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

April 16, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L058 - Tue 16 Apr 1996 / Mar 16 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

LISA LANGFORD

HOSPITAL SERVICES

JOB CREATION MEASURES

CANCER PREVENTION

COMMUNITY CARE

WOMEN OF EXCELLENCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

HIGHWAY FINANCING

WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

VISITOR

PRIVATIZATION OF LCBO

SPEED LIMITS

INTEREST RATES

PRIVATIZATION OF LCBO

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

NIAGARA FALLS CASINO

NUISANCE COMPLAINTS

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

PETITIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT

BUS TRANSPORTATION

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

PRIVATIZATION OF LCBO

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

BEAR HUNTING

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

PENSION FUNDS

TAX REDUCTION

RENT REGULATION

TAX REDUCTION

TRANSITION HOUSE

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

FOREST MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Today is Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Each year we remember the events that took place under the Nazi regime in Europe over 50 years ago, events that saw the attempted systematic extermination of a total race with the extermination of six million Jews.

Each year, as we commemorate the Holocaust, there are those who ask, why must we continue to dwell on the past; why not look to the future and direct our energies to forward-looking pursuits? The answer is as profound as it is simple. Without remembering and learning from the past, the possibility of having to relive that dark period in our history is ever-present.

Today there is evidence of cemetery desecrations, synagogue defacings, growing anti-Semitism, revisionist proponents proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened, all of it happening in an environment of supposed enlightenment, human rights and man's humanity to man. We owe it to the six million victims and to the ever-dwindling survivors of the Holocaust, those survivors who witnessed unbelievable atrocities at first hand and who, because of their age, will soon be gone, we owe it to them to alert all of those people and to warn them of the threats not only to those of the Jewish faith but to all of the members of our society.

We must always remember so that the world will never forget.

LISA LANGFORD

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'd like to bring to the attention of the assembly, and particularly my colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services, the plight of one of my constituents, named Lisa Langford, who has Prader-Willi syndrome, a non-inherited genetic disorder that affects small numbers of people but is very serious.

This is a disorder which has multiple symptoms, including developmental handicap, behavioural dysfunction and an eating disorder which results in a constant sense of hunger and anxiety around food. The eating disorder, when combined with the low muscle tone, short stature and low metabolic rate of the person with Prader-Willi syndrome, can result in explosive weight gain over a very short period of time. People with this syndrome need constant support and supervision. They must have a stable, structured and supervised environment 24 hours a day.

Without supervision, the situation can become critical, and tragically 11 young people with this syndrome have died over the past four years because this kind of support was not available.

Lisa currently has no permanent residential space and she is wanting to work with her supporters at the Ontario Prader-Willi Syndrome Association and Family Service London to find that. I will be handing a note to the Minister of Community and Social Services and enlisting him in helping Lisa to find a permanent home.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to announce to all members of this assembly that Peterborough has once again dealt with hospital rationalization and restructuring with a great deal of success.

Yesterday Ontario Health Minister Jim Wilson joined me and the residents of my riding for the opening of Peterborough Civic Hospital's new intensive care unit and St Joseph's General Hospital's outpatient clinic. The opening of both units is the product of many years of rationalization and consolidation. All critical care beds will now be located on one site, while most of the outpatient clinics will be situated at the other hospital. These openings are proof that when faced with the challenges of providing quality health care in a more efficient manner, communities such as Peterborough can rise to the occasion.

I wish to thank the many volunteers, hospital staff and members of the community who have worked tirelessly to make such an event a reality. Many long hours were spent in raising private sector donations. Donations for Civic's intensive care unit today have totalled $1 million, and organizers anticipate an additional $400,000 in the near future. My personal thanks to all those members of the community who donated.

Our government is committed to providing the people of this province with quality health care, and so are the people from my riding. Yesterday's opening is an excellent example of how successful our health care system can truly be when everyone works together.

JOB CREATION MEASURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The Premier would have us believe that tax cuts alone will stimulate job creation. If this logic is true, why are the banks continually laying off thousands of their employees? A lot of banks have successfully appealed their property tax rates. In some instances these reductions have amounted to over $1 million per bank firm.

If what the Premier said is true, that tax reductions will create jobs, why is it then that banks that received millions in tax reductions while making millions in corporate profits are still laying off staff?

The broken promises on job creation are starting to sound like a broken record. This government should be taking the lead in job creation, working with industry and business to create jobs and prosperity rather than solely relying on a tax cut.

As it stands today, the government is placing its faith in business, believing that corporations will take it upon themselves to create the 725,000 jobs that Mike Harris promised. If the banks' track record is any indication, the promised job creation plan is then in serious jeopardy.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): In March 1995, the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer tabled its recommendations to the government of Ontario. This report lays out a broad range of measures that must be followed if we are indeed serious about stemming the rising incidence of so many forms of cancer. In Ontario, we lose over 20,000 lives every year to cancer, many more suffer pain and anguish in the battle to recover, and treating cancer patients costs us in excess of $1 billion annually.

We all know that we have to make informed lifestyle choices if we wish to avoid the tragedy that often follows a diagnosis of cancer. However, none of us gets to choose whether we breathe air or drink water, and these activities are unfortunately a growing mode of transmission for environmentally borne toxins that can cause cancer and other health problems.

Despite our tremendous progress in cancer research, too often there is no cure available when the diagnosis is cancer.

I've tabled a resolution asking the government to act quickly to plan the sunsetting of the release of persistent, bioaccumulative carcinogens. I'm sure every member in this House has been touched by the tragedy of cancer. I hope I can count on all the members' support when my resolution is discussed this Thursday at 10 am.

COMMUNITY CARE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): It is my privilege to acknowledge the important work that the Community Care agency does in the Niagara area. Starting out in 1919 by Leone Taylor, the agency was originally called Associated Charities, later becoming Associated Services in 1971. It received its current name in 1993.

Community Care receives donations from the United Way of St Catharines, church groups, service clubs and many, many individuals. Clearly they depend on the help of others, and others depend on their help in their time of need.

This government is taking a proactive and progressive approach in acknowledging the important role that volunteer groups and individuals offer to all Ontarians. We want to encourage those groups who are ever-present in providing a helping hand. Community Care is such a group. For years they have had a food cupboard, a clothing and household goods program and a very special Christmas bureau.

On behalf of my government and everyone they serve, I would like to recognize and thank the St Catharines-Thorold Community Care agency.

WOMEN OF EXCELLENCE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This Wednesday, the Chatham-Kent YMCA will honour five women from Kent county as Women of Excellence. These awards are to recognize women who have made contributions above and beyond the call of duty to their community and to provide positive role models.

The five women being recognized are:

Shae-Lynn Bourne, who recently won the bronze medal at the 1996 World Figure Skating Championships and who, along with many other activities, is the spokeswoman for the Chatham-Kent child abuse prevention program;

Anne Coulter, who is the executive director of family services, Kent. She has volunteered for and served on many groups and boards which make Kent county better for everyone;

Ida Goodreau, who was the first female operations manager and first female vice-president of Union Gas. She implemented various policy developments that affected women at Union Gas and was very active in many community activities.

Dolores Shadd, who has been very active in many activities which benefit farm women and the community in general. In addition to her many awards, she was chosen by the National Film Board to represent farm women in the black history film Older Stronger Wiser.

Michelle Wright, a Merlin native, has twice been selected the Canadian Country Entertainer of the Year. Despite her busy schedule, she remains active in Kent county and acted as honorary chairwoman of the St Joseph's Hospital campaign to raise funds for a CT scanner.

I would like to congratulate all of these women and thank them as Women of Excellence.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This weekend, the Sault Star in my community ran a headline that read, "Health Cuts Can Kill, Forum Hears." "Residents accuse Premier of having blood on his hands at local meeting." The reporter who wrote the story that went under this headline, Linda Richardson, sat for a full afternoon with myself and my colleague the member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, as we listened to members of our communities tell stories of anger and frustration and real sadness as they recounted attempts by themselves or loved ones to access the health care system in our community.

You've heard me, Mr Speaker, on numerous occasions in this House ask the Ministry of Health to reconsider the cuts to our hospitals, which have already done the very difficult and important work of restructuring and rationalizing and cost-cutting. I have asked them to put their tax break on hold until they can guarantee that people will not get hurt. This government has not responded to me in any way, either positive or negative, regarding these very important issues to the people of my community.

People are being hurt now. People are going to continue to be hurt. Some of the people who came in front of me told some very compelling stories, stories that brought tears to the eyes of many of the participants in the room. There were about 50 people there. I ask you to intervene and ask this government to stop the tax breaks, stop hurting people.

BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): On March 30, the Premier, Mike Harris, and several MPPs and I attended the Ismaili business and professional association's award ceremony in honour of outstanding individuals in their community who have demonstrated leadership, innovation, ingenuity and community involvement.

The award for overall outstanding achievement was given to Aneela Lada and Shameera Jaffer, president and vice-president respectively of BMS Softkey. Several other individuals were acknowledged in the areas of professional, business and junior achievers.

It gives me great pleasure to announce the winners in the area of outstanding achievement: Noorjehan Mawanee, chair of the refugee board of Canada; Dr Salim Deeya, professor at McMaster University; and Karim and Altaf Halanee, president and vice-president at Ultinet Computer Corp.

The awards for professional excellence were given to Amir Ajanee, senior vice-president of Cara Operations, and Meenhas N. Mohamed, executive vice-president of Quoram Funding Corp. For excellence in business, Fareed Veeya, president of Raleigh Industries, and Azad Datoo, president of Progress Sports Inc, were selected.

Lastly, for excellence in the junior achievement category, Sabrina Kassam and Arif Datoo, both students, were selected.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the members of the House for unanimous consent to allow a member of the government to announce the terms of reference for the public inquiry which was promised by the government House leader on March 20.

The Speaker: The member has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? We don't have unanimous consent.

Oral question period.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance, who we do expect is in the House and --

Mr Wildman: He's out doing the terms of reference.

Mrs McLeod: If he does not return to the House, I'm quite frankly not sure who is there for me to ask my question to. So I'll stand down the first lead question and defer to my colleague for the second lead question until the minister arrives.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, I want to pursue the discussion of yesterday, because I listened carefully and I read closely your response to my question, and I'm not yet sure that I understand the government policy in this respect. So let me try again.

Minister, as the senior policymaker on energy and hydro matters for the Ontario government, are you and your government prepared to sell Niagara Falls?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the honourable member opposite for the question. Niagara Falls is not ours to sell; it's an international waterway and it is not up for sale.

Mr Conway: The Ontario government and the Ontario people have, over nearly a century, developed very considerable public assets in terms of hydro-electric resources on the Canadian portion of Niagara Falls. Minister, are you and your government prepared to sell the Ontario government's hydro-electric resources and assets at Niagara Falls?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I quite agree with the honourable member opposite that the citizens of the province have developed a considerable asset in Ontario Hydro. It's an asset all citizens are proud of, it's an asset I think we all appreciate, and it's an asset we want to protect.

Ontario Hydro has found itself in a situation with a heavy debt load and with uncompetitive rates. It is my job, as Minister of Energy, to determine how to protect those assets and to make sure those rates remain low and that the power provided to the citizens is done in an affordable and a reliable way.

Mr Conway: The minister is very careful to say that she and her government are anxious to protect the Ontario public assets at Niagara Falls, so I ask again: In her interest of protecting the public assets at Niagara Falls, are she and her government prepared to sell Ontario's hydro-electric assets at Niagara Falls?

Hon Mrs Elliott: The reason we are looking at Ontario Hydro is to determine how best to maintain and secure low rates for electricity in this province. In so doing, we have been seeking advice from people all across this province and looking at examples of what is happening in other jurisdictions which are facing similar difficulties as this province is facing.

We have not yet determined how we should do that. We have not yet determined if private capital should be injected into the system to help it. None of those questions are determined. We are seeking advice and we will listen to the advice that is being brought to us in an attempt to make sure we find the appropriate way to ascertain and maintain those low rates.

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

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It's incredible that this minister will not rule out at least that very basic selloff of one of Ontario's most important and valued assets.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance. Last Tuesday, the Minister of Transportation made the following claim, and I quote him directly from Hansard: "We are going to be putting more money into our highway infrastructure this year than we have in the last six years."

On Thursday, as you know well, the so-called interim business plans were released. Strangely, the business plan for the Ministry of Transportation showed a $70-million cut to road repair and maintenance funding, and at the same time, $11.5 million was cut from the funding for northern highways. That comes on top of $110 million in road cuts last summer and at least $250 million from municipal road funding in last November's economic statement. We are now over $400 million in cuts to road funding.

Minister, I wonder if you can provide us with any insight as to why your colleague the Minister of Transportation is under the impression that road funding is somehow on the increase.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): No, I cannot.

Mrs McLeod: Given the fact that yesterday the Solicitor General also seemed to be at some odds with the Minister of Transportation on the issue of raising the speed limit on certain Ontario highways, I guess I find myself wondering whether the Minister of Transportation is in communication with anybody in cabinet or whether he simply says what comes into his mind at a given moment, because, Minister, last Tuesday your colleague the Minister of Transportation also said: "The good repair of our highways is a very critical thing. For our economic growth, we must pay attention...."

I don't think there are very many people in this House or in this province who would disagree with that statement. Our highway system is critical. And yet, while the minister was saying this just last Tuesday, he must surely have been aware that he was about to cut $70 million more from a budget that he had already savaged. So I have to be curious as to what happened. Did the Minister of Transportation somehow convince the cabinet that cutting road maintenance in his budget would somehow enhance Ontario's highways and improve our economic growth?

Hon Mr Eves: It is my understanding that the reduction in the MTO budget is a reduction in capital construction allocation and the construction administration portion totalling, as the Leader of the Opposition correctly points out, $70.5 million over two years, but it is also my understanding that it does not affect the maintenance budget with respect to the provincial highway system, which will be maintained.

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that this falls into the category of a wishful hope that the government is going to be able to do more for less, as they're fond of saying, and I think the Minister of Finance should be aware that they have a great deal more to do with a great deal less money.

The member for Hamilton East gave us one of the most recent anecdotes this morning, and I think people across the province are running into this kind of situation. The member for Hamilton West was caught in a traffic jam at the corner of Bronte and the QEW. It was a traffic jam that was caused by the fact that three separate drivers had to pull over because they got flat tires driving over some of the bigger potholes on the QEW. There is a great deal of road maintenance that needs to be done in this province, Minister, and there is no one who doesn't notice the deterioration in our highways.

I think it's possible that your colleague the Minister of Transportation got caught in his own spin documents, because I certainly got confused by them. The interim business plan that his ministry released last week contains the following passage: "The ministry is shifting its focus from expansion projects to preserving Ontario's infrastructure." That's how they explained how they were going to cope with this cut. Then it goes on to detail the millions of dollars in cuts on top of the cuts of last summer and on top of the cuts of last fall.

The Minister of Transportation, despite those cuts, insists -- this was his statement last week -- that he will spend more on highway maintenance this year than has been spent in the last six years. I ask you, as the Minister of Finance, do you stand by the commitment made by the Minister of Transportation, and will you confirm that in your budget next month you will show an increase in spending on highway funding? If that is not the case, why are you confusing the Minister of Transportation so much?

Hon Mr Eves: I hope I'm not confusing anybody, let alone the Minister of Transportation. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that she will have to wait until, of course, the budget is tabled next month before she sees what the exact figures are. But I have every confidence that the Minister of Transportation is indeed going to maintain, if not increase, moneys for maintenance and preservation of our highway system. I might point out to the leader of the official opposition that there are still considerable moneys being spent on capital projects in the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I'd just make a note. Apparently I said both "the member for Hamilton East" and "the member for Hamilton West." I assure the House it's the member for Hamilton East. The member for Hamilton West I'm sure is herself telling the minister about the potholes.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. There has been a lot of concern recently about the quality of water in Ontario, and in particular the quality of water in the Collingwood area. You know that a parasite, cryptosporidium, has been found in the local water supply. Last week, Minister, you assured all the residents of Collingwood that the water was perfectly safe. You said in this House that the water is safe.

This is a bottle of Collingwood water. It looks safe to drink, but many residents believe it contains the parasite cryptosporidium. The 152 people in Collingwood who reported cases of cryptosporidiosis, and there are now 30 confirmed cases, don't believe you. They don't believe their water is safe.

Minister, many people blame this problem on agricultural runoff. In view of this fact, do you think it was prudent for you to cancel the Clean Up Rural Beaches, or CURB, program, that provided assistance to farmers to separate agricultural runoff?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): First, I would like to point out that the tests to date -- and they've been very, very extensive tests -- have not found the cryptosporidium to which my honourable colleague opposite refers. It is only prudent and it is only fair to the people of Collingwood that we do not find ourselves involved in needless fearmongering.

Mr Hampton: Oh, come on.

Hon Mrs Elliott: No, I must say that. This is a very important issue for a community that's facing a summer tourist trade. The water in that town is safe, and we must be very clear about that.

I would agree with the honourable member that there has been a problem. It is a most unfortunate problem. The town of Collingwood has taken a number of measures to deal with it immediately, along with my ministry, to help solve that problem, but it is not an ongoing problem and should not be discussed as such.

Mr Hampton: This is indeed the new Ontario when the Minister of Environment and Energy stands up and says, day after day, that there's no problem when it's very clear to everybody who lives in Collingwood, including the local MPP for Collingwood, the Minister of Health, that there is a problem.

We examined the dismantling of the Ministry of Environment's funding in the so-called business reports and found a lot of doublespeak. It states on page 4, "Over the last three years the municipal assistance program has provided $300 million to municipalities for water and sewage infrastructure programs," and then it says, "The program will continue." The fact is that our government, the government I was a part of, contributed over $578 million for water and sewer infrastructure, not $300 million.

What you don't make clear is that most of the so-called $187 million that's set aside for 1996-97 is already committed to projects. That means there's only $42 million available for new projects like Collingwood. Minister, $42 million doesn't go very far when it comes to water treatment. Collingwood's treatment plant will cost $20 million to take care of this problem. In conversation with officials from OCWA, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, we were told that no new applications are being accepted for the municipal assistance program.

Can you guarantee that your cuts to the clean water budget and to the municipal assistance program will not jeopardize municipalities' water and their capacity to provide safe, clean water to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I thank the honourable member for the question. We have committed to making sure that $300 million is spent on water and sewer infrastructure in this province. The integrity of the water of this province is important to this government.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency, to which the honourable member refers, was an agency set up to encourage and find new ways to establish funding for water and sewer infrastructure. We are working with that to find ways to increase the funding for sewage and water treatment. Sewage and water treatment are the responsibility of the municipality, and as a province we are attempting to find ways to help those municipalities deliver the services to their citizens.

Mr Hampton: We don't need a lecture on the Ontario Clean Water Agency. Our government established it, and our government put some money in that this government is now cutting. This minister should know her own budget. There's only $42 million remaining in the ministry budget for these kinds of projects, and Collingwood alone would take $20 million. The minister misses the point. There is no money in her budget for communities that have to deal with water problems, and no way to assure clean and safe water.

I want to quote from Sam Morra, the executive director of the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. He says the reduced provincial funding for the municipal assistance program will threaten Ontario's supply of clean drinking water at the same time that opinion polling shows people are becoming very concerned over clean drinking water.

Communities across Ontario will be facing problems like those in Collingwood, yet we know the money isn't there to do anything about it. Your colleague the Minister of Health went back to his riding in Collingwood and said the problem will be taken care of.

Let me ask you this: If $20 million of the $42 million is going to be spent in Collingwood, what happens to the rest of the communities in Ontario that face problems with clean drinking water?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I reiterate that we are very concerned about the quality of the water in this province. The Ontario Clean Water Agency, formed by the former government, was set up to care for the sewage and water treatment in this province and to provide the funding. I suggest that in putting together an agency that was not only the funder but the operator and builder, they discouraged investment in water and sewage treatment in this province. It's our job to find ways to redirect that funding and get investment back in this province to help those municipalities that need to provide water and sewage for their citizens.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the minister who earlier today went over Niagara Falls in a barrel. In six days we are going to be celebrating Earth Day, and instead of encouraging environmental protection in the province and developing new safeguards, we've seen that the government is systematically eliminating environmental safeguards in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Who's your question to?

Mr Wildman: The Minister of Environment and Energy, who is dismantling her own ministry. The minister has virtually eliminated the operation of her ministry with the cuts that were announced to finance the irresponsible tax cut promised by this government. The Ministry of Environment and Energy is losing 800 positions over the next two years. That's one third of the ministry's workforce. That shows what a low priority this government puts on environmental protection in this province. Over the next two years you're reducing the enforcement and compliance activities of your ministry by 25%.

In the face of these kinds of cuts, how can you maintain, as you just did to my colleague's question, that you are maintaining environmental protection and safeguards in this province?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Like all ministries in this government, I am going to do my

part in the Ministry of Environment and Energy to help get this province back on a sound fiscal footing. A number of areas within this ministry require change and will be changed. Environmental assessment is a perfect example. We have spent millions and millions of dollars on talk, without results. There are many ways, focusing on our core businesses, in which we can cut costs and provide environmental protection to this province.

Mr Wildman: It's obvious from the minister's response that she's committed to cuts. Our question is whether she's committed to environmental protection.

I'm sure the minister is aware of a report prepared by her ministry and published in October 1994 in which the ministry concluded that there were over 1,730 active PCB storage sites across the province with approximately 106,000 tonnes of PCB wastes, with 13,000 tonnes of that high-level PCBs, and 65,000 tonnes of those are owned by this government. According to your ministry's report, 5.8 tonnes of PCBs are stored across the street at 99 Wellesley Street West, the Whitney Block.

There are many sites across the province that need to be monitored and inspected on a regular basis. The minister, I'm sure, will recall the fire at St-Basile-le-Grand in Quebec, a PCB storage site, a few years ago. These sites need to be secure and safe and they have to be inspected and monitored.

In view of the cuts to your enforcement and compliance branch in your ministry, will you tell us how often these sites will be inspected to ensure that we do not run into serious problems of PCB spills or contaminations involving all of the sites that you identified in this report?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I would agree with the honourable member across the way that the storage of PCBs is a serious problem. In fact, there are 116,000 tonnes of PCB stored in the province of Ontario and they didn't all get here since June 1995. This is a serious problem and we are dealing with this as best we can.

It is the responsibility of the generator of this waste to deal with it. We are encouraging many of the industries that are new fledgling green industries in this province which have a number of new and innovative technologies to deal with PCBs to come forward to companies and help them destroy their PCBs in the most environmentally benign way possible.

It is also possible to shift those wastes to Swan Hills in Alberta for destruction, and it would have been easier for many of those companies to deal with their PCB waste if the borders had not been closed by the federal government.

Applause.

Mr Wildman: The members opposite are applauding an answer that is dealing with destruction of PCBs when the question was about monitoring and inspection of ongoing PCB sites. The minister didn't answer the question.

It's interesting. If the minister is so concerned about the sites that were identified in this report in October, why is it that the ministry has seen fit to eliminate the money from the ministry budget that Ontario would have required if it was to begin to meet the responsibility for its own PCBs as stipulated in the Canada-Ontario agreement? Why is it you're eliminating the money that this government would require to deal with the ministry's own PCB wastes, if you're so concerned about them?

Hon Mrs Elliott: There are a number of ways of dealing with PCB waste, no matter who the generator of the product is. We are required right now in this ministry, as in all other ministries, to live within limited means.

Mr Wildman: So in other words, you're not going to deal with them.

Hon Mrs Elliott: We will deal with those as best we can and encourage those new companies that have inventive ways to come forward and destroy those PCBs as soon and in as an environmentally benign manner as possible.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If I can have the attention of the House, we have a visitor in the west lobby, the former member for Ottawa Centre, Mr Michael Cassidy.

PRIVATIZATION OF LCBO

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, there's a growing concern in the province that you're about to disband the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and turn liquor sales over to private concerns, private operators, with all the potential problems that surround that.

The LCBO report that was recently published tells us that over half a billion dollars a year in profit comes to the treasury of Ontario. It provides a safe, efficient, controlled way to retail liquor and wine. It gives consumers a wide selection of products, and importantly, it restricts the sale of alcohol to minors. In other words, it's an outstanding success.

Why, Minister, would you abandon a component of government that's clearly working for the benefit of Ontarians and why then would you abandon the LCBO?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I want to thank the member for the question. First of all, the government has not made a decision to abandon the LCBO in its present form. The government is, however, looking to do things in a better way.

While some of those ads which have been played by the workers within the union allege that the restriction of the sale of alcohol to youth is beyond reproach in the province of Ontario, I want to relate to the member that the experience in some other jurisdictions, for instance in West Virginia, which has gone to a privatization scheme, is that the degree of social responsibility has improved under the private system. I was very much concerned with this and actually I'm going to have to deal with the chairman of the LCBO to put some sanctions against employees who do sell to underage people.

As a result of these ads I inquired to the chairman of the LCBO, and at the present time an LCBO employee is given a two-hour lecture if he sells to an underage person. Quite frankly, I don't believe that sanction is severe enough and I believe the system is not being tested enough at this point in time.

The bottom line of this is that the present system is not doing the job as far as I am concerned. I believe a private system probably could do a better job of checking on the sale of alcohol to younger people than the public system is now.

Mr Crozier: Minister, you'd be interested to know that in debates in 1986 in this Legislature, the now Solicitor General accused the government of the day, saying, "It wants to Americanize this province." With this legislation it sounds like you want to Americanize it as well.

A recent CBC poll shows 60% of the people in Ontario are opposed to privatization. The LCBO has made many moves recently to modernize itself: it has better hours, cleaner stores, better-stocked outlets and more convenient access within the store. It provides an excellent opportunity to market Ontario wines, and they have offered, both management and union, to make further improvements. Minister, I ask again, why wouldn't you just try and fix and make better what we have, and why would you give up? Why wouldn't you continue to support our wine industry in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: I have no intention of abandoning our wonderful wine industry in Ontario. The real question is, can we do better than the present system? I believe we can either through improving the existing system or changing the present system in total or in part. I can guarantee you one thing: The transfer payment or the profit which this government is now receiving from the LCBO under a new proposal will only increase and never decrease. There is no --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sterling: No, prices do not have to go up as a result of a change in the system, but if the system is changed so that the alcohol can be sold more efficiently, then we the taxpayers will benefit and the consumers will benefit from even lower prices.

SPEED LIMITS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, I wanted to tell you how pleased I was yesterday to hear you disagreeing with the reckless proposal of your colleague the Minister of Transportation around raising the speed limits to 120 kilometres per hour. I'm delighted that you understand that speed kills and that it is really important for us to do that.

You indicated in the Legislature yesterday that you were worried, if the speed limit were raised, for the ability of the police to actually implement a zero-tolerance policy and you talked about the resources that would cost.

My question today is about your comments to the Toronto Sun regarding police officers in respect to speed control, and I quote you as saying, "They're having trouble now with respect to controlling speed on the highways and this could just exacerbate the problem." Minister, you're admitting that police officers now, at the current rates, are having problems controlling speed on our highways. That's not a surprise to any of us who use those highways. We know that speeding is not controlled and that 120 kilometres is a very common speed that we see.

You say there are resource problems in even controlling speed at 100 kilometres an hour, yet your government cancelled photo-radar, a relatively inexpensive and effective way to reduce speeding, a way that protected the occupational health and safety of police officers.

Mr Minister, before photo-radar came in, in the year 1993, the OPP issued 154,151 speeding tickets, but in the six months that photo-radar was on, there were a total of 141,511 speeding tickets -- in other words, almost as many in six months. So in light of your comments that you're concerned about speeding, that you want to exercise zero tolerance and that you can't do it, even with your additional 85 cars and your wonder crew of 27 new police officers, what are you going to do to control speeding on the 400 series of highways with the current speed limits?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I believe that in the GTA region, where we have installed the special units, they are doing an extremely effective job. They're not just dealing with speeding, because as the member will recall, when we cancelled the photo-radar project, our concerns were the fact that we were not dealing with dangerous drivers and people who had inappropriate driving habits.

We have a list of examples as long as my arm with respect to the kinds of violations we've been able to deal with with these specialized units. People have been driving, as an example, with their feet rather than using their arms. We've had them on their cell phones. They've had the wheel taped so that they didn't have to deal with it while they were doing a variety of very dangerous things behind the wheel.

We've been able to stop these kinds of activities and have been able to effectively deal with dangerous drivers and inappropriate driving behaviour. There's no question that police across this province have many, many challenges, but I think by and large they're dealing very effectively with the challenges they have to face.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Minister, no one disagrees that those forms of dangerous driving are serious. No one has any problem with that, but the real problem is that the issue of speed has been shown by many studies to be an extraordinarily important factor in terms of increased numbers of crashes, the increased level of injuries and fatalities in those crashes. Mr John Bates of Mothers Against Drunk Driving stated there's simply no question that an increase in speed inevitably leads to increased fatalities and crashes.

Yet, when we talk about a formal increase in speed, you say no, that wouldn't be proper because the police in fact could not control that, and you were very clear that you didn't have the resources to control speed if it were formally increased.

In reality out there the speeds have increased since photo-radar was destroyed by your government. They did go down substantially during the time photo-radar was on, and in fact what you have created for yourself is a public safety problem by doing away with the technology that would have freed up police officers to look for those dangerous drivers you're concerned about. What are you going to do about the current public safety problem, which you identified yesterday to the Toronto Sun, where you said that police officers were having a hard time controlling current speed limits?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think in one year or two years in office we're going to do a much better job of dealing with public safety problems than that party did in five years in office. We are moving in many of these areas. I mentioned yesterday in response to a question that we put 85 additional marked cars on the road in the last couple of months.

We're in the process of restructuring the OPP, which will free up over 300 officers to be back out on the highways, on the streets of this province -- over 300 officers. We're reviewing the paperwork burden, much of it placed on the police by the party opposite, to see if we can't free up officers to spend more time out doing real police work rather than behind a desk. We're taking a look --

Mrs Boyd: And cutting the budget.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Hey, Bob, where's the money? You're cutting the budget at the same time.

Hon Mr Runciman: Yes, that's right. We are indeed.

We're taking a look at new technologies, again to free up officers, to put more officers on the front lines where they ought to be.

INTEREST RATES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Mr Minister, following a report released by Industry Canada, a constituent called my office making inquiries regarding interest rates. What does our government intend to do with respect to the extremely high interest rates being charged by chartered banks on Visa and MasterCard accounts?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you to the member so that we can clarify our position on it. I too am very much concerned with the high interest rates that both Visa and MasterCard accounts are charging, as well as other credit cards. Currently, these interest charges are some 12% above the prime lending rate. However, the member should know perhaps that rates are controlled by the banks, which are in turn controlled by our federal government. I believe it would be in everyone's interest if these interest rates were lowered.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister. Indeed, I believe as well that it's a process of gouging and is not acceptable these days. As the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, you have the responsibility to represent the consumers of Ontario. Are you going to do anything on behalf of the people of Ontario regarding this very serious issue?

Hon Mr Sterling: Yes. On behalf of the consumers of Ontario, I have taken the liberty of writing the minister responsible for Industry Canada requesting that he undertake a review of this matter on behalf of our consumers in Ontario. In addition, I have written to the Consumers' Association of Canada to pass along my support for their position on this matter.

PRIVATIZATION OF LCBO

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to ask a question to the Solicitor General, and this follows up from my colleague from Essex South, who posed a question earlier this afternoon to the minister in charge of the Liquor Control Board.

The minister on October 28, 1986, made a very impassioned speech in this House about the safety concerns, the security concerns of privatizing the sale of liquor in Ontario. We know it is this government's mandate, and the minister has just said in this House this afternoon that he is bent on continuing with the possible dismantling of the LCBO. We are very concerned about the lack of control, especially with the sale of alcohol to minors. I would like to ask the minister this afternoon, does he believe that privatizing the sale of liquor in Ontario is going to contribute to greater security concerns in this province?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): That's a very speculative question with respect to what may or may not happen. I think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations indicated to you earlier today that no decisions have been taken with respect to this issue. I'm sure that if indeed the minister and the government reach a decision to move in this direction in any way, shape or form, there will be very thorough discussions and consultations with my ministry, other elements of the government and the public at large.

Mr Ramsay: You say it's a speculative question, but just last week when your Minister of Transportation said he was prepared to raise the speed limits on the 400 series of highways up to 120 kilometres an hour in this province, you bailed out and said you didn't think that was a big safety concern in this province, and you nixed the idea that came from your other minister.

Now you have a minister of the crown saying, "We are going to deregulate the sale and control of alcohol in this province and put it in the hands of the private sector." We've already seen in the Premier's riding some convictions on the sale of tobacco under the new act, and we would expect that same thing is going to happen if you do that to alcohol.

As somebody who is the chief cop in this province you should be concerned, and I'd ask you again, don't you share the concern we have that if you start to privatize the sale of alcohol, then minors are going to start to have greater access and we're going to have some grave social problems here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: I disagree with the premise of the question. The minister has not made any statement with respect to any firm direction in which this government is going to proceed relative to the LCBO. Those of us who have been around this place -- and the member likes to quote old Hansards from 1986 -- I recall the debate at the time and what it was around, and it certainly was not around the privatization of the LCBO; it was around the Liberal Party's desire to put beer and wine in corner stores. Now they're suggesting there's some real hazard to public safety if we even consider privatization of the LCBO. Get your act together.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I found your answer to my question yesterday rather patronizing and insubstantial. No matter what you say, we're hearing from more and more women who are feeling that the rug is being pulled out from under them as they try to get ahead. What do you have to say, for example, to Patricia Gravelle, an Orillia mother of two, who has already taken more than $11,000 in student loans to attend nursing school? Last fall she wrote to the Premier and said:

"How does it benefit Ontario if those of us who have struggled so very hard to climb back into the workforce now have the ladder kicked out from beneath us, sending us tumbling back into a vicious cycle of dependence on family benefits and social services?"

Minister, are you listening to women like Patricia Gravelle? What do you have to say to her?

Interjections.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): It's a little difficult to hear in the House these days, but I think I caught the gist of what the honourable member was saying.

First of all, I think part of what we're looking at is that the assistance for post-secondary school education is clearly the mandate of the Ministry of Education and Training and not the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That should be the responsibility of OSAP and the Ministry of Education and Training. This change will also necessitate the elimination of unnecessary and costly duplication between the two ministries. Clearly in most cases --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I hear some interjections from across the floor, but in most cases people under the new system, under OSAP, will be in a position to receive more money and more benefits and more assistance to complete their education than before.

Ms Churley: The minister knows full well, but he's not admitting it today -- I myself heard the Minister of Education say that these rules may change as of next year. Right now he is saying they will only have to pay back $6,000, but we're fully expecting that they may well have to pay it all back.

I'd like to quote to the minister something that Sally Barnes, a well-known Conservative, said 17 years ago: "We believe there is growing recognition that a society which handicaps women, 52% of its population, handicaps itself and its very future." Minister, your government is handicapping a lot of women in this society, whether you admit it or not.

Let me tell you about Patricia Condie of Toronto. The father of her child left less than two weeks before their wedding date, taking the family business and leaving her the bills. She wrote to the Premier: "Have you ever had your dreams right before your face and then had someone rip them away?.... I have a chance to get off the system but, Mr Harris, you are doing your best to keep me on."

Mr Minister, I ask you again, what has your government got against the women in the province of Ontario, and more pointedly, single mothers?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would clearly refer the member to Hansard, since she's got them in front of her. She asked the same question yesterday; I assume the answer will be the same. But I might take the opportunity to point out to the honourable member the real fundamental problem here. This is a document from 1993 called Turning Point, and it was produced by my ministry, at that time under the leadership of Tony Silipo, whose picture appears very prominently in it as well.

However, clearly the problem here is this, and it's acknowledged here: "This extensive review and consultation process has made clear the fact that the current welfare system, a product of the 1950s and 1960s, is out of step with the economic and social realities of the 1990s."

So what have they done? From page 9: "The social assistance system cannot be fixed. The time has come to abolish the welfare system as we know it in Ontario. The government is planning a fundamental transformation of social assistance to a new set of programs whose goals are employment and independence."

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I hear the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition here, they clearly identified the problem as well. In fact -- this is the red book now -- they said as well that "It has now been two years since the NDP government promised to `scrap the welfare system as we know it' and replace it with programs that both encourage people to leave social assistance and give them the opportunity" --

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

NIAGARA FALLS CASINO

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Just lean over and ask him.

Mr Froese: He needs to tell the rest of you.

I understand, Mr Minister, that you were in Niagara Falls yesterday making an announcement regarding the Niagara Falls casino. Can you advise the House if an interim facility site has been chosen?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'd like to thank the member for St Catharines-Brock for his question. We're polite over here. I'd just like to say that I was in Niagara Falls yesterday and I was there to announce the new casino site, which is going to be at the Maple Leaf Village site in downtown Niagara Falls.

Mr Wildman: Point of order: This should have been a ministerial statement.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): There's nothing out of order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I can see that the members on the opposite side don't like to hear good news, because this is a very good-news piece of information. This is going to have a major economic benefit in the Niagara Falls region and for Ontario as a whole. I'm very happy about the site. The board of directors of the Ontario Casino Corp are convinced that it is a very good site, an economic site, and extremely well located.

I'm also happy to report that a temporary operator for the site will be selected in the near future and that the process for choosing a long-term operator for the site will be commenced in the next six months.

Mr Froese: The minister mentioned the economic benefit to the city of Niagara Falls. I would like to ask the minister if he could estimate what that benefit would be to the city of Niagara Falls, and indeed the city of St Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake, the region as a whole, and the province. How many jobs would you expect could be created by this project?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm very happy to report that the number of jobs which will benefit directly the city of Niagara Falls is 3,000, for the region is 6,000 -- that's 10 times what you said -- and 9,000 for the province of Ontario in total. Also, there will be about 500 to 600 construction jobs, which I think is very commendable, and this will be a very huge project in terms of economic development.

The interim casino will generate approximately $650 million in revenues, of which $375 million will pertain to our share in this province. I think this is very good news for the city, it's very good news for your region and it's very good news for the province.

NUISANCE COMPLAINTS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, I'm concerned as to the impact that the gutting and destroying of your ministry is going to have on industrialized communities such as Hamilton-Wentworth and others across Ontario that rely heavily on heavy industry. You've reduced your staff by 750 positions, according to your own documents. You're reducing analytical testing for environmental compliance and enforcement as well, virtually eliminating responses to complaints of occurrences regarding noise, dust and odour.

They are regarded as nuisance complaints. You're also shifting responsibility for monitoring environmental emissions and controls to the industries themselves, which in effect is like giving a drug addict the key to the medicine cabinet at the local pharmacy.

When I look at my own constituency of Hamilton and the beach strip and the industrial core, they've suffered enough without your ministry now reducing responses to complaints. Why are you reducing these responses to complaints of noise, dust and odour, and how will people living in industrial cores across this province and in my riding benefit from your move to also have industries self-regulate the emissions?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the member opposite for the question. We in the Ministry of Environment and Energy are focusing our attention and our resources on supporting the core businesses in the protection of the air, water and soil in this province.

It is true that we are going to ask our partners in the municipalities to help us with the ongoing problems of noise, odour and dust. Very often these are problems that arise from planning issues within local municipalities, and we are going to ask for their help to monitor those and deal with the situations as they arise.

Mr Agostino: In 1995, your ministry received 7,133 complaints of noise, odour and dust across this province, and of those, over 10% -- 805 complaints -- came from Hamilton-Wentworth. Minister, you've put these down in your documents as nuisance. I would hardly dismiss someone waking up with two inches of black dust on the front of their home, on their doors or on their cars as a nuisance. I would hardly dismiss people having to keep their doors and windows locked day and night because of odour -- and your ministry will not be there to respond to the complaints -- as nuisance complaints, as you do.

Maybe you should spend a night at a home on the beach strip in my community to see if this is a nuisance.

How can you suggest that municipalities which you have now cut by over 40% are going to be able to do the job and have the staffing and the resources to respond to over 7,000 complaints last year, which you're not going to respond to this year? How do you justify that, and what do you tell municipalities that can't afford and don't have the staff to carry this out?

Hon Mrs Elliott: The ministry will be tough on polluters. It is our job to set standards, to set rules for the province of Ontario. We still have a significant and very worthwhile and strong compliance office and enforcement office.

I think it is important that we distinguish between what is a nuisance and what is a real environmental issue. If citizens in my honourable colleague's constituency wake up with two inches of something on their cars, that is an environmental issue and it is one to which my staff will pay attention and will deal with.

Businesses in the province of Ontario operate within the certificates of approval and must operate within the rules, within the standards that are set. It is our job to set them and make sure they are met.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Madam Minister, you and your cabinet colleagues have moved swiftly to eliminate the access to trades and professions demonstration fund and have moved swiftly to eliminate the Anti-Racism Secretariat and the anti-racism grants. Before the election, your Premier and yourselves said that a Harris government is committed to combating systemic racism through education and vigorous efforts to change attitudes. In light of your cuts, can you explain what your promise means?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): In response to the member for Fort York's question, as he knows, in December we announced a plan to deal effectively with equality of opportunity for all Ontarians; that was called the equal opportunity plan.

Clearly there are some initiatives within the equal opportunity plan that will identify the barriers that do exist for some Ontarians. We intend to tear down those barriers. We did not feel that the employment equity law, the quota law, was the law to tear down those barriers; indeed we felt that the quota law put up barriers. By eliminating the quota law, that was the biggest barrier to Ontarians for equal opportunity that there was. Implementation of the equal opportunity plan will indeed create much more opportunity than the previous government created.

Mr Marchese: We've talked to a number of agencies serving immigrants, and they communicate to us a very great sense of powerlessness and hopelessness as you bring about your cuts. You've cut Ontario's settlement and integration programs by 20%. The agencies are telling us that this cut will mean the end to many programs serving immigrants and front-line services. In fact, in your Premier's own riding, the North Bay Immigrant Support Service had to close its doors last week.

Your government, through Mr Harris, said that a Harris government will develop a comprehensive immigration strategy to address the fact that Ontario's settlement and integration facilities are overburdened, especially in the greater Toronto area. In light of your cuts, what does that promise mean?

Hon Ms Mushinski: First of all, I think I should correct the record in that the allocation to the Ontario settlement and integration program was not 20%, as has been suggested by the member for Fort York, but will be reduced by a total of 13.2% over the next two years.

Support for community-based delivery of immigrant settlement services is a core business of this ministry. We have maintained a significant allocation of $5.1 million for these services, recognizing the economic, social and cultural contribution of newcomers to the province.

PETITIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

Because I agree with this, I sign my name to it.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

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

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

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

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

This is signed by 15 residents of eastern Ontario, and I have affixed my signature as well.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): It's my pleasure today to present to the Parliament of Ontario a petition with approximately 1,000 names.

"Whereas the present Condominium Act of Ontario does not give the condominium corporations the legal right to limit the number of people who occupy each unit in the complex, thus causing overcrowding situations in many buildings; and

"Whereas the overcrowding creates excessive demand on services and facilities of the condominiums, leading to tensions, violence, fire and health problems, increased maintenance expenses and depreciation of values;

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

"We strongly recommend that the Condominium Act of Ontario be amended to give condominium corporations, through their own rules and regulations, the legal right to limit the number of persons per unit and right of entry to ensure adherence to the rules.

"The rights of condominium owners and taxpayers must be considered and supported in order to alleviate the inequitable situation."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

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 Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition signed by the tenants at 1140 Ramsey View Court in Sudbury, Ontario, and I'd like to thank Evelyn LaBelle for sending it to me. It reads as follows:

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

"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; and

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

"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; and

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

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

I have affixed my signature to it, and I agree with the petitioners entirely.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding of Bruce. It appears to be in standard form, and I present it on behalf of those who have signed. The petition to the Ontario Legislature reads:

"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."

I affix my name to it.

PRIVATIZATION OF LCBO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario, as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the United Food and Commercial Workers in addition to the few thousand that I've already presented. They come over the signature of Dan Gilbert, who's the president, and the petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Premier Harris:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits, excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, multiple injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational disease; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT, including eliminating worker representation on the board; and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"We therefore demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeals structure with worker representation, that the WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a series of petitions provided to me by constituents of the riding of Parry Sound. These petitions relate to the spring bear hunt, and there are approximately 491 signatures. They appear to be in the proper form.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition that was organized by Kathy Leger, a registered nurse at St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, with the help of many of the women who work in the labour and delivery department at St Joseph's, in regard to the closure recommendation. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I add my name to this, along with 3,000 other individuals who have signed these petitions.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I have a petition that's been delivered to me through the Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman's office in regard to some documents signed by some constituents of mine. I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure, Mr Speaker, but I suspect that this petition is not in order and I'll have it tabled for that consideration.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have a petition signed by a number of concerned citizens in my riding.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

It is signed by a number of residents, and I also add my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

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

"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; and

"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; and

"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; and

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

"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 add my signature, Mr Speaker.

TAX REDUCTION

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

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

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition from residents of Kent county, 330 names in total.

"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 20,000 meals; and

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; and

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and regimented environment at Transition House have combined with counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services have a definite impact on the statistics of children and youth in crisis; and

"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."

I affix my name to this petition.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature, the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council.

"Whereas the Hamilton-Wentworth Health Action Task Force, as part of their report, has recommended the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton; and

"Whereas it is recognized the health care system should be made as efficient as possible; and

"Whereas the quality of health care service in our community should not be sacrificed in the name of this efficiency; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to protect the quality of health care in Ontario; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that maintaining the presence of St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton is a vital component of our health care system;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Minister of Health and the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council ensure the continuance of the St Joseph's Hospital at its present site."

I add my signature.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have today a very important petition signed by some 3,400 people.

"Whereas there is less than 1% of old-growth red and white pine remaining in Ontario; and

"Whereas the policy for the protection of Ontario old-growth forests, as recommended by the Old Growth Policy Advisory Committee, has not been adopted; and

"Whereas the logging of the Algoma highlands is destroying Ontario's largest stands of unlogged old-growth white pine forests; and

"Whereas the Temagami Comprehensive Planning Council has proposed that 77% of Temagami's old-growth red and white pine forests be allocated for logging and mining and only 7.5% have been identified as potential protected areas; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has promised to complete, within its first six months, an action plan for the designation of a province-wide network of ecologically representative protected areas;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect Ontario's remaining old-growth forests by implementing their campaign promise to establish a province-wide network of protected areas, including the Algoma highlands and Temagami."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1996

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 / Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1996.

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

Orders of the day.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The Supply Act, 1996, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that we have unanimous consent to deal with all stages of the bill at this time.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Eves moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 / Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1996.

The Speaker: Does the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Eves moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 / Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1996.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for Interim Supply for the period commencing May 1, 1996, and ending October 31, 1996.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I understand that there's agreement that a vote shall take place at 6 o'clock today.

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

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to finish the few remaining minutes that I have in my time to debate this particular motion.

I had left off yesterday just beginning to talk about a couple of matters that concerned me that I found in the

section regarding the responsibilities of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. I've already spoken to the issue of the Coroners Act being opened to deny workers a guaranteed inquest whenever there is a death at a construction site or at a mining location, and I had just begun to talk about the fact that in this plan we see the Coroners' Council will be eliminated. Again as I mentioned yesterday, in and of itself this is not an earth-shattering event, but it is indicative of the approach that this government has to the needs of the public.

The Coroners' Council is not a well-known body, but they have performed and up until the time it's eliminated will perform an important service to the people of Ontario.

I reviewed the legislation yesterday when I returned to my office after our discussion here in the House just to refresh my memory and indeed the Coroners' Council is there if there's a question of the competency or ability of coroners. It's there not to review specific cases but the actual competency, not unlike that with regard to judges where they have a great deal of responsibility, a great deal of important public matters are in their domain and there needs to be some check if we have problems.

We're all human and things happen in this world and we always need to have in a democracy a check and balance on those institutions and individuals that we as citizens give voluntarily, through an election, the power to take care of for us. In this case, it's coroners who are appointed by the Solicitor General or on the advice of the Solicitor General to the cabinet of the day, and this government's eliminating it.

They're doing that again just to save money, money that they're planning to give to their wealthy friends through the 30% tax cut; as we have said time and time again, over 60% of that tax cut will go to the top 10% income earners in Ontario.

In doing so, we pull out yet one more piece of the things that make our province and our system and our society work. This government doesn't think things like this -- worker health and safety, WCB, social assistance, a decent health care system, a decent education system -- are important enough to find a way that allows us to gradually deal with the debt and deficit and yet preserve those institutions and those benefits and those hallmarks of what makes this a great province to live in. This government doesn't think that's as important as being able to give its wealthy friends this tax cut that's going to cost us $5 billion.

More and more people in this province are beginning to accept and understand that the cuts being made are not the only alternative. As much as this government likes to leave the impression that the only way to deal with our fiscal problems is to slash and burn and hack at every value we ever had in this province, the reality is there's no need to take care of this tomorrow. This is still the strongest economy in this entire nation. This is still one of the strongest economies in the G-7. It's still the greatest place in the world to live.

It's obscene in my opinion that this government feels that in order to out-right-wing Ralph Klein and in order to find $5 billion for its tax cut, it is prepared to systematically dismantle all the things that do indeed make this a great place to live. What's unfortunate is not that this will go on forever, because it won't -- this is going to be a one-term wonder -- what's unfortunate is the amount of damage that will be done by then and the number of people who will be needlessly hurt.

We will continue, as we have from the beginning of this government's mandate, to point out the damage and the harm and the pain this government is needlessly inflicting on the people of Ontario, and as we get closer to an election, of course we will begin to offer up an alternative plan or approach to governing in this province. I assure you that it will be one that tries to preserve and enhance our health care system, our infrastructure, our education system, all the things that can make us competitive in a global economy, but in a way that preserves and strengthens this province.

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to add my few words to this debate.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise today on behalf of the people of Wellington to speak to the government's interim supply motion. In the time allotted to me, I'd like to review some of the accomplishments the government has achieved in recent months and also touch on a few issues which are of concern to my constituents in Wellington county.

In the past 10 months, the government has moved swiftly and decisively in many key areas: to restore competent administration to the province's finances; to address our financial problems, our debt and deficit crisis; to act on promises made to the people during last year's election campaign, in which the people of Ontario gave the Progressive Conservative Party a strong mandate to implement our proposed program.

More specifically, in the past 10 months, the government has:

Reduced runaway provincial spending dramatically, working to get our finances on a more sustainable footing.

Repealed Bill 40, the former government's changes to Ontario's labour law which discouraged job-creating investment and upset the delicate balance in labour relations in favour of the union leaders.

Initiated major reforms to the Workers' Compensation Board to stabilize premiums, improve its management, strengthen its books, while providing better service to injured workers in need.

Folded the Workplace Health and Safety Agency into the Workers' Compensation Board to return the responsibility of improving workplace safety to where it can yield the best results.

Established a red tape review committee with a mandate to eliminate all unnecessary government regulations which tie up business and diminish their job-creating potential.

Frozen the minimum wage to encourage the creation of entry-level jobs for our young people who haven't yet acquired many marketable job skills so that they can get that first job opportunity that they need and move on from there.

Acted to curb the abuse of our welfare system, to try to end the cycle of dependency and despair which traps so many people and help them to find the dignity and self-worth that meaningful employment implies.

Largely ended the corporate welfare program whereby private businesses were directly subsidized with taxpayers' money, distorting the free market and creating unfairness between Ontario companies which received assistance and, in too many cases, their Ontario competitors which did not.

Repealed the $50 annual corporate filing fee and the filing fee for non-profit corporations, which became a lightning rod for small business people's and charities' complaints about the provincial government.

Restored long-term stability and predictability to Ontario Hydro rates.

Ended the possibility of reverse discrimination which existed in the former government's so-called "employment equity" law, ensuring that hiring and promotions will be based on qualifications and merit.

All these policy changes have been made with one overriding objective: The creation of new jobs in Ontario, the central theme of our government.

On behalf of the people of Wellington, I want to thank the members of the executive council for their hard work in recent months and the dedication they've shown to implement these steps, our caucus, our political staff and the Ontario public service, all of us working together to improve the economic climate in Ontario.

I should also like to thank the people of Wellington, because all of the policy changes that I've outlined this afternoon had their origins in this document, the report of the Mike Harris Task Force on Creating Jobs Through Small Business, which we released in opposition in January 1995. Almost half of the consultation meetings which led to this report took place in Wellington county.

I mentioned earlier the Ontario public service and I'd like to now return to that area. I want to commend the chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. He's doing an excellent job in challenging times.

While I recognize that the steps the government announced last Thursday to reduce the civil service are necessary because of our financial problem, I take no pleasure from these decisions. In fact, I wish they hadn't been necessary. I wish that past governments of all three parties hadn't spent so recklessly, hadn't spent beyond the needs of the people to pay, hadn't spent in areas which were unnecessary and unsustainable. They spent more than they took in, they borrowed the difference and we're paying today for that profligacy.

I realize that Thursday's announcement is intended to be a positive step in the long-term recovery for Ontario, but it's hardly good news to anyone employed in the civil service. Look at this from their perspective on a human level. You apply for a job with the Ontario government. You're hired. You're assigned certain tasks. You do them. You serve the people of Ontario and every two weeks you get a paycheque. You feed and clothe and shelter your family. You're a public servant. It's not your fault that the government faces a crisis and must take difficult decisions to resolve it, yet you are now facing the uncertainty of looming layoff notices which will come in the next two years.

Again, I support the cutbacks announced last Thursday but I'm sorry they must happen. It's incumbent upon the government to ensure that everyone who leaves the employ of the province be treated fairly and with compassion -- a quality every government should exhibit and a quality the opposition says the present government lacks. We are uncaring, we are mean-spirited, we are cold-hearted, they say. I do not accept this criticism. It is inaccurate and it is unjust. Any government which is lacking compassion, is uncaring, is motivated by spite, by settling old scores, any government which acts in that way doesn't deserve the public's trust and clearly does not deserve a second mandate.

As the member for Wellington and as a resident of Ontario, I do not hate government. I recognize it as being necessary to provide essential services in a fair manner, available to everybody, regardless of their wealth or social standing, services which would not be provided generally and fairly to everybody if we left things entirely to the private sector. We need government; that is a given.

It is one of the ironies of life, I suppose, that it has fallen to the Conservative Party of Ontario, the party which, of the three represented in this House, believes that less government is best, to be compelled, because of the financial crisis and the debt crisis, to take the steps necessary to save government in Ontario.

And save government we must. We must save the provincial government for Lauren and Shannon Kollee. Lauren and Shannon are eight-year-old identical twin girls who live with their family in Elora in Wellington county. I've met them. They're delightful, beautiful children, and they're special in that they have a medical condition called congenital central hypoventilation syndrome, which means they lack the impulse to breathe normally while they're sleeping, so they need to wear breathing masks hooked up to respirators during the night.

Lauren and Shannon need the assistive devices program to help with the cost of their respirators so that they can breathe while they sleep. We must save the provincial government for Lauren and Shannon.

We must save the provincial government to help small rural municipalities which may lack the tax base to finance basic infrastructure needs. For Pilkington township in Wellington county, it's the replacement of their bridges 14 and 15, the township's only structures spanning the Grand River. For Maryborough township in the hamlet of Moorefield, it's a communal water and sewage system that's needed to protect their local environment. I could go on and on, if time permitted.

We must save the provincial government for families, for seniors, for farmers, for students, for the sick and the infirm, for the needy -- for everyone in Ontario.

In recent weeks the members opposite have brought up my name in relation to the tax cut and I want to respond to that. We'll hear more about the tax cut in the coming budget. I'd like to comment on this for the public record because, as many members of this House may be aware, I've been less enthusiastic perhaps than some members of this House about the need for a major tax cut at this time.

Let me say this: I'd like to see a tax cut as much as anybody. I know that more money in people's pockets means more hope, more confidence and a greater likelihood that people will spend. I know all that. I also understand the politics of a tax cut, which is appealing on the surface, especially if one overlooks the detailed facts of the provincial debt, which presently stands at about $100 billion, I need not remind members, growing at $1 million an hour, rising to at least $120 billion when our mandate is complete when this Parliament is dissolved.

The people of Wellington expect the tax cut to take place only if it is affordable, possible and responsible, and they also expect the government to keep its word.

I accept the fact that a majority in this House support a tax cut, that they believe its obvious benefits will eventually outweigh its equally obvious disadvantages, and I accept that the will of the majority will prevail. I hope the benefits of a tax cut will be realized and the economic forecast that the tax cut idea is based upon will prove over time to be in the best interests of all the people of the province we are so privileged to serve.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It's a great opportunity to speak on interim supply, these funds or moneys the government needs to carry on its business. It's rather surprising that after 10 months in government -- a responsible government, as it has tried to project itself -- it has not brought forward a budget. I would have thought this fiscally responsible government would have had as its first thing to put forward a budget to tell us in what direction it would like to go.

As I know the Conservative members are anxious to come and support the kinds of things I am saying and doing, I invite them all to come and sit behind me, because that would indicate their support of the things they should be doing. I'd be glad to offer my recommendation that they listen, considering that they are not a government that has any consultation with the people.

How I see that a government should behave is that the role of a government in Parliament is to be representative. This is a large province, a very diverse province of rural, urban, different ethnic groups, different religious groups, and it must be representative within the House, that when we have policies and any kind of spending it reflect the wishes and the aspirations of the people.

It must also be responsible to all those people, even those who were not supportive of the Conservative Party, and it must be accountable. In 10 months, the indication is that this party, this government, has failed on all three levels. They have not been representative to all the people of Ontario, they've not been responsible in the way they have conducted themselves, and they've not been accountable.

They were elected in June 1995, as you know, Mr Speaker. I'd like to review some of the things that have happened over the past.

Overall, they have been very effective in destroying confidence in the people. The people have lost their confidence in this government, a government that "cares." No, they don't feel they care. Their first decision when they came into power was to take away from the weakest of our society, the most vulnerable, that basic support they had and told them they should go out and fend for themselves. They cut the welfare recipients' income in such a drastic form that today the repercussion is that those who are unable to pay for their rent and buy food have been scrambling around.

The ministers here don't seem to represent their constituencies, which they should be doing. Take, for instance, the Minister of Community and Social Services. One of his first remarks in the House was to tell someone that if they have no money for food, go to the stores and try to barter and find out if they can reduce the cost of food, that that's the way people should be doing it. That's the kind of government we have, a government with no compassion whatsoever.

We've seen the disabled confused about whether they are being supported, and some of their supports have been taken away from them. This government continues to feel it is here for those kinds of people.

The people in my constituency of Scarborough North feel so intimidated by what's happening. They're intimidated because they feel the government will take away rent control, has reduced the welfare supplement they had, has taken away jobs. They're very frightened about the direction in which this government is going, all for the sake, they say, to reduce the deficit.

In the short time I have, I'd like to focus on three areas. I want to talk a bit about housing and the policy of this government, and within that, rent control; I want to talk about education, especially where it has impact on our young people, on our youth, and about youth employment; and I want to talk about the human rights cuts that have been happening.

Let me first talk about the Human Rights Commission and the human rights cuts there. The minister comes into this House, has made no statement in regard to how those people who have been subjected to all types of human rights abuses and the backlog that exists there -- how it's going to be addressed. This is the government who, first, when they came in decided to cancel the employment equity legislation, which was brought in by the New Democratic Party at the time. Like all governments when they come in, they put their own brand on in protecting all.

When they did that, they first took away over $700,000 from the budget, having recognized the fact that there will be needs for which to have more support for the Human Rights Commission because of the huge backlog we have there.

In the meantime, they had stated that in the cancellation of the employment equity department, that money would be transferred to Human Rights. That has not been done. Today, people are still waiting three and four years for abuses done to them to be addressed, while this government said it would address that concern. This has not been done.

I am extremely concerned by the way the minister approached that issue, as if these people are at fault because they were sexually abused or abused in racial slurs or hate crimes, and how that's been addressed. That has not been done, and they have no hope. They have given up any hope whatsoever for this government to address those concerns.

As a matter of fact, the Premier and his colleagues, most of the ministers, I would say, would call these people special-interest groups and therefore dismiss them. I don't see anything wrong with someone having a special interest in a government or in their concerns. But they have given up hope; they've given up hope that justice and any human rights cause could be addressed under this government.

I don't feel that within the coming years this government will be in power anything sensible will be done in that regard, because they see that as part of balancing their budget, to save money on the backs of the poor, on the backs of the most vulnerable, all for the sake of saying, "The deficit will be reduced and see if we can save in that respect." I think that's awful.

When I look at education and the Minister of Education, who I've known for a long time and respected, I know from his heart that what he is doing has been directed by the spin doctors in his ministry and in the Premier's office. He knows how important education and training are to young people. He also knows that without a good education, without good training, one cannot afford oneself a proper job. But that doesn't worry this minister. It doesn't worry the minister at all that the high unemployment rate of young people is there and is not being addressed.

So they've brought in a program that they say is for young people, a summer program that I don't think will ever touch the seriousness of this problem.

They have started to erode the possibility of people getting a good education by increasing tuition fees -- it started off, as a matter of fact, with the NDP government when it cancelled out the OSAP grant portion of people having access to higher education -- and also moving the people on welfare who are at school, transferring that into an OSAP loan.

I know young people who have just finished university or college, 22 or 23 years old, and they have a debt of $20,000 or $25,000. They haven't worked yet, but they've got a $25,000 debt on their head and haven't been able to get a job. They're willing to work. In the meantime, of course, the banks start to calculate the interest rates immediately. So by the time they get around to even getting a job, maybe in a year or two, that may have gone to $22,000 if it's $20,000; if it's $24,000, it may have gone to $26,000 within that time, having a debt on their head without a job.

This government comes around and would like to make some makeshift work in the summer to believe that it's doing something for the young people, for the people who are unemployed. These are not jobs that are meaningful. These jobs are makeshift jobs that give people no will and purpose in what they are doing. They don't feel a part of it.

Let me explain to you and share with you some of the things I've been doing in my constituency of Scarborough North and beyond. I have visited many, many schools, quite often on Fridays, to speak to the students and to the teachers, and I've never seen in my time here, in visiting these schools over the last 11 years, such fear, such desperation in the young people, who see themselves not able to participate in society later on for jobs. Their education is being destroyed; that's how they feel. They don't feel a part of this at all.

They ask me the question: "Why is the government not listening? Why don't we see them speaking on our behalf, saying our education concerns them?" All they hear is about the deficit they have to reduce, the cost of their education, the cost of their parents who will not be working because there are no jobs. They're concerned.

I would challenge all the members in this Parliament to visit the schools and talk to those kids, talk to those young people and ask them if they feel, in the next 10 years' time, they will be working, will have a job that is worthwhile and be able to contribute to our society. They don't feel that way.

The teachers feel rather desperate. All they can hear at times is that we're going to privatize education. Sometimes we have those kinds of spins going on. "We're going to privatize education," and you know when the private sector takes over education what will happen: They will immediately choose what is education. They may take away some of the soft subjects. They will say: "What's the use of having geography, psychology? We don't need them. What's the use of telling you how to think? We don't want you to think."

Government plays an extremely important role in education, and it seems to me this government is more interested in having the private sector run it. I don't blame the private sector. If they're going to pay for it, they're going to want to get the biggest buck for their money in the sense that they want the person to do the things they want to do, just to train them in that narrow gap.

I would encourage you all that what is happening now is not happening to somebody else's child, it's happening to your child, it's happening to your pension, it's happening to your future, to all parliamentarians in this House and all parents and all senior citizens.

It's the young people who will carry on this economy long after you have destroyed it and ignored our young people. I urge you, in our education programs, to make sure what you're doing is in the interests of our young people and of our province.

I'd like to speak a little bit about housing. Housing is pretty close to my heart and the way we've been handling this over a couple of years and in the 11 years I've been here.

I know the only way we will have affordable housing for those at an income level in the region of $30,000, $35,000 or so, which is a very low income level, is if the government builds it on a non-profit basis. That's the only way. If you don't believe me -- which I know you do, Mr Speaker, but your other colleagues may be shaking their heads about this -- the private sector will be happy to build any kind of housing possible if they can make a profit.

If I was the private sector and I was using my money to build housing and I couldn't make a profit, I would not be building it. I don't have that kind of money. I don't see any private sector having that kind of money to just build affordable housing without any profit. So the government has to play a very important role in making sure that we have affordable housing.

I still can't understand why the government came in and cancelled about 385 projects across this province for people to have access to affordable housing, hoping that the private sector would build it at no profit. You can ask many of my colleagues who have been involved in housing. If you take some time off and understand it a bit more, you'll realize that this will not happen under the private sector.

The private sector is quite concerned about rent control. My party and my leader are committed to rent control, and we feel it should be there. It's important, for a product which people buy, that we have enough supplies of housing in the reach of people, but recognizing the fact that if the private sector is building it, there is a profit for the private sector too.

There's nothing wrong with profit, but this exorbitant profit that may come about at the expense of those who can't have access to affordable housing is disastrous for young people, disastrous for families that have to be living in a decent and affordable environment. This will not happen under the private sector.

I know right now that many of the private sector landlords are meeting with the minister to develop the strategy to get rid of rent control.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The way they met with you when you were minister.

Mr Curling: The member for Mississauga South asked where I was.

Mrs Marland: No, I said, "The way they met with you when you were minister."

Mr Curling: The thing is that we, together with the NDP at the time, put together a rent control policy. It was on its way to bringing about a fair return and access to affordable housing through our rent control or our rent review policy. It was working. It needed, of course, improvement, and that in itself would continue to improve in the rent review process.

This government came in and cancelled that immediately, intent to cancel the rent control, and said there should not be any rent control, and not only that; making room for the private sector to say, "We will cancel out all the non-profit social housing." Beyond that, they want to sell off all the units they have to the private sector. I hope when they do that, which they intend to do, that consultation will take place with the tenants there to give them the first shot at buying their home. I hope too that when they hand these units over to be bought by the private sector, which may be the tenants, they can fix them to a standard in which it is decent and affordable to live and to buy.

We know that the government has been a very poor landlord, poor in the sense of maintenance because it did not maintain its property as well. Don't blame the tenants in there, don't blame the tenants at all, because the fact is that the landlord, which is the government, which alone has about 84,000 units, has not kept its buildings in such a standard that one would be very happy and proud to live in.

I encourage that we do not destroy the non-profit and co-op housing, which has served very well in this province; they have not done so. I would appeal to the tenants out there, don't allow this government to bully you in the way they have done, because when they were campaigning in the election, many who are here today were saying they would not cancel rent control. They said when they were attacked many times -- the minister himself, Al Leach, during the election talked about protecting rent control, and as soon as he got in he changed his mind.

I saw many of the colleagues here who are from especially the urban areas, just because they wanted to be elected and realized that the tenants themselves were concerned about the destruction and the destroying of the rent control policies and legislation they had, promise that they would not destroy rent control, and today they are backsliding over this promise. That was then, but now things have all changed.

I'm telling you, and I'm appealing to the tenants out there, do not fear these kinds of bully tactics from them. I would say to them to be organized. Request these same members who came knocking at your door in May and June 1995 to 'fess up and say the same things they were saying then. I'm telling you, they will not sit back and take the way you have pushed some of these bills through this House. They will not do that. Gone are the days that Ontario is very passive about things that the government of the day will do. They will make sure that you don't destroy their homes, because that's what you're doing, and I will be out there telling those tenants to make these people accountable.

I'd like to speak just a little bit about an attitude and the mean-spirited way this government has conducted itself in 10 months. I have a feeling that they are trying to drive fear into the people of Ontario. The people will stand up, although they'll have to wait very long, to throw you out of government if you continue to abuse that privilege which you got to govern in a very sensible and very compassionate way, but we don't see that. We see the smiles and the mean-spirited way in which you have cut people from jobs, the thousands of civil servants you have laid off with a smile -- with a smile.

How can you be so mean-spirited in the sense of folks who have to work and support their mortgages and pay rents and buy food and send their children to school, that you laugh as you fire them on the line?

As a matter of fact, during the strike, it was like they forced these workers to be on strike -- forced them -- and then settled in a way that could have been done without people going out on strike.

Today, if you're not aware of this, there are still people not getting paid who have been back on the job almost two weeks, and some people have been told they won't get paid for another three weeks. How do you expect the people to live? You are the government. Don't look at me. You are the government that has the bureaucrats there who can generate a cheque for people who have worked. Some people who were on contract haven't gotten paid for four or five months, and then you blame it on the strike. This government, which should represent all the people --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Since November?

Mr Curling: Since November. I can give you cases. The member asks if it's since November. Yes, since November, since December, there are some folks who have not gotten paid. They are saying, "Because of the strike, we're not able to generate cheques."

I think your government is trying to punish the people for that or trying to save money on the backs or those folks. I would say to you, my friend, that you are elected to represent all the people of this province and not to be so mean-spirited about your approach. The people have a right to proper representation regardless of whether they voted for you. The people in housing, who felt they would be able to pay affordable rent for their accommodation and not the legislation being taken away, leaving them with no protection.

People who have been your tenants for years -- you decide to sell their home from under them. That's bad, very bad. People who want to send their kids to school can't afford it. Welfare recipients in school today are being asked that the welfare cheques they are getting will be a loan now, so when you leave you'd have this massive loan on your head to pay. The same government is saying, "We are trying to get people off that cycle of welfare into the workforce," and when people try to do that they are punished.

What type of government are you? I appeal to you to listen to the people, to understand their cry. It's not partisan stuff. It's not, "I am poor, so therefore I am the enemy." It's not that I wouldn't like the tax cut too, but I don't want the lower end of the economic strata to be paying for your upper echelons in the economic strata. That's what's happening. You're trying to find all that money because you made a political promise to have a tax cut for those in the upper-income bracket.

You're asking for money now to spend again because you didn't have a budget -- a very irresponsible way of conducting business. Of course, we are appalled that you have the gall to do that. We await your budget -- as you say, late May -- to see where you're going to take this province, because so far you've taken it in a way that people are extremely concerned. They see you not as a compassionate government, not as a government which represents all the people. I hope you can see your way as you try to govern -- and it's new to you -- to be more compassionate and more understanding about the issues that concern especially the most vulnerable in our society.

I appreciate the opportunity to make some of those comments, and I hope the members see fit to follow suit.

Mrs Marland: It's delightful to have the opportunity to respond to comments made by a former Minister of Housing, particularly in the area that the comments were made. I guess it's particularly interesting because, with respect, you were the former Minister of Housing; I was at one time your critic in opposition. I also was critic in housing for a number of other ministers. I also shared public platforms with the member for Lawrence who was the critic for housing when the New Democratic Party was the government.

Around all this issue of whether government should build housing, or private sector should build housing, swirls a whole lot of misinformation. I think it's very unfortunate when this happens because when people really look at the raw figures and the cost of what we're doing, what we are saying is that with all the previous two governments' policies we still had over a quarter of a million people on waiting lists in this province for affordable housing.

So what you were doing and all your policies of rent review and rent protection -- all of those different pieces of legislation that came in under various numbers and various bills never solved the problem. We still had huge retroactive rent increases for tenants in this province that they simply couldn't afford. We still had people who didn't have places to live.

What we are saying, and I say this respectfully to the former Minister of Housing, is what you did didn't work. What we are going to do will work and will solve those problems for tenants in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further questions or comments? The member for Scarborough North to sum up.

Mr Curling: The minister from Mississauga South --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Minister? She should be a minister.

Mr Curling: Yes, she should be a minister. I know she tried very hard. Consumer and commercial relations would be a role for you. Then you would have to deal with the rent control issue.

Your party seems to be a party of convenience. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who introduced rent control at one time. In her message it's like she didn't introduce rent control whatsoever --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Listen to you, Alvin. You're out of control.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Curling: I know I rattled the cage of the right-wing member from Etobicoke there.

They introduced rent control in such a very haphazard way that it had to be improved. You must recall that it was you who introduced rent control, and we had to actually improve it. If you can tell me the private sector will build affordable housing by taking away rent control, if you can promise me that right now, that if we take away rent control, affordable housing will be built, I'll be delighted.

Mr Stockwell: Alvin, thank God there's no wind in here, or you'd be swinging.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr Curling: The member for Etobicoke West I know sometimes has his foot under his armpit and is not quite sure where it is.

The fact is that if they can be more sensible about it and promise me that by eliminating rent control the private sector will build affordable housing, then I will say, of course we will step back from all that. But I'm telling you we are committed and we will continue to struggle to organize those tenants who are most vulnerable under rent control --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time is up. Further debate?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I too am pleased to speak to the interim supply motion today. I am happy because I want an opportunity to be able to raise a number of points that I hope will resonate with the public as we raise these issues.

The Conservative members are drooling over the cost-saving measures they have introduced, the Interim Report on Business Planning and Cost Savings Measures. The government gloats, the private sector gloats over these cuts and Conservative economists gloat over these cuts.

Everyone is cutting. The federal Liberal government is cutting 40,000 workers. The provincial government is obviously cutting 11,000 workers. The private sector is cutting workers by the thousands as they make record profits. Municipal governments are forced to cut people because they're getting less from provincial governments. All the agencies connected to provincial governments, federal governments and municipal governments are also cutting, and these cuts, believe it or not, are hurting people. The image it gives to me in terms of what we're doing as a government is that we're throwing all of these people into a Roman forum as the lions circle around.

The government is saying, "We're doing more with less," and I don't know how they can do that. I don't know how you can do more with less, but we do hear them constantly talking about doing more