appears that all of the leadership of the government are saying that even though they don't know what the complaints are, they have no idea what incidents they covered, they have no idea what the issues are -- although this minister made very direct comments, first of all, about whether or not official warnings were given, and warnings, as the Attorney General will tell you, are extremely important in terms of due process.

He made comments about other groups, and he named those other groups, after watching confidential OPP tapes, as being responsible, and not OPSEU; he named that. How do you know they are not the subject of complaints?

So I would say to you, since you are unwilling to understand that this is a very serious issue which has the danger of calling into disrepute the administration of justice in this province, and since you refuse to understand the seriousness of this with respect to the police complaints commission, will you assure this House and the people of Ontario that the behaviour and the conduct and the integrity of the Solicitor General will be one of the terms of reference for the public inquiry?

Hon Mr Eves: I repeat again, the police complaints commission is independent of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has explained the context of his remarks. I gave you a commitment with respect to all other events and matters with respect to and leading up to March 18. That is the way it is.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is for the minister without portfolio responsible for workers' compensation reform. In mid-February, the Honourable Cam Jackson met with a large group of injured workers in Stevensville, Ontario, home of the Tim Hudak Action Centre. One of these workers, Silvana Turner, was injured in a car accident. She claimed on her WCB because she wanted the opportunity to return to work once she had recuperated. After the WCB terminated her benefits in January, Ms Turner felt she would have been better off claiming the accident on her car insurance instead.

My question to the minister is on behalf of the injured workers he met with personally in my office, the rest of the workers of Niagara South, as well as those others around the province the minister has met with recently. Minister, in your consultations, are you hearing from other injured workers across this province the kinds of problems and frustrations experienced by my constituent Silvana Turner?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Workers' Compensation Board]): I'd like to thank the member for Niagara South not only for the question but because he has taken a very active interest in injured workers in his riding and done a considerable amount of accessing programs for his constituents in this regard.

His constituent Silvana Turner raised a very interesting question about the options for persons injured in a car accident or on their way to work or during the course of employment. Silvana Turner's experience was quite interesting because of the fact that she felt, upon reflection upon how she'd been treated during the adjudication process, what medical supports were available, what she felt she was denied, that in fact there was a better way of providing the services under workers' compensation or a better service could be applied with her auto insurance.

So I was pleased when she wrote a letter, both to the member and myself, where she indicated, and I quote from her letter to me, "The current majority government that was elected by the people should take a long, hard look at the workers' compensation program and its debt load and revise it to its original intention, which was to help people that are incapable of work because of an accident." That is exactly what this government is doing.

Mr Hudak: I'd like to thank the minister for his interest in Ms Turner and other similar injured workers across the province and for his personal interest in the workers in my riding.

As a supplementary, Mr Minister, I think you'll remember that when you met with the injured workers in Niagara South in February they expressed concerns that the WCB's current approach to physical and vocational rehabilitation has not been effective in helping injured workers in their efforts to return to work. Could you tell me, Mr Minister, is this what you've been hearing from injured workers not only in Niagara South but in the rest of the province?

Hon Mr Jackson: Yes, it is what I have been hearing from injured workers. In fact, I was in the riding of the leader of the official opposition several weeks ago, and I spent about three and a half hours in her riding meeting and listening to injured workers to have a better --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): And they're very upset with what you're doing.

Hon Mr Jackson: Well, they are quite aware that this government is listening to injured workers. They expressed concern about voc rehabilitation programs in this province, and they're concerned, for example, about the value for money at institutions like Downsview. The spending on voc rehab in this province has more than doubled, from $200 million in 1987 to $459 million in 1994, yet the unemployment rate for injured workers remains at about 50%. This is a record that we, as a province, cannot be proud of.

That is why, upon the suggestion of two of the constituents from the north, in Thunder Bay, who mentioned that we should be looking at other positive examples of cooperative models for rehab, I took their suggestion. Both Steve Mantis and George Casey, an ironworker in Thunder Bay, recommended that we invite someone from the state of Germany to present some of the concerns and best practices in European models. I'm pleased to report to the House that Mr Manfred Rentrop, a senior official with the German government, will be here tomorrow for our International Forum on Workers' Compensation, Health and Safety.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS AND CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a question for a minister who has some authority in the cabinet. My question is for the Minister of Health, a real minister. The question that I have to the minister who is cutting and gutting is I ask him to remember back to May 1994 when he stood in this House and made a statement on a very serious issue. I want him to know that I have been contacted by the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association of Ontario. For those who are unaware, this is chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as ME.

You said, and I quote the minister's words when he was health critic and cared about appropriate care and treatment for the people of this province, or seemed to, "Very little is known about this painful and debilitating disease." He said that over 10,000 individuals suffer from ME, and he called upon the provincial government to take action because, notwithstanding the fact that it had taken the NDP government eight months to establish an environmental clinic, Mr Wilson said that was inadequate, and he urged the government to take immediate action to convene a promised provincial advisory committee on non-specific disorders and to initiate an epidemiological surveillance to evaluate the extent of ME and the potential crisis in Ontario.

I would ask him today to tell us what he has done in the over-eight months that he has been Minister of Health to address this issue of importance to those who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome and ME.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Well, it's a very good question from the member for Oriole. I can only reiterate, as I said in the House back in May 1994, that the group we're trying to get together, that she mentions, is on track and we'll be making announcements about that this year; that the commitments we made in the past are on track; and that there are some other topics -- if she wants to bring them up. We also made a commitment to the Alzheimer's society that we're also working on, and I'm sure they'll approach her soon on that.

I've been very, very busy, I say to the honourable member for Oriole, and this government's been very busy. We've done more perhaps in the first nine months of government than most governments do in four or five years. And I want to tell you, on a very human level, that if we make commitments, if I make commitments as health critic, if commitments were made during the campaign, this government is fully committed to living up to everything we said we would do for the people of Ontario. I appreciate your reminding us from time to time and prodding us along; but with respect, for people suffering with ME, I fully intend to live up to those commitments.

Mrs Caplan: This minister has done more to cut and gut health services in this province, I will agree with him. He has done more to damage health services in this province than any minister in the history of this province.

I would also say to him that there are many of those who are in need of appropriate care who are unable to find that care. That is because he has cut $1.3 billion, and that we haven't seen a forecast of 20,000 jobs over the next three years, layoffs from the hospitals of this province, and the minister knows fulls well that those are the people who provide the services to patients, those are the people who keep our hospitals clean and safe for the people of this province.

So to have him stand in his place and give a patronizing answer to a serious issue like ME is unacceptable, and I would say shame to him. And I would say to him: Who is on your advisory committee? When is it going to be established? This is a very serious issue for people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. You took it seriously when you were on this side of the House. You've been there for eight months, all you've been doing is cutting. When are you going to get on with doing something positive and putting in place those things that you advocated for when you were on this side of the House? Stand up and say when.

Hon Mr Wilson: What I will do is stand up and correct the honourable member. We have not cut one penny from health care in this province. The budget was $17.4 billion when we arrived in office, it's $17.4 billion today, and it will be through to the next election, as per our commitment.

I would remind people that this little book talked about health care, this talked about health care at $17 billion in some 10 locations in this bill. So I ask the honourable member, you would have started your term as health minister, had you won the last election, by cutting $400 million from health care in this province. That's not the route we've taken, and we're fully living up to all of our commitments including --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. New question, third party, the member for London Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The individual who used that word "lied," I would appreciate if he would withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member withdraw?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Did the member use the word?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: Order. Whoa. I'm asking the member. If he didn't use it, then that's fine.

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. You are the chief law officer of the crown in this province and you have very special duties under the Attorney General's act, duties that no other member of the cabinet has. Those duties are to administer the justice system in this province and to ensure that it doesn't fall into disrepute, to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is there in the Constitution for us all pertains to everyone impartially within this province. So I would like to ask you the question that I asked the political head of your government, who gave me a political answer.

I would like to ask you what, in your opinion as the Attorney General of this province, you think is appropriate in terms of comments made by a minister of the crown in the face of a police investigation, a quasi-judicial tribunal or a court. Is it ever appropriate, and if so, when, for a minister of the crown to deal with issues publicly that are in front of those bodies?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will say again there have been no comments made about any specific case, and I will also say that in this province we have an independent police complaints commissioner. That independent police complaints commissioner will investigate these issues and the complaints that have been put before him in an independent way and that will be done.

Mrs Boyd: It is very clear, as it was yesterday, as it was Monday, that this government has different standards for itself and different standards for anyone else who has ever been in government, and that's very serious because in fact what is happening here is a claim that they do not know what's in front of the police complaints commission, but nothing that the Solicitor General said could possibly be inappropriate with something in front of that commission. This is absolute nonsense.

The minister made it very clear that he was commenting, first of all, on whether or not the OPP gave adequate warning. We've repeated those again and again in Hansard. I'm not going to do it again. He admitted that he had seen confidential OPP tapes and that he was making these judgements as a result of that observation, which he made only because of his privilege and his responsibility as the head of the OPP. He made allegations that he was not making any judgement against OPSEU, but he was making judgements about a number of other groups that he said, according to the tapes, were responsible for the disorder that occurred.

It is impossible for me to believe that the Attorney General really believes that none of those issues will be part of an investigation by the police complaints commission. I want to make it very clear to the Attorney General, we are in no way impugning the independence or the integrity of the police complaints commissioner, Judge Lapkin -- in no way at all. We are simply saying to the Attorney General, how can you continue to defend and attempt to whitewash the behaviour of your colleague who is calling the administration of justice in this province into disrepute when that is your major responsibility as Attorney General?

Hon Mr Harnick: The issue is the investigation and the proper investigation by the police complaints commissioner of the individual complaints that have been filed with him. I have no doubt, because of the nature of his independent position and because he will investigate independently, that those complaints before the police complaints commissioner are not going to be prejudiced in any way. There will be an independent investigation. That is the duty of the independent police complaints commissioner and he will do his job as statute obligates him to do.

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Last night, the Peel Board of Education introduced a motion at its board which essentially cuts off all busing in the region of Peel. As you know, I represent the north half of the region of Peel, the town of Caledon, and stopping all busing in this area will certainly have a devastating effect on the town of Caledon because we essentially do not have a busing system, a municipal system.

My question to the minister is whether he's aware of the current situation and what dialogue he's had with representatives from the Peel Board of Education concerning school bus service in rural areas such as Caledon.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The member for Dufferin-Peel has asked a question which is very serious for the residents of Peel, and I know there have been many people who have attended a public meeting recently to take up this subject.

In answer to the question, I have had several conversations in the past few months with the chairperson of that board and I've also had a chance to have conversations with the representatives of the provincial bodies that represent the school boards across the province. In fact, that includes the people who represent the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. Those folks agree with this government that we need to change our education system in this province, that we need to protect the quality of education while at the same time finding savings in our costs outside of the classroom.

In order to enhance both the local flexibility at the bargaining table and the local flexibility of boards of education, we recently announced measures that would assist local boards in doing just that, including a new block grant approach to our transportation grants.

We believe that transportation costs can be reduced, and board associations agree as well, through transportation logistics including coterminous cooperation, which I know Dufferin-Peel and the Peel boards have been doing for the last couple of years, but also through staggered start and finish times for schools so that we can have two and three times the utilization for bus equipment and by using computer modelling.

Peel's transportation grant reduction next year will amount to about 1% of the transportation costs, and I believe those kinds of savings can be found in the methodology that I've just described.

Mr Tilson: This move by the Peel Board of Education, in my opinion, will place an unfair burden on the parents and the students of my riding, which is Caledon. Specifically as well it will set a precedent to school boards around the province to bring forward similar motions instead of looking at internal cost savings. In other words, if you happen to live near a school, you don't pay, but if you live on a farm or out in the country, you have to pay dearly.

My final question to the Minister of Agriculture -- I keep saying "Minister of Agriculture" -- to the Minister of Education is, what solutions is the minister prepared to offer to ensure that bus service is not dropped in rural areas of Peel and across the province? How can he assure that there will be universal access to education across this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I understand that the honourable member might have a problem. The Minister of Agriculture and I do look a lot alike, and so occasionally everyone makes that sort of mistake.

Mr Tilson: You're better-looking by far.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to inform the member that transportation is not a mandated service in the province of Ontario. The Education Act says that boards "may" provide transportation service. This allows for a lot of local flexibility and for school boards to meet local requirements which, as the member has pointed out, are different in rural and urban areas.

I want to inform the member that if the response of a board to about a 1% reduction in transportation grants, or money available for transportation, is either to charge a user fee or to completely eliminate the service, then my ministry will reconsider all of the transportation funding provided to that board. In the case of the Peel board that the member has brought up, that would amount to about $4 million.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I indicate dissatisfaction with the answer of the Attorney General and request a late show. I'll file the appropriate papers by the end of the day.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition to Premier Mike Harris, Minister Al Leach and members of the Ontario Legislature:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

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

I will affix my signature to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I rise pursuant to standing order 36 to present a petition on behalf of 587 good citizens of Cambridge and area, including members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and local churches. It reads:

"We commend the provincial government for seeking to cut unnecessary spending. We, the undersigned, who represent Cambridge and area churches, urge Premier Mike Harris to cut abortion funding. Our Christian conscience is violated when our taxes are used to fund abortions."

I affix my name on there pursuant to the standing orders.

CHILD CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition from the Rural Family Resource Centre, parents who are very concerned about the provision of day care. The petition reads:

"As a parent-caregiver using the services of the Rural Family Resource Centre, I am concerned about future budget cuts to family resource programs. I urge you to maintain funding to these programs so that rural families can continue to access this essential service."

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

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition from the coalition of tenants' associations in the Hamilton area that has been doing a lot of work in order to be able to gather signatures in opposition to the government's plan to scrap rent control. The petition reads:

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

"Whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons; and

"As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

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

I've proudly signed this petition with these people.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Scarborough. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the paediatric unit, special care nursery and burn unit at Scarborough General Hospital provide very cost-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'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 147 residents of eastern Ontario and it calls for the government to continue full funding to public libraries.

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, have made statements that suggest the provincial government intends to repeal the Public Libraries Act in order to impose fees for the use of public libraries, to eliminate provincial conditional grants to public libraries, and to eradicate public library boards; and...

"Whereas public libraries make too important a contribution to the ongoing economic strength and quality of life in Ontario for these principles to be cast aside,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To oppose the repeal of the Public Libraries Act, the imposition of fees for the use of public libraries, the elimination of provincial conditional grants to public libraries, the eradication of library boards, and to support free public libraries as the foundation of a literate, informed and prosperous population."

I have also signed my name to this petition.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I have a petition from Freedom to Move. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

It's signed by concerned citizens and of course I have affixed my name to that petition.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): On Friday, I was approached by three representatives of the OPSEU organization who asked me to pass on a petition signed by a number of residents of the Niagara Peninsula. I'll oblige their request and read it into the record on their behalf. After a

preamble, the conclusion is:

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

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the Minister of Education and Training has gone on record stating that the government is deeply committed to an educational system that delivers excellence and that the government has acknowledged that the public wants a highly educated, highly motivated and highly trained workforce that is a result of providing an absolutely first-class education to our young people, and that the government is going to deliver on these needs expressed by the public;

"Whereas Stats Canada data places Ontario sixth in spending per pupil after the northern territories, Quebec, Manitoba and BC, yet the government has announced a $400-million cut in educational funding for the 1996 school year;

"Whereas these cuts will translate into a reduction in support to students, a reduction in teacher contact with students, and create a school environment that will not promote the ideal stated above, contrary to what the public expects,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the Legislature of Ontario to withdraw this damaging underfunding of Ontario's educational system and to refrain from making changes which affect the delicate balance between teachers and school boards."

I have 300 signatures, and I will affix my name to this petition as well.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a petition from some good, hardworking residents of my constituency.

"By means of this petition we, the employees of Gogama Forest Products Ltd and all other persons travelling our provincial highways, do not agree with the government's decision to reduce the number of highway snow-clearing and sanding vehicles in the province, but more specifically, those located in the Shining Tree and Gogama patrol area.

"It is felt that the lack of the aforementioned equipment in these areas will greatly jeopardize the safety of those travelling the highways this winter. We must travel Highways 144 and 560 on a daily basis to get to work and the employees and their family members rely heavily on the highways being maintained on an ongoing basis, allowing all to reach their destinations safely.

"Your government must realize and take into consideration that the highways in southern Ontario are not the same in northern Ontario and concessions or adjustments must be made to accommodate the differences."

I agree with this petition and have affixed my name thereto.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I also have in my possession a group of letters presented to me.

"I urge the government to sit down with the public service workers to find ways to cut costs while safeguarding the services needed."

I'd like to enter it into the record.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and, operating on a five-year budget of $865,000, they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 29,000 meals;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and places the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham-Kent."

I affix my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Contrary to Minister Jackson's fantasy, here's what workers are really saying about his attacking WCB.

"To the Ontario Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are opposed to your government's proposed changes to Ontario's workers' compensation system, including elimination of the bipartite board of directors, reduced temporary benefits, introduction of the three-day period from the time of injury with no pay, legislated limits on entitlement, thereby excluding repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims from eligibility for compensation, reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements; and

"Whereas workers' compensation is not a handout; it is an insurance plan for which premiums are paid, it is a legal obligation that employers have to employees who 80 years ago traded their right to sue employers in return for this insurance plan;

"Therefore, we demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent injuries, no reduction in current Workers' Compensation Board staff levels and that the bipartite board structure be left intact."

I join the United Food and Commercial Workers in their petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature and it reads as follows:

"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."

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to reject all recommendations put forward by the Hamilton health task force related to the closing of St Joseph's Hospital and we recommend that no hospitals should close in Hamilton-Wentworth."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition from the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations in regard to rent control, and I commend them on the work that they're doing in getting all these signatures. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach, and members of the provincial Legislature:

"Whereas to abolish rent controls in favour of a market system would be disastrous for tenants and would give further power to allow unnecessary profit for landlords,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support universal and mandatory rent controls which reflect a fair balance between the ability of tenants to pay and the necessity of costs of supplying well-maintained and secure housing."

I sign the petition on their behalf.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting TD Trust Company and Central Guaranty Trust Company

Bill Pr41,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough

Bill Pr43,

An Act to revive 1092040 Ontario Inc.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's sixth report.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 20,

An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning, development, municipal and heritage matters / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à promouvoir la croissance économique et à protéger l'environnement en rationalisant le système d'aménagement et de mise en valeur du territoire au moyen de modifications touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement, la mise en valeur, les municipalités et le patrimoine.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'd like to start by thanking my colleague the member for Cochrane South, who is the actual critic for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, for not only splitting his time with me but giving me the lion's share of that time. As the critic for environment and energy, I carried this bill mostly through the committee for our caucus, although I was joined by many members from our caucus.

I want to begin by paying tribute to some folks who were instrumental in the development of Bill 163, which as you know is the bill that's now been completely gutted by this new Bill 20.

In particular, I think it's really important that we commend John Sewell, the former chair of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. People may not be aware of this, but leaving aside whether or not you like what was in the final bill as a result of Mr Sewell's committee, John chaired one of the very few royal commissions in Canada that actually not only reported on time but came in under budget. Not only that, but he saw most of his recommendations, at least at the time, adopted. That's very rare indeed, and I think we should all in this House congratulate Mr Sewell for managing to achieve that mighty feat.

I also want to thank the other members of the commission, Toby Vigod and George Penfold, who spent many hours of their time. As you will remember, Mr Speaker, of the four years, they spent a couple of years on the road, literally, talking to thousands of people.

Last but not least, I would like to mention the Honourable Ed Philip, who at that time was our Minister of Municipal Affairs. I know he struggled very hard for quite a long time, trying to balance the various interests in the Planning Act. Certainly I remember many conversations around caucus and in cabinet, trying to find that balance. I commend him for sticking to it and coming up with a bill that, in our view, did represent the balance of the views in Ontario.

I can't even begin to thank by name the literally hundreds of people from environmental groups, from cottage country, from land use committees, ordinary citizens, the development community, municipalities, all of the people who were so very helpful in developing Bill 163.

I want to look at this new Bill 20 from the perspective of other government environmental deregulation and cuts that have happened, and more to come, because when you don't take this in isolation, but you include it and look at it as part of that whole package, we're going to have total devastation of environmental protection in this province. If the Minister of Environment were here, I would say to her that this is not manufactured hysteria by environmentalists out there, as has been suggested by a spokesperson from her office. I'm going to give a specific example, although there are many, of what I mean.

This is really important, because when you combine the Planning Act's controls on land development, the controls that have been taken away, with the defunding of conservation authorities under Bill 26, as we all recall, the omnibus, ominous Bill 26, there were many environmental aspects in that Bill 26.

One of the consequences combined with the consequences of Bill 20 is indeed very serious. That is the defunding of conservation authorities. Certainly, when we were the government it became very clear to us that there needed to be some refining and fine-tuning within the conservation authorities. No doubt about it, some changes had to be made, but this slash-and-burn approach is really wrong.

You have to ask yourself, what do conservation authorities do? Within the context of the Planning Act, they play a very vital role. They manage and protect the province's sensitive wetlands, they help preserve the waterways and help keep the water clean and generally make sure that flood land areas are not developed. Bill 26 takes $34 million away from the authorities and waters down -- excuse the pun here -- the existing conservation laws significantly.

When you put that together with reducing transfer payments by almost half to municipalities, there's going to be a real threat that municipalities will also cut funding, because right now there's a partnership wherein the municipalities and the provinces both contribute to conservation authorities.

You have to ask yourself as well, with this new Planning Act, where municipalities and developers will not have to adhere to strict environmental controls and the difficult situation financially municipalities and conservation authorities are going to be in, are municipalities going to make conservation a high priority when they're going to be really desperate for development, whether it's good or bad? Conservation authorities are going to be put in the position where they're going to be selling off sensitive environmental land.

When you again look at the government removing the Niagara tender fruit land protection fund, or whatever that was called -- our government put a fund in place to protect this very sensitive, vital farm land in Ontario and as my friend from Niagara region, St Catharines, yesterday spoke most eloquently about, there's very little of that land --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): He is very eloquent.

Ms Churley: He is very eloquent, most of the time.

He said much more eloquently and in much more detail than I'm going to today, because I certainly won't repeat what he talked about, but he expresses deep concern, and I share that concern, which is why even in tight economic times our government created a fund to encourage and help farmers hold on to this tender fruit land so that it's there in the future, so that we will actually have such an agricultural industry in the future. This bill and the lack of funding to help preserve this land is going to definitely threaten these fruit lands.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It was just announced there is no fund.

Ms Churley: I see the Minister of Agriculture is here and is arguing with me, but he knows very well about the cuts to agriculture that have already been put in place by this government. The agricultural community isn't fooled. They know what's happening here too, and he is going to have to deal with that down the road.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We're dealing with it now.

Ms Churley: Yes, he's dealing with it now. I can see that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs must be on the defensive, because I've only been speaking for a few minutes and he's already heckling me and trying to assure me that there is no problem here. Actually, what he's doing is provoking me. I wasn't going to talk about the tax cuts for a little while yet, but I'll mention it now because it's quite relevant here, and I'll mention it again.

The kinds of cuts that are taking place within the agricultural and rural areas have everything to do with the 30% tax cut that is mainly going to benefit the rich. This government is going to borrow money so that they can put money back in the pockets of rich people. It's obscene.

Mr Gerretsen: And the extremely rich.

Ms Churley: And the extremely rich, absolutely. When this government was in opposition, the few people across the floor who were here in this position at that time used to give our government a hard time for borrowing money to try to keep the economy afloat, to keep the most vulnerable people in our province afloat during the worst recession since the 1930s and to try to create jobs.

Somehow it was wrong to borrow money to try to help people during a really bad recession, but somehow for them it's okay to borrow money to give to the rich so that our children and our grandchildren will be paying a deficit, and the children who are going hungry and who are having trouble surviving today are paying a big price now while you pave the way to give those people a tax cut.

I see that the Minister of Agriculture has at least temporarily left, so I'll get back to my text, now that I've made it clear to him where I stand on what these cuts are all about and how I feel about them.

I'm going to talk about a few areas of the bill that are of particular concern to me. I am going to focus on the environmental aspects of this bill, of which there are many serious consequences, because that is my critic area. That is not to say that I don't have severe concerns about some of the other areas: the lack of public participation -- I shouldn't "lack," but this government in the new bill has severely limited the kind of public participation that people are used to and should have. There are all kinds of other areas I have concerns about, and if I have time I'll get to them.

I have no illusions that I'm going to change anybody's minds in the government, except for a few people whose names I won't mention who I think perhaps have some expertise in the planning area and may in fact agree. I won't mention the member for Middlesex or others in the House specifically, but I know that there are some people who have a better understanding of those issues than others, have paid a great deal of attention to what's going on and know that there are some very bad policy changes in this bill that are going to make planning much more difficult.

That's the irony of this bill, that is the real irony: It isn't even going to do what the minister says he wants to do. It isn't going to streamline the system.

I know members of the government don't believe me. They think this is rhetoric, because I'm one of these crazy environmentalists and I just want to hold everything up for the sake of holding it up. Not true. That's why we, our government, commissioned the planning commission in the first place, because it was very clear that the existing Planning Act was not working and that we needed something new in place.

I'm going to begin with the title of this bill. I made an amendment at committee level which, I'm sorry to say, was not accepted, but I wasn't surprised. I believe the Liberals supported me on this, at least Mr Bradley did. Let's read the

long title of the bill. The

short title is Land Use Planning and Protection Act. The

long title is, listen to this:

An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning, development, municipal and heritage matters.

My amendment at the committee hearings was -- I suppose it's a bit mischievous, but it also tells a story. It should be titled, at least the

short title, Destruction of the Environment Act, because the title of this bill in itself is doublespeak and is entirely misleading. There is not a single amendment in Bill 20 to do with environmental protection. The very opposite is true. This bill takes away environmental protections which already exist.

I want to talk about a component of the bill which was a major focus at the committee hearings, and that is

section

Section 3 changes the requirement, that planning decisions must "have regard to" provincial policy, from "to be consistent with" provincial policy. I know that those who aren't greatly involved in this issue think this sounds a little strange, a little weird, semantics: "What are they talking about? What's the big difference between `have regard to' and `be consistent with'?"

I want to tell you how significant this change is. It strikes at the very heart of this bill, and at committee level, it's true, many, almost all the people who came to speak to us about this bill, spoke to this one issue, because it is at the heart. It's very clear that some people hated it and some people liked it.

I want to tell you, and I want to be very clear on this, that the Sewell commission and our government spent many hours, many months, many discussions about how to sort this out, because it became, when we were in the process of developing our bill, an issue as well.

A lot of research was done by Mr Sewell and others and it became very clear to us that "have regard to" provincial policy had no teeth. What it means is -- and it's happened in the past, there are different legal

interpretations, there's no clarity to it -- that you've got provincial policy, "have regard to," you can pick it up, have a look at it, "No, that doesn't fit with what we want to do here," toss it aside and say, "Yes, we had regard for it, but it doesn't work for us and that's that."

The loss of this change means the loss of a key planning tool and ironically it will work against this government's approach to speeding up the process. I know you don't believe me now, and not everybody agrees. We had a lot of people come to the committee and say the opposite, it's true. At some point you have to make up your own mind. You have to do the research, you have to talk to different sides and you have to try to determine what will work best, if you're looking at it solely from the point of view of trying to speed up the process and make it less complicated.

If you're moving aside from looking at the environmental aspects of it, that's one thing. But looking at speeding up the process, this is only going to bog it down more. You've got to think about the 80% of Ontario's municipalities with populations of less than 5,000 people, with very limited funds and expertise, and even more limited funds now than before.

Members of the government and all the developers and some municipalities think this change will free them from provincial interference in local decision-making. Again I say, on the contrary.

Let me say here -- and this is really important to those who have paid any attention to this new planning act and Bill 163 under our government -- that we must not confuse the policy guidelines with the policy statements. I think even some members of my own caucus who weren't very involved in the development of this bill confused those guidelines with the policy framework. I will be the first one to say here that those policy guidelines -- and that's all they are, they're guidelines; they have no legislative authority -- were a mistake.

They're very long and they're complicated and I can assure you that had Bill 163 stayed in place, they would have had to be changed. It's unfortunate that so many people confuse those guidelines with the provincial policy framework.

But the policy itself which municipalities and developers would have had to be consistent with used langauge and policies to help municipalities to say yes to good development and no to bad development. It was a tool to help them, and flexibility was built into the policies. I suggest that people read those policies. For example, such language as "encouraging" or "fostering" certain kinds of development patterns was used.

I can assure you, we had some fights with environmental activists around some of the words in the policy framework. Environmentalists did not get everything they wanted in this bill. Environmentalists wanted things to be much tougher, much more clear in terms of what could and could not be done in the environment. But we made sure that the policy statements were flexible enough that municipalities and developers could, within the context of their own regions, adhere to and be consistent with these rules but be able to work within the framework of their own restrictions.

As a result of this change, I can tell you, and I know, having been a city councillor for a while and also an environmental activist for quite a long time, I can assure you that there'll be more and more protracted site-by-site battles and appeals to the OMB from all sides. That's what happens when you don't have clarity, and that's what this does. It's very important to understand why this became an issue, whether it should be "be consistent with" or not.

Municipalities wanted more autonomy by freeing them from having to always go to the province for approvals. Bill 163 gave them that. The developers who came and spoke to our committee, who were very involved in the development of Bill 163, when I asked them they agreed that Bill 163 did indeed do that, and so did the municipality representatives.

So the trade-off, as a result of giving the municipalities more autonomy, was that the municipalities' plans had to be consistent with provincial policies. As I said, this included broad goals such as protection of environmentally sensitive areas and curbing urban sprawl. That was a trade-off, because the autonomy municipalities wanted was granted. Now what's happened is that that autonomy is there but there's a free-for-all in terms of environmental protection.

Another big area of concern, which has been addressed by some of my colleagues and I'm sure will be mentioned again, is taking away the tools to try to curb urban sprawl. Bill 163 prevented municipalities from stopping two-unit house development. People could go ahead and build two-unit housing. Bill 20 removes that restriction, so the encouragement to compact development, infilling and intensification has gone out the door.

Bill 20 also eliminates provisions to allow apartments in housing, those kinds of provisions. We've gone back to the bad old days where municipalities can determine for themselves whether they're going to allow them, which doesn't make sense.

This is where I can't understand the Tories at all. This is a case where you have the private property owners, the private sector out there, developing affordable housing.

You have situations, especially in this economy, where people want to buy a house but can't afford it unless they're able to rent out a basement apartment to pay their mortgage; or they have a house and somebody's lost a job and they're trying to maintain and keep their house and the only way they can do that is by having an auxiliary apartment; or we have aging parents and we need to be able to find a way to help care for these parents and still give them an opportunity to maintain some kind of independent lifestyle.

It allows the private property owner out there to do those things, which is what this Tory government is all about, so they say. But because of pressure from certain municipalities, they caved in and took away a very basic right --

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): AMO.

Ms Churley: Yes, AMO indeed -- listened to AMO but didn't listen to the many thousands of people who need this affordable housing, and took away a very basic right. It's very dangerous when provincial senior levels of government only listen to other elected representatives. Sometimes the people themselves need to be talked to directly.

Another big area of concern for me and for my colleagues is the redrawing of the map. I meant to bring one in so I could illustrate it on the map to people; I forgot it. It's where significant wetlands are specifically protected under Bill 163. Under existing NDP policy statements, development is banned from provincially significant wetlands south of the boreal region, and that's almost up to Wawa. But the Tories again in this case -- I guess it wasn't AMO they caved to but their developer friends. Now the new policies say you only have to protect wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield.

That means that most of cottage country, where there's some of the most beautiful land and some of the most environmentally sensitive land in our province, will no longer be covered.

Of course there are some provisions that municipalities have to look at these sensitive areas, blah, blah, blah, but if you only have to "have regard for," that can be ignored. The "no means no" policy in this particular region, the cottage country, is no longer the case. I would say that all these people who own cottages and live in that area should be very concerned about the kind of development proposals that are going to come forward. This is where I come back to the fact that when people start hearing about some of those development proposals, there are going to be long and protracted battles before the OMB, because there's a lack of clarity about exactly what the rules say.

As I sat through the hearings it became increasingly clear to me, and we had some discussions about this -- I see the parliamentary assistant is here, the member for Oxford -- about who was consulted and who wasn't consulted on Bill 20. It's interesting. Today -- I asked permission if I could use his name today -- I had lunch with a Mr Steve Kaiser, who is the new head of the Urban Development Institute, and he likes this bill, he likes this bill a lot. He thinks it's great for developers. Are you surprised? Although he and I had an agreement on one aspect, an area this bill didn't cover.

One of the things he said to me -- and I told him I'd be very careful not to misrepresent him; Steve, if you're watching, I'll be very careful -- was that he was consulted and he was part of the process of the development of Bill 163. He also said that as much as he likes this bill, one of the things that's very important to developers is certainty. I'd better stop quoting him now.

My

interpretation of what Mr Kaiser meant is that the kind of policy they want to see in place, they don't want -- put it this way. Four years from now -- well, now, Mr Kaiser didn't say that, but I say it -- this government will no longer be sitting there. I know you guys used to say that to us too, and we used to hate it, but it's going to be true. Face it, many of you sitting here now will not be in this House four years from now. There's going to be a new government over there, and there's going to be tremendous pressure from all the people who were not consulted, were not listened to on this bill, and lousy development is going to start happening.

We're not going to see this right away. It's going to take a few years, as in the past, for the environmental disasters to start showing up and the millions and millions of dollars that our children and our grandchildren are going to -- talk about leaving our kids a deficit. This government continues to say, "We're spending" -- what is it, the mantra? -- "$1 million an hour on paying off the deficit, and we have to pay it off so that our kids and our grandchildren won't have to be stuck with this big deficit."

If you look at the kind of deficit that you are going to leave your children -- don't turn a blind eye to it; it's the reality. It's so shortsighted to try to dig yourself out of this deep hole you dug yourselves in during the election that you're going to get rid of the deficit and you're going to cut taxes by 30%. You were bold enough to even outline it in -- I almost said the red book. Sorry, what was it called? The Common Sense Revolution. They were bold enough to even put it in there. It shows right up front that rich people are going to get the lion's share of this money.

In the process of developing that, they talk about not leaving our kids a deficit. We know that there are more deficits than economic deficits. We have seen the results of bad planning in this province time and time again which has literally cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars to clean up: contaminated water, mine tailings. It goes on and on. Millions of dollars and bad planning.

Mr Hastings: Oh, oh.

Ms Churley: The member doesn't want to hear this, but he really should listen. I'm talking about the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He's not taking this seriously. I understand that. But it is a very serious problem. I know they're not listening. But if there's one thing I could convince them of, it would be to look into the history of environmental damage and the costs to the taxpayers of this province.

Some of it is gone forever. That's the problem with environmental damage. You can pay off a deficit over time. You've got to manage, and you can pay it off. Especially if you don't give a tax cut at the same time, you can deal with it. But once certain environmental damage is done, you can never, never get it back.

Chris Winter, who's the executive director of the Conservation Council of Ontario, said something that I found extremely telling. He said the environment doesn't care how long it takes to make a decision; it cares what the decision is. That's the crux of the matter here. We have to look beyond just quick, make-a-fast-buck development, because our kids are going to be paying, and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. We won't be around. We'll be dead, let's face it. Let's get real here.

Our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will be out there suffering the consequence of bad development, disappearing farm land, more and more pollution from the automobile, which is what this Bill 20 is going to do.

I want to make it clear that I have no quarrel with Mr Kaiser or with developers. They're a special-interest group. They are one of the few special-interest groups this government listens to. They are. That's okay. They have a right to their opinion; they have a right to represent their constituents, their issues. More power to them. That's what they do.

My quarrel is with this government, because it became increasingly clear throughout the process of these hearings that after our government literally consulted and talked to people for four years, this government within a matter of a few months talked to, consulted with developers and AMO and a few others. I know this because as people came before the committee, I would ask them, if you check Hansard -- I didn't ask them all, but I'd ask some, the developers -- "Do you like this bill?" "Yes, we like this bill." "Were you consulted on this bill?" "Yes, we were consulted" -- a lot, yes.

"Did you get what you wanted in this bill?" or words to that effect. "Yes, we're very happy with this bill and the kinds of issues we raised are in there."

Environmental and other citizens' groups who came forward, I would ask the same questions. Totally opposite answer: "No, we were not consulted." "Is there anything about this bill that you like?" "No, not much." "Did the government respond to any of your concerns at all?" "No." There was an absolute dichotomy within those hearings, and you would agree, the member for Kingston and The Islands. He was there for most of the hearings with me. I know the member for Kingston and The Islands agrees with some of the things in the bill.

Mr Gerretsen: I agree.

Ms Churley: That's fine. There are some areas we agree on. But I can assure you there's one thing we agree on, and that is that the other side were not consulted.

We had discussions and some arguments about that in the committee. I remember Ms Kathy Cooper -- remember that? -- from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. She was in and there was a bit of a kerfuffle over who consulted whom and she got cut off by the member for Bruce, who was doing the vice-chairing at the time. She's not here right now. There was a misunderstanding about who consulted with whom, but Kathy Cooper, who was very involved, spent thousands of volunteer -- her group and others -- time helping develop 163. They weren't consulted. They were invited to a meeting and that's what the confusion was about.

She thought we were talking about the Minister of Environment -- remember? -- and it was because she was cut off we weren't able to work that one out, but subsequent to that we realized that she had been invited, along with some other environmentalists, to meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There wasn't consultation. Any environmental group -- a few did go and meet with him and sit down. It was a get-to-know-you meeting. They were never invited back. They weren't asked to seriously sit down and try to at least work out the areas of their greatest concern.

They were completely, absolutely, categorically denied access and this takes us back to the same kind of arrogance that this government has displayed throughout its term in office.

You've got time to change; you can change once you start to realize that this is going to be a problem, because I come back to Mr Kaiser. I come back to another government sitting over there and the fact that you didn't consult and you left so many people out of the process. I can guarantee you there is going to be an onslaught from people who weren't involved in this process who are going to say, "We need changes," and I can guarantee you it's going to be changed again. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is now here and is shaking his head, and I know he's the past chair of the UDI --

Mr Gerretsen: He was president; he's past president.

Ms Churley: Past president. You may have missed this, but I had lunch with Mr Kaiser today and we were talking about certain aspects of this bill.

Mr Gerretsen: They've had two nice guys as presidents.

Ms Churley: Two nice guys now as presidents. In the past the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has expressed caring concern for the environment. If he knew what was happening in this bill, despite his past with UDI, he would agree with me that there's some really serious -- I know he'll be up in his two minutes to tell me that he does agree with me and that he would like to see his government change some of the most draconian aspects of this bill, the parts that are going to affect the environment in a negative way.

Coming back to who was consulted and who wasn't -- very dangerous, what you're doing. Even at the end of the day, if the other side -- yes, we know, you like the developer. Your friends are the big developers. You caved in to them. You have all kinds of rationalizations why you did that, but people need to feel that at least they were heard, that they were part of a process, that they weren't shoved aside as these crazy special interests who for some reason are trying to just stop development and stop having reasonably priced housing for people. On the contrary, they support all kinds of affordable housing, which is another issue that this government is getting rid of.

I have many documents here from environmental and citizens' groups that came before us, and some who didn't just sent in the --

Mr Hastings: Where's your lunch receipt? Surely you are saving money from the UDI cut.

Ms Churley: I always know when I'm being effective when the member for Etobicoke --

Mr Gerretsen: Bedrock, isn't it? He's not in his seat. He shouldn't be recognized at all.

Ms Churley: He's not even in his seat, right. When he wakes up and starts heckling me, I know I must be getting to him.

Mr Gerretsen: He's moving closer.

Ms Churley: Look at that. He's up; he's laughing; he's having a good time. He's not asleep over there.

I have a document here from a group called Stop Environmental Deregulation in Canada. I went to a press conference they held at the University of Toronto this morning. This is a new group, I think the first kind in Canada. They're students from all over Ontario who are getting together and they're demanding that the Liberal government in Ottawa and the Harris government here in Ontario make a commitment to end the environmental law rollbacks.

They're very worried about what's happening to the environment within this and they're much more worried about what's happening here in Ontario, but there are some real concerns which are happening in Ottawa too. I'm not going to get into that right away, though. Let me read this to you.

I'm counting for a quorum over there. I think we've got it.

This is very typical of comments made by so many people who were left out of this process. It says: "Public participation is critical to making sound, environmentally significant decisions. Members of the public who receive" -- no, that's the intervenor funding one. Sorry about that. Intervenor funding is a whole other issue here that's going to help take their voices away.

Here it is. "Public ignored. It is frightful that in a country such as ours, which prides itself in a democratic decision-making process in which all citizens have the right to present their views on matters which concern them, the voices of so many members of the public are being ignored. The Harris government's hasty and insufficient consultation process on the omnibus bill is an excellent case in point.

"In preparing Bill 20, the Harris government again has failed to adequately consult the citizens of Ontario. In fact, the only parties consulted were the development industry" --

Mr Hastings: Wrong.

Ms Churley: I know they're right -- "and member municipalities of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. How can the Harris government claim that it is restoring the balance between competing interests when all parties are not at the table? Is this the Harris government's idea of a balanced approach?"

I say shame. There is nothing this government can say that's going to change the fact. I know they'll make all kinds of noises, "Oh, we had this group in and that group in and we invited CELA and CIELAP to participate in the development of the policy statements, and they refused."

Mr Hastings: They have refused.

Ms Churley: Yes, they refused. I can tell you why they refused. I can tell you very well why they refused. There wasn't any point any more. They weren't consulted on the main bill, and then they were brought in as a sop at the end to say, "Oh, well, the policy statement, now come and help us write those." When municipalities and developers don't even have to pay attention to them any more, what's the point, for heaven's sake? Give me a break. This is ridiculous.

This guy over here wasn't even at the hearings. He hasn't read the bill. He doesn't know what's going on, which is typical of this government.

I wish the Minister of Environment and Energy was here today, because where has the Minister of Environment and Energy been in the process of the development of Bill 20? Nowhere. There's no evidence that minister had anything to do with the writing of this bill, period.

I tried time and time again, during the course of committee hearings, to get the Minister of Environment and Energy to come in and answer specific questions about my concerns about the environmental aspects, the environmental deregulation that's going on within this bill.

Mr Gerretsen: We were stonewalled by the government members.

Ms Churley: We were completely stonewalled, as my friend from Kingston and The Islands says, completely stonewalled, because when the committee first started, we asked a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He was clueless. I'm quoting him; I don't think I need to apologize for that. He didn't have a clue about the environmental side of this bill, which really worried me, because it's such a major component of the bill, and he couldn't answer the questions. He just kept saying, "Oh, don't worry," and the member for Bruce kept saying, "We haven't done a thing to environmental protection in this bill." It was like she was reading another bill.

Anyway, the Minister of Environment and Energy, I don't know, maybe she would've come if we'd been allowed to ask, but the government stonewalled and said no. What were they afraid of? If they really meant what they said, that there was adequate environmental protection in this bill, why would they not have had, proudly, the Minister of Environment and Energy come in and explain where we were going wrong, that somehow we were misinterpreting what was -- but she didn't. She didn't volunteer her time either. I think it was of particular importance that the Minister of Environment and Energy give her views on the bill and assure us of her commitment to at least attempt to do her job.

Another aspect of this bill is of great concern and that's the concentration of power to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to determine whether matters are referred to the OMB or not. This is new. I know the Liberals and the member for Kingston and The Islands spoke to it yesterday, and I believe the parliamentary assistant -- I'm sorry if it wasn't -- somebody from that side expressed concern that he seemed to suggest that he was going to support that and now he wasn't.

Let me tell you why that's unsupportable.

Nobody disagrees with the concept of streamlining the process, absolutely nobody, as long as, within the context of that streamlining, proper controls are in place and a process is worked out so that the public has confidence that if the Minister of Environment and Energy or the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has some problems with the development they have a say in whether or not that goes to the OMB, that their concerns are represented, that the public has the confidence to know, because I know the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, well, hey, they've got their role to play, and unfortunately, our government tried to start -- not tried to, started the process of finally trying, and the Environmental Bill of Rights was part of that which the Minister of Finance is now exempt from, to make all ministries of the crown and ministers of the crown take the environment into account when considering anything.

That just had to be part of the process. We tried to make all of our ministers and ministries accountable when it came to environmental protection.

There's a big reason for this, because over the years ministries have acted quite in isolation, in many cases, especially when it came to environmental concerns, and this had started to change. Now this government here has just put it back years in terms of s