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

June 24, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L093 - Mon 24 Jun 1996 / Lun 24 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEAMINGTON DISTRICT SECONDARY SCHOOL

NORTHERN SUPPORT GRANT

GIOVANNI CABOTO

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

CO-OP EDUCATION

NORTHERN HERITAGE FUND

NDP LEADERSHIP

GREY CUP 1996

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY / FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

GOVERNMENT POLICY

MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY AWARD

CRIME PREVENTION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

RENT REGULATION

AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCES EN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

PETITIONS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

CHILD ABUSE

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

NON-PROFIT HOUSING COOPERATIVE

BEAR HUNTING

ONTARIO HYDRO

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHILD CARE

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEAMINGTON DISTRICT SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased to rise today and ask the members of the Legislature to join me in congratulating past and present staff and students on the 100th anniversary of Leamington District Secondary School. The high school in Leamington was founded in 1896 and until 1949 was known as Leamington High School. From 1949 to 1962 it was named Leamington District High School, and from 1962 until the present 100th year it has been known as Leamington District Secondary School.

Of special note in this centenary year is the fact that James N. Hume served Leamington and district as a teacher from 1933 to 1970. From 1942 to 1970 Mr Hume, or Jimmy as he was affectionately known by his students, served as an outstanding principal. He will be remembered for his discipline and fairness by all of those who learned from him.

Colleagues, please join me in wishing Leamington District Secondary School success as it embarks on its second century of excellence in education.

NORTHERN SUPPORT GRANT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Last week in Sudbury over 180 mayors were invited from across northern Ontario to come together to organize and deliver a message to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier of this province, the only member from northern Ontario in that government, that the Ontario northern support grant is important to small communities. That is one of the issues they talked about.

Members of the assembly know that particular grant is especially important to small communities like Matheson and other communities across northern Ontario that don't have the municipal assessment base in the industrial sector to offset the amount of money they need to provide basic services to their communities. Those communities don't have things like the Metro zoo, those communities don't have huge transit systems to run; in many cases they have no transit.

We're talking about basic services such as garbage pickup, water delivery, cleaning and keeping snow off the streets in the winters that we have in northern Ontario, and northern communities are really upset and worried that this government is talking about getting rid of the northern support grant.

I urge the government to listen to the mayors of northern Ontario. They know what they're talking about on this one. They're the ones who have to balance the budgets of their municipalities at the end of each fiscal year. If this government takes away that grant, it means that communities like Hearst, Matheson, Iroquois Falls and others will be severely hurt and unable to provide essential services to the people they represent. I say to the government it's about high time they listened.

GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Today we mark the beginning of the 500th year since the formal discovery of Canada by John Cabot in 1497.

If he could be present with us in this Legislature today, he would barely recognize who we were talking about, simply because he was an Italian and his name was Giovanni Caboto. It was his visionary drive that led this enterprising explorer to the shores of what is today Newfoundland and eastern Canada under the banner of the person who shared his enthusiasm, the King of England.

Having claimed this dominion for the crown, Giovanni laid the foundation for Canada's future development as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy which would unite our bilingual, multicultural and regional traditions.

It is in recognition of Giovanni Caboto that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the successor of his original employer, will visit Canada next year to celebrate this great anniversary of Canadian achievement and unity. As Giovanni Caboto would have said, viva la Regina.

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Aujourd'hui en Ontario, comme partout au Canada, les francophones fêtent des siècles de détermination tranquille à survivre et à prospérer, et je veux leur souhaiter la plus heureuse des Saint-Jean-Baptiste. À Hearst, à Windsor, dans Prescott-Russell, à Ottawa, à Toronto et à bien d'autres endroits dans la province ils se rassemblent et ils se disent qu'ils sont fiers de ce qu'ils sont ; ils se disent qu'ils se souviennent.

Ce n'est pas tellement le temps aujourd'hui de penser à ce qui divise le Canada et aux attaques constantes de ce gouvernement contre les quelques acquis de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Demain, nous continuerons d'apporter une contribution positive à la vie de ce pays. Demain, nous continuerons nos efforts en vue de donner une place au soleil dans cette province à chaque Franco-Ontarien et à chaque Franco-Ontarienne.

Aujourd'hui, il faut célébrer ce que nous sommes et ce que nous avons apporté à cette province et à ce pays. Il faut célébrer nos acquis et notre culture.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): We have come to the end of your government's first year in office and are now coming to the end of the first session of Parliament and the end of Ontario's economic viability. Your tax break is supposed to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, we're told. Despite the rhetoric, most people are going to be worse off, and this is particularly true in northern Ontario.

In the riding of Cochrane North: In Kapuskasing municipal taxes will be increasing by 2.6%, in Hearst taxes will be increased by 2.5%, in Mattice-Val Côté taxes will go up by 2.5%; in Cochrane user fees will be increased by 16%, and in Kapuskasing they're considering user fees for garbage disposal; 42 Ministry of Natural Resources jobs were lost, in Kapuskasing 11, Hearst 8, and in Cochrane 22.

For a quarter of a century, the people of northern Ontario had safe and efficient air service with norOntair. On March 29 norOntair ceased to fly and its services were turned over to the private sector. After only three months, one private carrier has ceased air service to three communities because the routes aren't economical. This does not bode well for the future of reliable air services for the north.

We've done well under your government in the north since you took office as the Tories. We will do even better under an NDP government in the future with our new leader, Howard Hampton, who truly understands the needs of northerners.

CO-OP EDUCATION

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I recently had the opportunity to address a co-op appreciation luncheon in the town of Walkerton. The purpose of the luncheon was to recognize the students, teachers and employers whose efforts ensured the success of this year's co-op program.

In fact, 300 students from Sacred Heart High School and Walkerton District Secondary School were successfully matched with local employers. Placements were in fields ranging from agriculture to retail sales to automotive repair, which allowed the students to further their career goals doing jobs they are interested in.

Students who enjoy helping others had the opportunity to be teachers' aides at an elementary school or to work with senior citizens, those who are more inclined to work with their hands assisted electricians and mechanics, and for those who have a way with words, the local paper provided an opportunity to practise their writing skills. Even our future nuclear physicists had a chance to test their knowledge at the Bruce nuclear power development site.

The success of programs such as the one in Walkerton is among the many reasons this government is expanding co-op and work experience programs to give students more insight into possible career choices. By developing clear course requirements, expanding co-op and work experience programs, and introducing a formal transition-to-work training program in partnership with local employers, we will continue skills development and provide the additional experience that Ontario's students need to be competitive in today's dynamic workforce.

NORTHERN HERITAGE FUND

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As we near the end of the spring session, I want to direct my remarks today to the Minister of Northern Development and what appear to be further delays in getting the northern Ontario heritage fund up and running.

As we all know, since this government took office one year ago, the fund has been in limbo -- for a full year. Only after continual prodding by the Liberal opposition did the minister return money owing to the fund and set up a functioning board to distribute the funds. Yet another two months have passed since the government announced they would finally do something about the fund, but very little has changed.

Information provided to us confirms that the new board, which will be meeting later this week, is no further ahead in determining how the fund will work. Decisions related to infrastructure, and simply how "infrastructure" is to be defined, have yet to be settled.

In addition, as a member of the standing committee on government agencies, I had the opportunity recently to interview two of the new board members. Both the nominees had very little sense of what direction the fund was going in, and in fact seemed quite prepared simply to accept the minister's direction in that regard.

The heritage fund is for northerners, and the decisions on how the fund should be distributed must be made by northerners, not by the minister and his officials in Toronto. I call on the minister today to allow his new appointees to be a real part of the consultation process that is so desperately needed to make this fund relevant to northerners.

NDP LEADERSHIP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Speaker, I could hardly wait to get here today to share with you and with the people of Ontario my great excitement, having attended the convention of the New Democratic Party in Hamilton this past weekend.

It was magnificent: over 2,000 people, men and women, citizens of Ontario, workers, students, small business people, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, fathers, mothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, children, steelworkers, paperworkers, energy workers, members of CUPE, OPSEU, CAW and the OFL, people of all shapes and sizes, all colours and cultural backgrounds, all faiths, people of different sexual orientation -- a true reflection of Ontario as we know it today.

It was a quilt of great beauty and strength as we gathered with common purpose to speak of and forge paths to justice and fairness in Ontario, to form a common bond against the terribly destructive agenda of the Mike Harris government, to let people know that there is an alternative.

I want to tell you how proud I was of the performance of all the leadership candidates and to congratulate here today our new leader, Howard Hampton.

GREY CUP 1996

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to remind the members and all Ontarians that the city of Hamilton will be playing host to the 1996 Grey Cup game, emblematic of Canadian football supremacy. The championship game will be played Sunday, November 24 at Hamilton's Ivor Wynne Stadium.

Anyone who attended the 1972 classic in Hamilton most certainly has fond memories of not only the thrilling last-second victory of our beloved Tiger Cats but also of the unparalleled hospitality of the people of Hamilton during the week-long festivities.

Over 30,000 of the 40,000 seats available have already been purchased and the remainder are expected to go quickly. Tickets can be obtained by calling 1-800-GREY-CUP.

With an all-Canadian CFL back in force and with an outstanding array of talent assembled in the eastern and western conferences, we're certain to have another epic battle as these teams compete to see who will walk away with Lord Grey's coveted silver bowl.

So I advise all members, Ontarians and Canadians to get ready to manufacture some memories, to get ready for fun and frolic; five straight days of Grey Cup magic in downtown Hamilton and in my riding high atop Hamilton Mountain. Get ready to experience a side of Hamilton that just might surprise you. Sure, we're still the steel capital of Canada and proud of it, but the new steel town is more than just furnaces and hardhats. Hamilton is home to some of the world's prettiest sights and some of the most advanced R&D in the fields of health and environmental science.

But most of all, we still know how to put on a party in a town that takes its football seriously. So be there. Get your kicks at Grey Cup 1996 in Hamilton during our sesquicentennial year. Oskee wee wee, Mr Speaker.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that on Thursday, June 20, 1996, the 21st annual report of the Commission on Election Finances for the year 1995 was tabled.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I want to take this opportunity to make a brief report to the House about the meeting of first ministers that took place in Ottawa last Thursday and Friday. I might add as well that some of the follow-up from this meeting we hope will carry on at the premiers' conference in Jasper in August and my intention to meet with the leaders of both opposition parties over the summer before that meeting.

This was the first first ministers' meeting in almost two years. There was a lot on the agenda for us to discuss. From Ontario's point of view, I believe the most immediate issue related to the new arrangements between the federal government and the provinces to deliver job training. As you know, the federal government recently made a very serious offer to transfer this responsibility to the provinces. We believe this is a very good first step, with the potential for far more coordinated and more effective training and closer to those who need it.

Mr Speaker, 35% of Canada's unemployed live in Ontario; not a statistic any of us are very proud of. We feel strongly that the unemployed in Ontario must have the same chance at getting trained as the unemployed elsewhere in the country. This means that Ontario must get an equitable share of the funding.

I just want to make sure everybody understands that we're not talking about the dollars that are contributed to unemployment insurance of some $8 billion from the province of Ontario; we're talking about the active programs that Mr Young has talked about transferring to the provinces. So in order for an unemployed worker in Ontario to get the same training as an unemployed worker anywhere else in the country, we need the equivalent amount of dollars transferred to us to deliver those programs.

At the meeting I made this point strongly to the Prime Minister. Giving Ontarians a fair shot at training is, we made it very clear, a precondition for an agreement on this file, and I hope we can have the support of all members of the House for this approach.

Transferring job training to the provinces, though, is a key example of how the federation can be rebalanced and how it can be renewed. I personally believe that the federation does need real renewing in a practical and systematic way. Deciding who does what and making sure the programs are effective, efficient and fair is important to the future of Canada, and renewing and rebalancing the federation is, in my view, the most important contribution we, at this particular time, can make to national unity.

At the meeting we made progress on a number of other renewal initiatives.

We made good progress on the issue of clarifying roles and responsibilities in the area of the environment. We agreed to have environment ministers report back to us in November regarding a harmonization framework.

At the meeting the federal government agreed to engage with the provinces on the report of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal. This report made a number of useful recommendations about the federal spending power and about disentangling roles and responsibilities in social programs. We agreed that intensive multilateral work would be done during the summer and a work plan with objectives and timetables should be presented as soon as possible. I might add, it's our hope that that is at Jasper in August.

We agreed to move on a national commission to regulate securities. Eight provinces, including Ontario, agreed to be part of this initiative. This commission will be good for Ontario investors who currently have to devote a lot of extra time and resources to meet multiple sets of provincial regulations across the country.

We also agreed to do further work on a national agency for revenue collection and a national food agency. These agencies will eliminate needless overlap and duplication, resulting in less government spending, which is good for taxpayers.

A number of other areas where responsibilities might be transferred were reviewed briefly. We agreed to continue to work to devolve mining, recreation, social housing, forestry and tourism to the provinces. In a number of cases the provinces felt the federal transfer might amount to offloading of program responsibilities without the necessary funds. This was unacceptable to most provinces, including Ontario.

I want to be clear on this issue. We were in agreement that the federal government could save the operation dollars by avoiding the duplication and apply those to the deficit, but where there were programs we both agreed should be delivered, those program dollars should be transferred to the province for delivery.

Another item on the agenda was

section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Some felt the requirement under this

section to review the amending formula within 15 years had been accomplished in the Meech and Charlottetown rounds of meetings. Others felt, for some legal reason or other, that that was in some kind of legal doubt. In order to address this concern, the Prime Minister decided to include this issue on the agenda for this meeting. The only point of debate after the meeting was whether it took 10 seconds or three minutes to deal with that issue.

We also discussed the economy and some actions we might take jointly to give it a boost. The federal government proposed another infrastructure program and we agreed to have our finance ministers review this issue and report back. I must say I continue to believe that the best way for governments to create jobs is to cut taxes. However, I know you will understand when I say there was not universal agreement around this table and no consensus among first ministers on this point. I did, however, secure agreement that governments would not raise taxes to fund a new infrastructure program.

We also discussed another Team Canada trade mission and agreed to plan for one to east Asia in January 1997. Unlike previous missions, it was agreed that this time the provinces would play a larger role in the planning process to ensure that provincial priorities are addressed during the mission.

In conclusion, I want to tell members I was very encouraged by the constructive approach taken at this meeting by first ministers. If I could add into this, the tone also was one of optimism and very positive relative, in my limited experience, to other meetings and what other first ministers had said over the last period of time. I thought, obviously, it was magnificent that all 10 premiers and two territorial leaders attended, and not only attended but participated along with the federal government.

We agreed on a lot. Even when there was not unanimous agreement, we agreed to keep working in the best interests of Canadians. In my opinion, this is the sort of down-to-earth, step-by-step approach that people expect today of their governments and their first ministers.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further ministerial statements? The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to make a statement. You may want responses first.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Responses first.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Okay, we'll have responses first.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Let me begin by indicating that the central focus of the first ministers' conference, which was obviously a discussion of the devolution of responsibilities to the provinces in areas where the services that are being delivered can be best managed by the provinces, the jurisdiction closest to understanding the different needs of people in different regions of the country, is a concept we support.

We recognize the fact that we can't treat the entire country of Canada as one homogeneous unit with all the needs being the same and that there has to be a flexibility in responding, and through a process of devolution many of the critical services that people need can best be tailored to the needs of people in that region by having the provincial governments accept responsibility.

Having said that, for that concept, for that principle to work for people, there has to be a corresponding readiness on the part of the provincial government to accept responsibility for continuing to provide this service, and that is where any sense of optimism about what Ontario can expect as a result of that first ministers' conference ends for us on this side of the House, because we look at what this government has offered to the people of this province in each of those areas the Premier has touched on today, each of those areas where potentially this province would have greater responsibility to provide for the needs of its citizens, and we see a government that has simply abandoned its current responsibilities.

The Premier recognizes in his statement that some 35% of Canada's unemployed live in Ontario. I wonder whether the Premier shared with his fellow first ministers that there are actually more people out of work in the province of Ontario today than there were a year ago when this government came into office. I wonder if he shared with them his budget's projections that there will be even more people out of work three years from now than there were when Mike Harris came into government.

I wonder if he shared with the first ministers the fact that they will not be able to deliver on a commitment, an absolute commitment, they made to the people of this province that they would see 725,000 jobs created. I wonder if they shared that information as a basis for what the Premier has described as a spirit of optimism at that conference.

I wonder if this Premier shared with his fellow ministers how many jobs this government has actually killed in the province of Ontario since they came into office, how many jobs they've killed for nurses, teachers, firefighters and police, the very people whom we need to provide the services. I wonder if he talked about the number of jobs that have been killed in the ministry of the environment, in the housing ministry, in the agriculture ministry and the natural resources ministry, all of those areas where this province appears willing to accept some greater responsibility for providing service to our citizens.

The Premier emphasizes the importance of job training. I find this ironic coming from the very government that has done nothing for job training except kill job training programs, the government that only a week ago announced a workfare program without a training component, even though it had made a very clear and absolute commitment that it would not only have training programs to go along with its workfare, but it would commit significant dollars to it, and yet we see nothing of that.

This commitment and concern for training come from a government that has cut funding for colleges and universities by some $400 million and jacked tuition fees, making college and university education inaccessible for thousands of young people in this province. Then they talk about reforms to our secondary school education in which they would go so far perhaps as to actually deny a classroom education for young people who are not going on to college or university and give them credits for summer jobs that have no training component at all. I worry about this particular government accepting the responsibility for job training.

The Premier says they made good progress on clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the area of the environment. I can only despair if this government claims it is now ready to accept greater responsibility in environmental protection.

Just look at what they have done in recent weeks alone, as they have systematically dismantled environmental regulation and indeed the Ministry of Environment itself; as they have closed regional Ministry of Environment labs, even laying off one of Canada's outstanding environmental researchers; as they've deregulated land use planning; as they have privatized our parks and turned forest management over to companies, if there's anything left of our forests after they've burned down because this government wasn't ready to fight fires.

They say they're looking at devolution in social housing. God forbid, social housing, where they have abandoned any commitment to non-profit housing and where they stand ready to gut rent control protection for tenants.

The most galling thing that came out of this weekend for me was the Premier joining in the vow to fight child poverty. I only have seven seconds left. I only wish the Premier had renewed that vow and that we would see some redirection of resources to eliminating the level of child poverty --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to respond to the Premier's statement on behalf of our caucus.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): So how come Howie's not here?

Mr Wildman: He's going to be here later.

I must say I am a little bit nonplussed by this statement. The Premier points out very clearly that he is in agreement with the other first ministers of Canada that we should be doing everything possible to ensure that there is not duplication and that it is clarified in our system of federal relationships which governments will be responsible for which programs. We all agree with that, but I am very concerned that we now have in this statement a Premier making a comment that he is concerned about the fact that 35% of Canada's unemployed live in Ontario. We are all concerned about that.

Then he goes on to say: "We feel strongly that the unemployed in Ontario must have the same chance of getting trained as the unemployed elsewhere in the country. This means that Ontario must get an equitable share of funding."

I recall the now Premier's statement when he was leader of the third party referring to the previous government in May 1994, when he said, "This government in Ontario is reduced to whining and squabbling with other levels of government." Surely we don't have the member for Nipissing now reduced to whining and squabbling with other levels of government.

Also, I must say that we are in this party very concerned that we may, in this process, be seeing a situation where this Conservative government of Ontario takes full control and responsibility for training programs, a government that has cut $430 million out of post-secondary education and training, a government that has gutted the Jobs Ontario Training program, a government that has increased tuition fees, a government that is making it more and more difficult for single parents to get the training they require, a government that is forcing those people into a welfare trap, a government that says it wants to help, to give them a hand up, not a handout, but is simply cutting the handout.

There's no hand up whatever from this government.

I'm very concerned about the Premier's statement about environmental protection. This is a government that has completely gutted the Ministry of Environment and Energy and is looking at deregulating the way we deal with protection for the environment and leaving it to industry. If we are now moving towards harmonization in this way, all it will mean is that right across Canada we're going to be harmonizing downward. It's going to be less protection for the environment, it's going to mean more deregulation and we're going to see serious pollution problems and degradation of the environment in the future in our country.

The biggest thing that is missing in this statement, though, is the paragraph the Premier used in responding to that portion of the meeting in Ottawa that dealt with

section 49 of the Constitution Act of 1982. In that paragraph the Premier says that some people felt the requirement had been met by Meech and Charlottetown. He then said that others felt there was some doubt. He never in this paragraph or anywhere in this statement says what he feels. He never says what the government of Ontario, the largest province, thinks about the requirement under

section 49 of the Constitution.

Surely it is time for the Premier of this province and the government of Ontario to show some leadership with regard to the renewal of the constitutional framework of this country. Surely it's time we were able to ask: Do we agree with those who feel that the requirement has been met by Meech and Charlottetown or do we agree with those who have some doubt? What is the government's position? How can the Premier get up here and make a statement and never tell us what Ontario had to say?

I suppose if there was three minutes of discussion of this at the meeting, perhaps the Premier wasn't paying attention. Perhaps he missed it or maybe he joined Mr Bouchard outside for a smoke. Is this government taking a position? Is this government taking a lead on the future of Canada? Is this government prepared to stand up for Ontario and to stand up for Canada? It's about time Ontario took a lead in renewing the Constitution.

SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY / FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent on a statement on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As one of those whose ancestors have been here since the 1660s, I am pleased to engage the Legislature with regard to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

Depuis la création de la Confédération, l'Ontario a toujours reconnu l'importance de l'unité, de notre survie et de notre développement économique. L'Ontario a toujours reconnu l'importance du développement et de la stabilité économique pour l'unité de notre pays.

En tant que ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, j'aimerais que notre province retrouve pleinement son potentiel bilingue, qui est un atout tout à fait spécial, et il faut en profiter.

Nous devons faire comprendre aux investisseurs que l'Ontario dispose des infrastructures nécessaires pour former la main-d'oeuvre dont ils ont besoin. La promotion de notre main-d'oeuvre bilingue nous permettra d'être plus concurrentiels non seulement au niveau national, mais au niveau international. Nous devons donc continuer d'évoluer pour demeurer compétitifs dans la globalisation de nos marchés.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As I mentioned in my earlier statement, this is a day to celebrate la francophonie in Ontario and this is a day we should look at what unites us and not what divides us. It's a very important day for all French-speaking people, not only in Ontario or Quebec, but in Canada.

Je crois que l'Ontario a un rôle très important à jouer dans la francophonie non seulement de l'Ontario mais du Canada. Dans les années précédentes, les premiers ministres tel que M. Robarts, tel que M. Davis, tel que David Peterson, tel que Bob Rae ont joué un rôle important dans l'unité du Canada.

Lorsqu'on parle de l'unité du Canada, on parle de cultures différentes comme celle d'un francophone et d'un anglophone. Je crois qu'en Ontario, avec ces compressions budgétaires, la francophonie s'inquiète. Nous avons une peur présentement que, avec les compressions budgétaires, nous sommes en deuxième ou peut-être en troisième rang.

Même avec l'assurance du premier ministre dernièrement que la Loi 8 ne sera touchée ni modifiée, je m'inquiète parce que la francophonie en Ontario est suspendue à la branche d'un arbre qui s'appelle l'Ontario. L'Ontario doit jouer un rôle important au Canada, mais en commençant par l'Ontario, et afin d'assurer que la francophonie en Ontario aura une survie, la Loi 8 doit demeurer en place. Il ne faut pas changer ou modifier la Loi 8. Il ne faut pas transférer la responsabilité du gouvernement à d'autres agences telles qu'aux municipalités.

The Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, mentioned that he is just back from his first premiers' conference, and I know the unity subject was on the agenda. I hope the Premier defended the cause of Franco-Ontarians at the first ministers' conference and that he will every day that he stands to speak on unity. Francophones, aboriginal people and anglophones are all Ontarians.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Cette journée on a encore l'occasion de célébrer la contribution de tous les francophones en Ontario depuis l'acceptation de notre province au Canada. On sait que les francophones ont oeuvré beaucoup d'années et ont travaillé très fort avec tous les Ontariens pour bâtir une province dont on peut vraiment être fier.

Les contributions qu'on a vues aux secteurs d'affaires, des arts et de la culture à travers la province et celles des travailleurs impliqués dans le mouvement des syndicats démontrent vraiment une communauté, que nous, francophones en Ontario, avons notre place et que l'on travaille ensemble. On va tous dans la même direction parce qu'on croit que cette province en est réellement une dont on peut tous être fier, francophones, anglophones et autres.

Aussi, cette année on célèbre cette journée de manière un peu différente, en regardant ce qui s'est passé la dernière année avec ce gouvernement, et on commence vraiment à s'inquiéter, comme francophones en Ontario, que le gouvernement a besoin de mieux comprendre les besoins des francophones.

Il y a beaucoup de francophones qui commencent à s'inquiéter de la direction prise par le gouvernement ontarien sur cette question. On demande au gouvernement de l'Ontario de se rengager et de se rappeler que les francophones font

partie de la province. On est une

partie très importante de 550 mille personnes dans la province et on a besoin d'avoir l'appui de notre gouvernement.

Le premier ministre a eu, la fin de semaine passée, la chance de rencontrer les premiers ministres des autres provinces et le premier ministre canadien. Je vous rappelle, M. Harris, que nous, Franco-Ontariens, pouvons jouer un rôle très important quand ça vient à la question de la constitution du Canada. Les francophones comprennent très bien l'importance de la francophonie, non seulement en Ontario. On comprend aussi, je pense, d'une manière un peu différente que les autres les sentiments au Québec.

On peut travailler comme francophones à travers le pays, au Québec et hors Québec, pour bâtir les liens nécessaires pour démontrer au Québec et aux Québécois francophones qu'ici au Canada, on est mieux servis comme francophones au lieu d'être séparés de notre pays nous-mêmes.

Je demande au premier ministre et à son gouvernement de toujours se rappeler que les francophones de l'ACFO et d'autres organismes francophones veulent jouer un rôle positif et demandent au gouvernement à toute occasion de s'engager, d'adopter une position consultative pour être capables de réaliser que les possibilités de ce qu'on peut faire ensemble sont tellement importantes.

Je souhaite à tous les francophones de la province aujourd'hui une bonne fête. Aujourd'hui on célèbre, et demain on va en avant et on continue l'ouvrage qu'on a fait comme Ontariens dans cette province.

The Speaker: Time for oral question period.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I wonder perhaps before question period if we might have unanimous consent to say a few words. If you want the clock to run in question period, that's fine too. We probably don't have unanimous consent for that, but to say a few words, I would seek unanimous consent now.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm pleased to lead off and take this opportunity to say a few words of congratulations on behalf of all members of the government caucus to the member for Rainy River. On behalf -- I think I can speak of another club -- of all of us who have sought the leadership of our respective parties, successful or otherwise, it's an experience unlike any other in the political process. It is not at any municipal level; it is very unique at the partisan level of provincial and federal politics.

I want to say to members of the House too that we're creations of this democratic process as it has evolved and been passed on to us, so it's moving, always, to watch a party select its leader at a convention. This exercise is really the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, so all of us who are interested in politics watched with interest over the weekend.

I think also I have some appreciation for how the member for Rainy River is feeling today. It was some six years ago that I found myself in a similar position. I know, as well, that the member once attended university on a hockey scholarship, almost turned professional. That's good training from time to time, being able to keep your elbows up when they need to be up. You're going to find yourself skating very fast from time to time, as well, and I think that will serve you in good stead.

I also want to reflect, if I might -- and here I realize I'm not speaking on behalf of all members of the Legislature but those who reside close to and north of the French River.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Thanks.

Hon Mr Harris: I included you in "close to."

The choice has caused me to reflect on speculation. Whenever there is a member from northern Ontario -- for a time, anyway, there are three leaders in this Legislature who can speak to that -- there is always lots of speculation that it's a disadvantage to come from northern Ontario, that it's a disadvantage for the party to elect somebody from northern Ontario. I think the Leader of the Opposition will remember such speculation. I remember that speculation. While it hasn't been everybody's first choice in how to resolve the issue, I think we would at least agree that in the last election we resolved that issue as far as regional electability goes.

I want to also extend congratulations to the members for Dovercourt and Beaches-Woodbine and to the member for Welland-Thorold. I asked where he was because I wanted to say hello to him today. I figured he'd still be celebrating, but I'm told that contrary to that he's telling the people of Peterborough what a wonderful job the government's doing at this moment.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): He's probably talking about you right at this very moment.

Hon Mr Harris: We've agreed he is talking about me anyway.

I know that on our side Dianne and I can speak to this -- Dianne particularly, on one side of it -- and many others of course understand that.

I also particularly want to acknowledge the service for the past few months of the member for Algoma. I think he's served the party and the Legislature well as interim leader of the party. I believe he'll always have very deserved respect from all members of the House in a continuing role.

I know what it's like to be leader of the third party. It's not without its frustrations when you come up with marvellous things that will save the world and the country or the province, or at least some aspect of it, and not quite as much attention is paid as ought to be. I know as well, though, that you can go from third to first, and while I'm going to wish you lots of success, not quite that much.

I believe that as leader of your party the role is one of equal importance to leaders of all parties and ought to be treated that way, and will be by me; I assure you of that. I can't speak for the media or the electorate, but I'm sure the media at least understand the volatility of voter wishes in the province of Ontario over the period of the last few elections.

We have a lot of things we can work together on in this Legislature. We may disagree from time to time on how we get to some of the goals -- the concern about jobs, the economy, the north and the unique difficulties there on the challenges of those who are not participating as well or benefiting as well as others from all this great province has to offer -- but I want to say to the member that I look forward to working with him on those goals.

I perhaps would say that in the nine years I and those of us who've been here that long have observed and worked with the member, in government, as opposition and as a minister of the crown, we've come to know you as a committed public servant, with integrity and dedication to this province. I believe you have that firm commitment and I wish you well on behalf of our colleagues, our entire caucus and our party, because you are also leader of a party with its unique responsibility as well. We wish you very well in your new responsibilities. Congratulations.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): This is one of those truly rare moments in the Legislature when I essentially want to echo the comments of the Premier of the province, because I do want to express, on behalf of all the members of my caucus and indeed of our party, congratulations to the member for Rainy River on his victory this weekend and on his assuming the leadership of the New Democratic Party.

As the Premier has pointed out and as the media have commented over the course of the weekend, the victory for the member for Rainy River does create a historical moment in the province of Ontario since, for the current moment in any event, it is a time when all three leaders are from northern Ontario.

The Premier will appreciate the fact that I want to suggest that it's equally unique that two of the leaders of the parties in the Legislature are actually from northwestern Ontario, and I think that really is unique as we appreciate the sheer width of this province and the fact that until I had the opportunity to become leader of our party, there had not been a leader from northwestern Ontario in Ontario before. I think perhaps we're setting a trend, but in any event I think what has been clearly demonstrated, as the Premier has noted, is that candidates from even the most distant parts of the province can be fully accepted across Ontario.

I know that the member for Rainy River brings a knowledge and understanding of northwestern and northern Ontario issues, but I know too that he brings a very clear understanding that this is a very complex province with many different regions and different needs and that he will bring to that an understanding of those different needs and a genuine concern for all parts of the province, which is so essential to leadership.

We do wish you well in your new role, although my caucus members would want me to add, since we are still opposition parties, not too well in your new role. We will look forward to working with you as the moment seems appropriate, and there are other occasions when we will look forward to working against you when this political business seems to make that even more appropriate.

I also want to offer my congratulations, as the Premier has, not only to Mr Hampton but to his fellow candidates in this leadership campaign. I think that stepping forward as a leadership candidate for your party involves a tremendous personal commitment and that commitment is both to your party and it's also to the province of Ontario and to the political process. I would join as well in extending congratulations to the member for Algoma on his very strong, very vocal, very effective carrying out of the role of interim leader.

I know that the other leadership candidates and the member for Algoma will be around for the fight for a long time and will continue to be formidable opponents in this place.

But I think we do recognize, as the Premier has said, that these aren't easy times in any party to be providing leadership, and the willingness of individuals to take on the challenge of leadership is a contribution to the democratic process and to this province that I think simply cannot be measured.

So we do offer our congratulations and our best wishes both to the new leader and to his colleagues, and we do that with genuine respect for the value of the work that we all do in this place and for our shared commitment to the future of this province.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): All members I think will understand why I have a particular interest in this event, and I'm particularly happy to congratulate the member for Rainy River on his success on the weekend because it now means that I have a little more time to live a normal existence around this place.

I do want to welcome the member for Rainy River from Peterborough, as well as our very successful convention on the weekend in Hamilton, and on behalf of all of our caucus members to indicate how pleased we were with the result and how he conducted himself and all of the candidates conducted themselves on the weekend and throughout the campaign for the leadership of our party. They all served us very well and I believe served the political process, the democratic process, very well in this province.

So on behalf of all of my colleagues, I'd like to extend my congratulations not only to Howard but to the member for Dovercourt, the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Welland-Thorold.

On the weekend as the voting progressed I was asked by a member of the gallery, who shall remain nameless, whether it was a good idea to have a northerner elected as leader, which I thought was a little odd asking me that question. Then I pointed out to that individual that I understood that the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition were both from northern Ontario, and the member of the media then went on to say: "Well, aren't you a little concerned at having a northern leader?

He might not be able to really understand the problems of the rest of the province." I thought about the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier and thought, maybe he's right. Indeed, it was a silly question and I guess I gave a silly answer.

It's important, though, for us in our party to recognize, as I'm sure the members of the Conservative Party and the members of the Liberal Party understand, that our leaders may be from northern Ontario and are proud of that heritage and that background and understand the problems of the north, but they also are elected leaders of this whole great province and are there to lead us in dealing with issues that matter to all Ontarians. We have every confidence, as the members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have in their leaders, that Howard Hampton will serve us and the province of Ontario very, very well in that capacity.

I'd also, on a personal note, like to express on behalf of all of my colleagues congratulations to one other member who had a particular interest in this leadership campaign, and that is the member for Sudbury East, who conducted herself very well under significant pressure and really served all of us and helped Howard very well throughout the campaign.

I just want to say again on behalf of everyone in our party how pleased we are to be able to welcome Howard here this afternoon and we look forward to the fight in this place with all of our colleagues from the other two parties.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I am indeed flattered by the remarks, but not that flattered. I appreciate all of the kind comments. I appreciate, from the Premier, his drawing of the road map, how you go from third place to first place. I indeed appreciate that. I've studied your path well and we'll do our best to duplicate it very soon. I also want to thank the leader of the official opposition, whom I've known for a number of years now, and knew of her before she and I were both elected to this place at the same time.

I say to Lyn McLeod that I guess this means we're competing once again for the Thunder Bay media. Maybe we can work a deal. You do it on Thursdays, I'll do it on Fridays, and we won't overlap too much.

I want to thank all members of the House for their kindness. I think many people don't realize outside of this place the work that goes into being elected, the work that goes into politics. Many people don't understand how we can fight hard here and on the hustings and still respect one another and like one another and admire one another. Too often, I guess, that gets lost in the shuffle, but I want you to know I appreciate the good wishes and the good feelings.

I want to congratulate and thank the member for Algoma, who has brought true meaning to the term "this Bud's for you." Many of you have experienced over the last four or five months what we have always known in our caucus: what a tremendously hard worker, what a dedicated individual he is, and how hard he fights.

I want to thank my colleagues the member for Dovercourt, who worked very hard, ran a splendid campaign; the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who ran an excellent campaign; and the member for Welland-Thorold, even though he's not always with us every day.

Laughter.

Mr Hampton: I think some of you have read more than one meaning into that statement.

I also want to thank the member for Sudbury East. The member for Sudbury East is an incredible adviser. She has very good political judgement, good political instincts. She's a good strategist. When I wrote my first speech for the convention she looked at it and said, "Do you want to talk to the delegates or do you want to teach philosophy?" I promptly put it away and wrote another speech, and I'm glad that I did.

I say to all of you that I expect we will continue to have some tough fights in this House. Please remember, none of it's personal. I only know one way to work at politics, and that is to work at it full speed ahead as hard as you can all the time. I never mean anything personal. I have the greatest of respect for everyone in this House, even people who hold diametrically opposite ideological views of the province. I know that all of you work hard. I know that we all mean well here. So take none of it personally if you find that over the next while I enjoy the fight too much. Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, you and your government keep talking about how important it is to have a well-educated workforce, and on that point we would agree. The problem is that your rhetoric is right but your policies are all wrong and it is becoming only too clear that your policies are producing the wrong results.

According to figures that have been supplied by the Ontario university application centre, some 500 fewer high school students have applied from Ontario high schools to go to university this fall. Those young people who are not going to university are certainly not going to be going to a community college instead, because it is shocking to find that the number of applications from high school students who want to go to community college next year has plunged by 4,000.

There is one very simple reason for these decreases: a 20% increase in university tuition fees, a 15% increase in college tuition fees. Those increases have made post-secondary education virtually unattainable for thousands of Ontario high school students. Minister, will you acknowledge now that your tuition fee increases are preventing thousands of young people in this province from getting the education they need?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): No, I will not. There is no correlation between the tuition fees and the enrolments for next year. We are tracking enrolments very carefully, as we have looked in the past at enrolment figures, to see what will predict enrolments in universities and colleges across Ontario. I can assure the honourable member opposite that it's not in fact tuition fees, that there are other factors.

By the way, those numbers are very early and represent a very, very, very small percentage change in the enrolment over what has been predicted, and we'll see what happens as the summer rolls through.

Mrs McLeod: I have a feeling the minister is making up the other factors, that he is bluffing when he says there's no correlation between decreased numbers of students at a time of increased unemployment for young people who think that their options are going on to college and university and the fact that they have raised the tuition fees by 15% to 20% in this province. He seems to think that's just a coincidence. The bottom line is that this fall there are 4,500 fewer young people who are going to be going to college or university, 4,500 more young people who are saying they cannot afford to go to college or university because of this government's policies.

I find it ironical, not only that the minister suggests that there are other factors but that the policies of increased tuition fees that this minister and this government have brought in don't even fit with the campaign commitments this government made. When this government was campaigning, they said very clearly in writing in the campaign document that tuition fees would be allowed to rise slightly over a four-year period to 25% of the operating costs of a university or college education.

The fact is that prior to your tuition fee increases students were already paying 26% of the cost of their education. So they were already paying more than what your government in its campaign commitment said was a fair share for students. Despite that, you went ahead and raised tuition, not by a slight amount, not over a four-year period, but in one fell swoop by 20% in universities and 15% in colleges.

Minister, I ask you, when did the change in policy occur? Are you now saying that 25% was not a fair share, that 33% is a fair share for students to pay? Is this your new government policy?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I would have thought that the honourable member opposite would know that the fair share -- and I think it's important for the people of Ontario to recognize the fair share of the government, the fair share of institutions and the fair share of the students in paying for post-secondary education. That's a subject that has been in front of previous governments. This government is going to make it part of a discussion paper to talk fulsomely with various people across the province.

I'm very surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has not mentioned the fact that this government will continue and in fact enhance the support of students in colleges and universities next year through increased funding to the Ontario student assistance program. We have $100 million invested in a matching fund system, in a trust fund, for student aid. We've asked the colleges and universities to reinvest 10% of the increases in tuitions into student aid. There is a movement by this government to increase the assistance available to students, particularly those students in most financial need. I think it's an enviable track record.

As the minister makes reference to previous governments, I think it's interesting to note that the last time students in this province saw tuition increases of this magnitude was under a previous Conservative government way back in 1980.

Since it is clear that young people are now paying more than what you and what your government said in your campaign document was a fair share for students -- they're paying more than the 25% you said was a reasonable cost for students to bear; since you've already passed that, will you give students, young people in this province some assurance that you're not going to put more hurdles in place in the future, that you're not going to keep raising the bar? Will you declare today that your goal for students paying a share of their cost of education has been reached and that you are going to freeze tuition fees for students in this province for the next three years?

Hon Mr Snobelen: To the Leader of the Opposition, I can commit right now to the fact that this government will put the issue of what the fair share is of the province in a discussion paper. We will do that in the very near future. We believe that's an important thing that we should have a lot of input on from stakeholders, from the students, from the institutions, and listen to the taxpayers on this issue.

I also can assure the member opposite that we will invest in student aid, will invest more money in student aid next year than we did this year. We will improve our programs, will improve the help of co-op programs for college and university students. We've increased the amount of summer employment that's available for students across the province. We have implemented a number of measures that will help students.

I'm somewhat surprised by the whole context of the question. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, who served as a Minister of Colleges and Universities, would know and would have experienced while she was involved in that portfolio the fact that enrolment trends in colleges and universities over the last few decades in Ontario have followed, in an opposite fashion, the general economy. Normally, when there is some fall-off in enrolments, a minor fall-off in enrolments, it's because there are more job opportunities out in the community.

So perhaps what we're beginning to hear is the echo of a recovery of the economy in Ontario. Maybe we're hearing the echo of some new job opportunities for young people in the province of Ontario. I think if the Leader of the Opposition listens very carefully, that's what she'll hear is going on in Ontario.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question again today for the Minister of Correctional Services and the Solicitor General. Minister, I'd like to go back to Elgin-Middlesex. What we do know is that on March 1 the alleged beatings took place. We know that on March 4 the child advocate called the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services and your acting deputy minister of the day to inform them of the incident that took place and of her concerns about the safety of the young offenders still at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

During all this time, we do know that a mother of one of the young offenders frantically made over a dozen phone calls to your office to try to get the message through of her concerns for her son's safety.

But during the last couple of weeks of questioning in this House, you have continually denied knowledge of any of this for at least a three-month period. We now know, despite your claims, that your ministry prepared a briefing note to inform you of its concerns on March 7, and it specifically said that a mother feared for her son's safety. If you were on top of your job when you were reading this, I'm sure alarm bells would have gone off in your mind about the situation.

I'm sure that with your political instinct you would have had a lot more questions about this particular incident and I'm sure would have followed up with your officials. Do you still expect us to believe you didn't know about this incident until June of this year?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I think it was the first or second day the issue was raised in the House that I indicated we did have a record of a call from a mother which was referred to officials in the ministry of corrections, and the mother indicated she was satisfied with the response.

With respect to the note indicating a safety concern, I think that's valid, and I think the written word in terms of

interpretation is a subjective matter, to say the least, and the opposition is putting one

interpretation on it. Mr Speaker, I think if you put yourself in the place of a mother of a young offender who had been housed in a facility where a riot had just occurred causing significant damage, you would be concerned about the safety of that young offender in a riot situation.

If indeed there were any allegations with respect to maltreatment or physical assaults against young offenders, that would have been incorporated in an issue note. I interpret that issue note dramatically differently than the member opposite does. In fact, I think it's confirmation that the issues group and the minister's staff were not aware of those allegations whatsoever.

Mr Ramsay: It looks like your ministry was working on this, but it looks like you and your office dropped the ball in this whole incident. I suggest you take a long look in the mirror and maybe think you are the problem in this ministry and not those officials who were trying to get this situation corrected.

For weeks now, your statements have been incredulous. We know the child advocate reported to your officials, your acting deputy minister, about this incident on March 4, and she also had recommended that these young people be moved for their own safety. Your briefing note, three days later, mentions that the mother of one of these young offenders had brought these concerns to your officials in your office.

We have two different sources now of concern coming into your ministry office, the child advocate, also the official guardian of children in this province, prescribing an official remedy: move those young people, transfer them to another facility. Why did it take you three months to react? Why was nothing done? Why did you do nothing?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated time and again that no one was happy with the young offenders being housed in an adult institution. I think that's understandable. They were there because a riot had occurred at Bluewater, causing extensive damage to that facility, and they had to be housed in a facility until appropriate quarters could be found. In fact, every effort was made by the child advocate and ministry staff to try to find alternative accommodation. Because of the strike situation and the lack of cooperation surrounding the labour dispute, we were unable to move those young offenders, the bulk of them, until the labour dispute was settled.

Mr Ramsay: I still believe something is rotten here. We have to get to the bottom of this. We know that the official guardian, the child guardian, the advocate, had brought these concerns to your office, and we now know that the concerned mother's calls to you were taken by your staff and recorded in your briefing note.

We know that ministers in this place are not compelled to answer under oath. We have many officials involved here, each with their own story to tell, and you have told us your story here repeatedly. But the public needs to know the truth and the only way to get to the truth is to have all the people involved, including the minister, testify in this place under oath. When are you going to order a legislative inquiry so that the people of Ontario will know the truth and all of us can get to the bottom of this incident?

Hon Mr Runciman: I don't hear a lot of concern from the public at large with respect to whether or not I'm telling the truth. I think I've indicated clearly I am telling the truth. The facts are out there. We've put them on the table over the past two and a half weeks that we've been discussing this issue. We have two investigations under way and they'll be made public in due course.

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

Applause.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This will end some time or other.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The member for Nickel Belt says this will end very soon.

My question is also to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. A dark cloud surrounds you concerning the manner in which you have handled the scandal at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. You have shown the people of the province that you don't have a clue what is going on in your ministry. You have lurched from one investigation after another in your attempt to hide the fact that it is you, the minister, who is ultimately responsible for the alleged beatings and other abuse of young people in the care of your ministry at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

You have never explained why your acting deputy minister didn't inform you about the child advocate's concerns which were reported to your ministry as early as March 4, and there are many other unanswered questions.

The fact of the matter is, people don't believe you. You have claimed that you did not find out about the allegations of abuse to young people at Elgin-Middlesex until June 5, but recent press reports indicate that a contentious issue note dated March 7, prepared by your ministry, states:

"On March 5, 1996, a mother of a young offender who had been at Bluewater during this disturbance and subsequently transferred to Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre called the minister's office to express concern about her son's safety."

This note was prepared to keep you and your office informed of contentious issues, and I've got a copy of it. It's in bold print. It's not something you would easily gloss over. How do you explain what action you took when you and your staff read this note dated March 7, 1996?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm honoured to be on the receiving end of the first question from the new leader of the third party. I congratulate him and I'm not going to take anything he says personally.

I indicated in my response to the member for Timiskaming my

interpretation of that following a riot at a young offenders institution where there was serious damage done, and I think it's understandable that a parent would have concern about an offspring in circumstances like that. That's how I interpret it, and I think any objective observer would interpret it in the same way.

Mr Hampton: I want to ask the minister definitively: Did you read this note dated March 7 or a note similar to it?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm an honest person and I'll tell you that I can't recall whether I read it or not. I will indicate that we had hundreds of issues in the corrections ministry on a daily basis during the strike situation. I tried to cover as many as I could, and I had briefing sessions on a daily basis with the acting deputy minister.

The ministry of corrections at the best of times is a challenging ministry in terms of the incident reports, but I feel comfortable with the reports I had on the basis of the efforts I made to try and keep on top of the wide range of issues.

Mr Hampton: This becomes more incredible all the time. This is a briefing note, and it has written in bold print, bold print that no one would be able to ignore: "Major disturbance at BYC contained, successfully resolved. The office of child and family service advocacy also investigating." Then it goes through a number of details, all of which, if a minister is awake or his staff are alert at all, every one of these incidents would give cause to check out the circumstances, to make sure that nothing untoward was happening.

Then the final part: On March 5, 1996, a mother of a young offender calls to raise an alert and to express concern about her son's safety. It's absolutely incredible that the minister would then say, "Well, I don't recall."

I want to ask the minister about another document. This is a directive from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, office of the assistant deputy minister, correctional services division, and it deals with how seriously issue notes are to be taken.

It says on this, "There is a clear, firm requirement by the offices of the minister and deputy minister that briefing papers should be prepared by 11 am to respond to media queries or questions in the Legislature when it is in session." Obviously a directive has come down in the corrections division of this minister's ministry saying: "These matters are to be treated very seriously. Notes are to be put forward very soon. Notes are to be made available for the minister's office."

How can the minister explain to the House? He issued this directive saying all of this was to be taken seriously. He gets a note like this, which is obviously very serious on its face -- it has a number of serious details throughout it -- and the minister can't even recall if he ever saw it. How does the minister add all of this up?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated clearly the first or second day this issue was raised that the call was received. We received, as I indicated, hundreds of calls from a variety of people who were concerned about the corrections situation during the strike. It might have been the spouse of a correctional officer or someone who had a spouse or family member as an inmate in the correctional system and who was concerned about their safety in an ongoing situation because of the staffing situation and the strike situation.

They were appropriately referred to the ministry of corrections for action. In this particular instance the ministry responded. The parent indicated her satisfaction with the response. I've indicated from the outset that we were aware of the call and that the ministry acted appropriately.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): To the same minister: Minister, I have a copy of a memo dated June 4, 1996, the day before you allege that you heard about this incident in the EMDC. It's addressed to the western regional manager of correctional services from Mr Simpson, then the superintendent at Elgin-Middlesex. This memo is clearly Mr Simpson's response to the child advocate's report on Elgin-Middlesex. The first sentence in Mr Simpson's memo reads, "The above-captioned report" -- the child advocate's report -- "was discussed with senior management staff, health care staff and the institution chaplain."

I've already raised in this House with you a number of times the inappropriateness of managers who may be the subject of ongoing investigations having access to the child advocate's report and that this situation compromises the results of all the ongoing investigations. But what is most disturbing is the widening number of people, the number of ministry officials who apparently knew about these allegations of abuse, but you, Minister, say you were kept in the dark.

We know now that the following people at least were aware of this before you, Minister: the senior management staff at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, including Mr Simpson, Mr Huber, the health care staff, the institution chaplain; your acting deputy minister, Michael Jordan; the deputy minister, Elaine Todres; the assistant deputy minister, Neil McKerrell; Nandy Farkas of the ministry's internal investigations unit; and the minister's legislative assistant.

Minister, do you really expect us to believe that ministry officials were reading the child advocate's report, were meeting to discuss the report and were responding to that report well before June 5 when you say you were first told and you didn't have a clue that anything had happened?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated my position on this on numerous occasions. No matter what I say, the member opposite will never be convinced.

Mrs Boyd: We know that on March 4, Michael Jordan, the acting deputy minister, was made aware of allegations that young people had been beaten while in the care of your ministry. Minister, can you tell us the exact date that your deputy minister, Elaine Todres, upon returning to her position from a leave, was made aware of these allegations and what actions she took at that point?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated -- I hate to make mistakes on dates, but I think it was something like the first week in June that the deputy was -- the report was delivered to her office near the end of May. She was in London, out of the office, and I think she read the report on Tuesday of the following week and I was informed the following day.

Mrs Boyd: That's rather odd, Minister, since she was appearing in front of a legislative committee on April 15.

I believe the minister should be responding more directly to this and indicating to the public of this province very clearly exactly what the line of accountability is within his ministry. He should be responding. He is responsible, and he should be responding to the various widespread concerns about the way this matter was handled internally, not just by ministry officials but your own office, Minister, for which you are directly responsible. Your political staff knew, and if they didn't tell you, what kind of a minister are you?

This is an attempt for you to try and hide this matter, to sweep it under the carpet, to keep employees who may have participated in the alleged events on the job, keep them caring for the same young people who had those allegations of abuse against those people. We're dealing with accountability. We're dealing here with responsibility of a minister, and as regrettable and as unfortunate as it sometimes is, when we're dealing with who is responsible for the lack of communication within his or her ministry, there's only one person who can accept that responsibility, and that one person is you, Minister.

In opposition your leader said, and I quote Hansard from July 16, 1992, "That lack of communication, if in fact that's what it was, is the minister's responsibility and it is the minister's responsibility to resign until we get a thorough, independent investigation of what happened with this coverup."

So, Minister, I ask you again: Do the honourable thing; resign.

Hon Mr Runciman: I don't interpret widespread concern as the folks across the aisle. In fact, I think most Ontario residents would recognize that we've done just the opposite from what the members in the opposition would like to suggest with respect to our openness, the fact that we've moved full speed ahead in terms of two investigations -- an internal investigation and an OPP investigation. We've taken all of the appropriate actions, and I think the public of Ontario recognize that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. Mr Premier, I want to bring your attention to page 10 of your sixth printing of the Common Sense Revolution, where it says in regard to seniors and the disabled: "We will establish a new and separate income supplement program, specifically for those unable to work. Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels. Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut."

Premier, in October you cut welfare rates across the province by 22%, when it meant at that time, and it does today, that a disabled individual with one dependant on welfare now receives $957. Under the family benefits plan, where they should be, a disabled person with one dependent receives $1,424. So we're talking about a difference of $487 for each individual.

As of the end of April 1996 there were still 13,326 seniors and disabled collecting welfare in this province for a significant reduction in their pay. That number, Mr Premier, is up 320 from February. So instead of moving individuals out of the welfare system -- the seniors and disabled can't earn their money back -- you've actually increased the number of seniors and disabled who are still dependent on welfare.

Can you explain to the House this blatant betrayal of the promise you made during the election? And what do you say to the over 13,000 seniors and disabled who believed you when you said you were not going to cut their benefits, but you have cut their benefits since October and have moved very few out of that system?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't have all the details in front of me. Certainly, our commitment -- pre-election, during the election, in October, and today -- is that not only is it not the intention of this government to cut benefits in our programs to seniors or the disabled, but in fact that's not our intention in the future as well. As you know, we've had to deal with probably the worst-administered and worst-run social welfare program in the history of North America, more money wasted, fewer resources actually getting, in percentage terms, to people who need the resources.

So the minister has faced up to that challenge of working at how we make programs more effective and more meaningful for those who are on social assistance. Now, if you're referring to those who are on GWA awaiting getting on the family benefits programs that have not been cut one cent to seniors or the disabled, we are concerned about the time it takes to move those people from general welfare -- which is not intended, as you know, for seniors or the disabled but in fact is the FBA program -- and of course the new program the minister is working on and will be announcing shortly.

We too are concerned if there is a gap in a time frame moving from one program to the other. It's taken time to clean up this mess, but we're getting there.

Mr Agostino: The Premier's intentions are wonderful and the rhetoric is wonderful as to what's happened with the welfare system.

I want to talk specifically about your promise. On page 10 of the Common Sense Revolution, you stated, "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut." I presume most seniors and disabled across Ontario would take that to mean their benefits would not be reduced when Mike Harris becomes Premier of Ontario and reduces welfare benefits across Ontario. I repeat as I said earlier that as of the end of April there were 13,326 seniors and disabled receiving substantially less money than you promised them during the election. It is clearly a promise you have broken.

At this pace, at this speed that you're moving people, it would take you almost four years to move these individuals. People have suffered now for eight, nine, 10 months as a result of your cut.

Let me tell you that your government has saved, on the backs of the seniors and the disabled in Ontario since October, $58 million. That is the amount of money you have taken out of the pockets of seniors and the disabled by your broken commitment: $58 million to fund your tax cut to the wealthy on the backs of the most vulnerable. Those individuals cannot work; they cannot earn it back. Your good intentions and saying you're trying and doing the best you can is simply not good enough, because many of those individuals are struggling simply to get by today as a result of your move. You did not understand, when you made the cut, the number of people who were going to be impacted.

Premier, I go back again. What guarantee can you give today to these over 13,000 individuals as to when you're going to bring in the protected category, and in what time line can these individuals expect to have their benefits fully restored? Please don't tell us about good intentions. Give us a date and a time line today.

Hon Mr Harris: Basically the same question, I suppose, but since you started with referencing page 10, let's start with page 10 of the Common Sense Revolution: We are committed "to move 170,000 of our citizens -- seniors and the disabled -- out of the `welfare system' altogether." These are 170,000 who were on family benefits who we said should move on to --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but I'm quoting from the document. You may not like the Common Sense Revolution, but the majority of Ontarians do and they are quite encouraging us to implement it.

It says, "We will establish a new and separate income supplement program" -- which we are in the process of doing, announced it will be forthcoming very shortly -- "specifically for those unable to" find "work," who are the people in this category. "Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels." In fact, it will be. Aid for seniors and the disabled, for all those 170,000, has not been cut at all.

What you I believe are referring to is those who apply for welfare in the category of disabled or senior and the time it takes to get to the general welfare, run by the municipalities, to our provincial program. This has been a challenge and a problem since the history of the two systems, one of the reasons we'd like to see it better coordinated and better run.

On the provincial FBA program, not a single penny has been cut for any of those seniors or disabled people, and in fact our challenge is to make sure that we get, as per our commitment to the letter, actually, precisely, all the t's crossed and the i's dotted. We have lived up 100% to the commitment. But far beyond that, we are coming forward with a program far more meaningful for those who are in that category, to treat them with dignity, to take them off welfare where they never belonged before, something that neither you nor our predecessor, following you, had the courage to do.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today I joined thousands of Ontarians in Peterborough where people who have been hurt by your government's policies are marching in protest. I met seniors who are being hit by this government's new user fees on drugs. I met a lot of people who have lost their jobs as a result of your government's cuts. I met youths who are having trouble finding jobs against a backdrop of your government's cuts to public sector jobs and services.

I met many men and women with disabilities who joined the march to speak out against the Conservative attack on the disabled. There were women's groups and environmentalists angry about the way this government is gutting services and regulations, and there were workers and their unions.

People in Peterborough wanted to know: When is the Premier going to stop favouring his rich friends at the expense of the working people in Ontario? When is the Premier going to realize how destructive his cuts are and how destructive it is to divide the province into haves and have-nots, people who have and people who have less? When is the Premier going to stop doing that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader of the New Democratic Party will know that I will fundamentally disagree with what he believes is the result of our policies that are giving life and hope and opportunity to so many Ontarians where it wasn't there before.

Specifically, when you talk about the haves and the have-nots, never have we seen more growth in that than during the socialist policies of his regime or the government before it. The more you threw money at it, the bigger the problem got.

You talk about seniors' concerns. I want to say to you very directly, and I'm happy to say, seniors overwhelmingly are supportive of the health care policies of the minister, of the new drug care policies. The mail into my office and the phone calls into our office are overwhelmingly in support of what we are doing. Seniors overwhelmingly -- the number one group, in fact, in the province of Ontario -- are saying, "Finally, a government with the courage to do what has to be done and not pass on a legacy to our children." So I fundamentally disagree.

Can you find a senior to disagree? Sure. Can you find a union member to disagree? Yes. I understand that and I understand not everybody agrees with our policies, but let me say very directly to you and to those who disagree with our policies that our goal and our policies are not to deal with those who can fend for themselves or the wealthy in society. They can take care of themselves. Our goal is to have many more people who raise up into the class of working class and into the class of middle class and raise the wealth of the average hardworking Ontario family. That's what you failed to do -- in fact, you destroyed it -- and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr Hampton: The Premier repeats his same mantra every time he's asked this question. The reality is that all kinds of people have lost their jobs and there are literally hundreds of people in Peterborough who have lost their jobs in the last year. There are other people who are in more desperate circumstances now than they have been in at any other time in their life. There are all kinds of people who have lost valuable education and health care services so that this Premier could give a tax break to the wealthiest people of this province.

The reality is that this Premier is dividing Ontario's society in half. He is giving more benefits, he is giving more tax breaks, he is giving more opportunities to people who are already well off, and he is taking opportunities away, he is taking services away, he is taking resources away from the poorest people in the province.

I say to the Premier again: When are you going to stop dividing Ontario into two halves? When are you going to stop taking from the poorest people in this province and giving to the wealthiest people in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: All the statistics prove the opposite of what you've talked about. Have some people lost jobs? Yes, but more have found jobs than have lost them: 24,000 new jobs the first five months of 1996. An Angus Reid survey: confidence in the provincial economy the highest level in two years. The same survey shows a growing feeling in companies that Ontario is the best province in the country to invest. People who had given up looking for work are now back out there looking for work. Retail sales in Ontario are up 3.3% in the first quarter of this year.

Ontario's GDP, since we've taken office, is up 3.1%, well ahead of all of the rest of the provinces. Credit rating: confirmed upgraded in the short term by a couple of agencies.

I want to say that I thought when I welcomed the new leader today that he and I would be working together. In fact, we are working together to do something, because I read the headline in the Toronto Star and it says, "Hampton Vows to Bury NDP Past." So do we.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY AWARD

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, you recently announced the recipients of the Ontario local government innovative public service delivery awards, one of which, I'm proud to say, was to the city of Chatham, located in my riding of Chatham-Kent. Could the minister please tell the House a bit more about the background of these awards?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to thank my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent for the question. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the great city of Chatham and the other recipients of this award for finding creative ways of delivering services more efficiently and more effectively.

This annual award began in 1993 as a way of recognizing local governments for innovative approaches to financing and building infrastructure. It is jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, the Municipal Finance Officers Association, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and the Ontario Association of School Business Officials.

The program was expanded in 1996 to cover operating as well as capital innovations involving public-private partnerships. To be eligible, projects must demonstrate tangible benefits such as operating and/or capital cost savings, efficiencies and service improvements and coordination of resources and objectives among governments and private partners.

Mr Carroll: It is obviously good news that municipalities are so actively participating with the private sector in finding ways to cut costs while improving services. Could the minister also tell the House which other municipalities were honoured with an award in finding ways to save money for Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank my colleague for the question, because I would be happy to share with this House the other municipalities which were recognized for working to find better, more efficient ways of delivering services to their constituents.

The recipients included the city of Thunder Bay, the town of Ingersoll, the city of Guelph, the town of Smiths Falls and the Frontenac County Board of Education.

I should mention that this is the first year in which a board of education has been recognized for this award. I'm pleased that so many Ontario municipalities and school boards are finding new, creative and less expensive ways of delivering their services.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, there is a growing concern and frustration in Metro Toronto as a result of the growth of crimes like shoplifting, breaking and entering and vandalism. It seems that the courts are unable to deal with the problems. On top of that, there are 1,000 fewer police officers in Metropolitan Toronto.

In New York City, for example, the crime rates have plunged by 30% because the city, the state and the courts are now taking all crimes, big and small, seriously. In New York, they clamped down on street prostitution, graffiti vandals, shoplifters and unlicensed pedlars in an effort to restore a sense of comfort and safety on the streets of New York.

Minister, it seems that you're going in the opposite direction here in Ontario, with fewer police officers and essentially looking the other way at small crimes like break-and-enter and vandalism. Will you not reverse this trend your government is now on?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member raises a good point with respect to the experience New York City has had in the last two to three years. I've been following it closely, and on the face of it it certainly looks like there has been a significant turnaround in terms of the level of crime in New York City. I'm hoping to meet with the commissioner of police from New York City later on this summer to discuss the program they brought forward in that city and see how we can bring it into the process in terms of the policing review now under way in Ontario.

The member is aware that we held a policing summit three weeks ago in Toronto, with the key players from various interests in policing right across Ontario moving towards a new Police Services Act some time later this year. We're addressing the concerns you raise here today. I'm certainly very much interested in the New York experience and I think we can learn from it.

Mr Colle: As you know, your partner the Attorney General is embarking on a plan to de-emphasize some of the criminal acts that take place. Break-and-enters and vandalism are going to be put in a different category. How is this going to reassure the people of Toronto who have their stores broken into regularly and their cars vandalized and property vandalized? How are you going to reassure them? On top of that, you've got 1,000 fewer police officers on the street. You've got an Attorney General who's going to look the other way on some crimes and you've got fewer police officers.

Right now, in some divisions in Toronto there are only six uniformed officers on the night shift. How are the people of Toronto ever going to have any faith that your government is actually going to take these so-called small crimes seriously?

Hon Mr Runciman: The member is aware that the Metro police services are undergoing a recruitment drive at the moment; they're hiring somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 new officers. We are very much committed to front-line policing; that's part of this whole exercise in terms of a review of policing to ensure we can have police officers on the front lines doing real policing work. We hope this process is going to move in that direction to take people away from duties I and most Ontarians would not consider front-line, and put them out there doing meaningful work.

At the same time, I think there is a role for diversion programs and alternative dispute mechanisms. We just have to be certain, as we go through this process, that they are indeed appropriate -- not encouraging further acts of crime -- and enhancing public safety.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also to the Solicitor General. A number of times now we've asked you why the police were not called in to investigate the allegations that young people within the care of your ministry were beaten and mistreated at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, and you've repeatedly said that the ministry protocol was followed because the OPP were investigating.

But OPP Inspector Jim Gordon has clarified that the force didn't have jurisdiction in Elgin-Middlesex, something I reminded you of some time ago. He said: "At the time of our investigation, we were interviewing [the teenaged] inmates as suspects, not victims. It's an entirely different approach." They were only investigating the riot at Bluewater.

You've tried to make this House and the public believe that the OPP were investigating both the Bluewater riot and the allegations of assault at Elgin-Middlesex, as per your ministry protocol, but it's now evident that the protocol was not followed at all. I ask you again, why were the London police, who do have jurisdiction, not called in to investigate the allegations of assault until May 31?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As I've indicated to the honourable member with respect to the OPP investigation, I don't think there's any question they were called in there initially to look at the causes of the riot and to perhaps assess blame, and that has resulted in a number of charges being laid.

My conclusion with respect to that investigation, if you base it on comparable investigations where any police officer comes across the question of criminal activity, is that it's incumbent upon that officer or officers to pursue those matters. I've read the officer's comments with interest and we've asked for some elaboration on them.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, this whole thing becomes more peculiar and more unbelievable every time you stand up.

We've asked this question on numerous occasions, and you keep on defending this by saying the OPP were there. To use your own words, you said in this House on June 11: "...there was an OPP investigation. There are certainly questions that can arise now about that particular investigation, but to suggest that the procedure wasn't followed with respect to an investigation denies the fact that there was an investigation under way at the point...."

You can't hide behind that OPP investigation any longer. After all, you are the Solicitor General and you are responsible for the OPP. If they didn't do their job properly, you're still responsible. You can't hide from this. You're responsible as corrections minister for what happens to young people in the care of your ministry and you're responsible as Solicitor General for the lack of competence in the police investigation if these issues were not, as you suggest they should have been, looked into.

Your ministry officials didn't follow the ministry protocol to call the police regarding the allegations. Why were the London police not called in by at least someone down the line? Why didn't they check with the OPP to see whether they were investigating those allegations?

You simply are not in control of either side of your ministry, and every time we raise this issue you say something else that makes it clear. When are you going to resign?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think I've responded adequately to that question on numerous occasions.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Residents, teachers and board officials in my riding have expressed concern over the rise of gang activity in local schools. There have been a number of violent incidents involving gang members both in my riding and across Metro Toronto over the last several weeks. Minister, what steps are you encouraging to counter this growing trend in gang violence?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Scarborough West for his excellent question. There have been some recent incidents of gang-related violence both in schools and outside schools across Ontario. This seems to be a trend that has been picked up from other jurisdictions in North America.

There are some very serious responses by various boards to this problem. As a matter of fact, the North York Board of Education recently received a report on ways to defuse gang violence in our schools. The report looked at ways of building on some programs that are already working in our schools and building on efforts of the various programs in our school system to combat violence of any type -- racism violence, gang violence -- and there are, as I'm sure you're aware, many programs that have been adopted in Ontario over the last few years to challenge this.

The number one ingredient in all these programs, and the report bears this out, is a high level of student involvement; that seems to be the core of the programs that help to prevent violence with young people.

I am confident, having talked to a great number of students, school boards and teachers across the province, that steps are being taken to curb violence and gang violence and that the safety of our young people, the number one responsibility of all people in our school system, is being addressed seriously.

Mr Jim Brown: A number of teachers and supervisory officers report that students are often hesitant to report criminal activities at school. This code of silence leads to situations where vicious assaults on students are going unreported. Minister, what steps are you taking to encourage students to act responsibly when faced with violence at school?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I recently attended a conference of Student Crime Stoppers at York University. Over the last month or so I had a chance to drop in and see the work that's being done with students, with the cooperation of students and by our law enforcement people who are directly involved in the schools and I can assure the honourable member that programs like Student Crime Stoppers go a long way to encourage young people to report crimes and incidents of violence and racism to the authorities and work hand in hand with the authorities to make sure those school environments are safe for everyone.

This is an excellent program, and I'm pleased to report that all the people in the school system, including law enforcement members who are in the school system on a regular basis, are participating with students to make reporting crimes a safe activity.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and relates to this government's plans to deregulate or self-regulate some important aspects of consumer protection having to do with everything from amusement parks to the upholstery people sit on, to elevating devices, boiler and pressure vessels, and so on. I want to ask the minister to tell the House today what his ministry seems to be hiding, which is the exact benchmark against which these new private entities will be measured.

We have been told by the ministry that we can't get numbers on employees, convictions or, in general, the activity that's been taking place within the government. Yet this government proposes to take these private.

I wonder if the minister today would please bring to this House the activities against which this deregulation will be measured, including the amount of revenue and cost of this activity that he proposes to give to the private sector?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As the member well knows, this afternoon a committee of this Legislature will be dealing with Bill 54, which is the very topic of this question. At that particular meeting there will be, along with me and my parliamentary assistant, many officials from my ministry who will be able to answer specific questions he or any other member of this House might have.

I want to emphasize, however, that there will be no deregulation contained in this bill or in this effort. It is a question of allowing other people to manage their own affairs with regard to their professions, as we have in 24 health-related professions in this province, as we have with the lawyers of this province, as we have with the engineers of this province, as we have with the accountants of this province. It's really an extension of a situation which is already there.

With regard to the safety organization to which he is referring, he will be able to get those specific answers when my officials are there at the committee this afternoon, if he should like to have them.

Mr Kennedy: I want to express my disappointment on behalf of the consumers in this province, because some suspicion is starting to stir about whether this government really has their interests at heart. That would be available to anyone in terms of the information that we do have in the public accounts, which suggests that the activities which are about to be given away to self-regulation cost the ministry approximately between $18 million and $20 million and yet bring to the government and the ministry approximately $27.8 million in revenue, for a giveaway of at least $7 million to $9 million.

I would ask you again, would you please tell us in this House why the government proposes to give away $7 million to $9 million of government revenue, and rather than doing better for less, we're going to get instead less for more? We're going to have less money for consumer protection. I would implore you to give an answer in front of this House today.

Hon Mr Sterling: The member is correct in one way: This particular initiative by the government is not fiscally driven; it is not driven by the government wanting to make or not make money with regard to these activities which the government presently performs. I believe the member's calculations are probably not accurate and are out by a considerable amount. In my estimate, it will be about a wash in terms of the revenue and the cost to government. That has been looked at by my government and will be embodied in some of the agreements we have with these particular organizations.

We're doing this because we think it's better. We're not doing this because we expect to save or lose money. The amount of money on either side of the equation will be negligible with regard to the more important aspect of ensuring that consumers are better protected under the new scheme than they were under the old.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I will not have an opportunity to get a supplementary, so I'll try to do this in the one part. We know that tomorrow you're going to come to this Legislature, you're going to be delivering your discussion paper on what you call your tenant protection legislation or package. There are plenty of rumours within the tenant community of the province of Ontario that this package will contain many measures that will be pro-landlord and anti-tenant.

We clearly know that your government is on the side of big business, you're on the side of money. You've chosen sides quite clearly. You've said in choosing sides that you're going to protect landlords and you're going to forget tenants. We understand that part of the package, contained in it, is the whole question of vacancy decontrol. You intend in this package to say that if a tenant leaves and a landlord wants to raise his or her rent, you will allow the landlord to do so and that apartment unit will no longer be covered under rent control.

You know as well as I that if you move to that kind of system, what you're doing is giving landlords a huge club. You will allow landlords to intimidate tenants, to get them out in order to be able to raise the rent.

I want you to put tenants at ease today, Minister. I would like you to assure tenants that your package will be reflected on and you will not come forward with vacancy decontrol. Can you tell us if that is your intention?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What I can tell the member for Cochrane South is that we will be bringing a package forward for consultation that will make both landlords and tenants happy.

What we know is that the system we have at the present time doesn't work. It doesn't work for landlords; it doesn't work for tenants. We have to fix it; we intend to fix it. We intend to give everybody an opportunity to have input into that process and we'll be bringing it forward within a matter of hours.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We are dealing with two deferred votes from previous days. Call in the members. It will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1537 to 1542.

AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCES EN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 52,

An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries / Projet de loi 52, Loi visant à promouvoir la mise en valeur des ressources, la conservation ainsi que la protection de l'environnement en simplifiant les processus de réglementation et en renforçant les mesures de conformité dans l'industrie pétrolière et l'industrie des agrégats.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Will the members take their seats, please. We're dealing with second reading of Bill 52 standing in the name of Mr Hodgson. All those in favour will please rise one at a time until your name is recognized.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Hastings, John

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Hodgson, Chris

Pettit, Trevor

Bassett, Isabel

Hudak, Tim

Preston, Peter

Beaubien, Marcel

Jackson, Cameron

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Boushy, Dave

Johns, Helen

Ross, Lillian

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Bert

Runciman, Bob

Carr, Gary

Johnson, David

Sampson, Rob

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Saunderson, William

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Shea, Derwyn

Clement, Tony

Kells, Morley

Sheehan, Frank

Cunningham, Dianne

Klees, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Danford, Harry

Leach, Al

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Snobelen, John

Ecker, Janet

Marland, Margaret

Spina, Joseph

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Sterling, Norman W.

Eves, Ernie L.

Maves, Bart

Stockwell, Chris

Fisher, Barbara

Munro, Julia

Tascona, Joseph N.

Flaherty, Jim

Murdoch, Bill

Tilson, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Turnbull, David

Fox, Gary

Newman, Dan

Villeneuve, Noble

Galt, Doug

North, Peter

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Gilchrist, Steve

O'Toole, John

Wilson, Jim

Grimmett, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Hardeman, Ernie

Palladini, Al

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time until your name is called.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Grandmaître, Bernard

McLeod, Lyn

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Morin, Gilles E.

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Patten, Richard

Bradley, James J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Kormos, Peter

Pouliot, Gilles

Caplan, Elinor

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Cooke, David S.

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Cordiano, Joseph

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Martel, Shelley

Curling, Alvin

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 71, the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Resources committee.

The Speaker: The resources committee? Agreed? Agreed.

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 47,

An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Now we're dealing with second reading of Bill 47, standing in the name of Mr Eves. The same vote?

Interjections.

The Speaker: A five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1546 to 1551.

The Speaker: All members take their seats. We are dealing with second reading of Bill 47, standing in the name of Mr Eves. Will the members rise until their name is called, one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Hastings, John

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Hodgson, Chris

Pettit, Trevor

Bassett, Isabel

Hudak, Tim

Preston, Peter

Beaubien, Marcel

Jackson, Cameron

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Boushy, Dave

Johns, Helen

Runciman, Bob

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Bert

Sampson, Rob

Carr, Gary

Johnson, David

Saunderson, William

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Shea, Derwyn

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Sheehan, Frank

Clement, Tony

Kells, Morley

Skarica, Toni

Cunningham, Dianne

Klees, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Danford, Harry

Leach, Al

Snobelen, John

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Spina, Joseph

Ecker, Janet

Marland, Margaret

Sterling, Norman W.

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stockwell, Chris

Eves, Ernie L.

Maves, Bart

Tascona, Joseph N.

Fisher, Barbara

Munro, Julia

Tilson, David

Flaherty, Jim

Murdoch, Bill

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Fox, Gary

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

North, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Grimmett, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Palladini, Al

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Grandmaître, Bernard

McLeod, Lyn

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Morin, Gilles E.

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Patten, Richard

Bradley, James J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Kormos, Peter

Pouliot, Gilles

Caplan, Elinor

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Cooke, David S.

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Cordiano, Joseph

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Martel, Shelley

Curling, Alvin

Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 70, the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: Committee of the whole? Agreed.

PETITIONS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has a duty and responsibility to provide driver exam centres across the province;

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has decided to close the Leamington driver exam centre despite the fact that:

"

(1) The Leamington centre is the only exam office between Windsor and Chatham thus forcing persons and local driver training schools to travel over 50 kilometres in order to obtain a driver exam;

"

(2) The Leamington Centre serves a population of over 35,000;

"

(3) There already exists a six-month waiting list for driver exams in Leamington; and

"

(4) The MTO did not consult with the local community;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the MTO explore every option of retaining driver examinations in the Leamington area, and that the MTO postpone the closing of the present DEC site until a new solution is formulated."

I affix my signature in support of this.

CHILD ABUSE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition signed by over 700 people within the Metro area and endorsed by Anna-Marie Goralczyk, who is here today in the gallery to hear me read this petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it asks people to sign the petition on child abuse and the CAS. It says:

"Family courts should hear applications of `Child in Need of Protection from the CAS.' CASs should report to police all abuses in foster care. The public should be informed to report child abuse to the police, who would be assisted by CAS in appropriate situations. CASs should be safe homes, answerable to the police and not investigating crime, avoiding abuse handling internally.

"Parents shouldn't be denied equal evaluation of evidence or forced to communicate with CAS in ways that remove that equality, in case the CAS's mandate and protocols shift from the best interests of the child to themselves due to abuses in care.

"The police should react when CASs obstruct justice, tamper with evidence, use coercion and be in control of the registrar of abuse. A safe home should be organized for children who've been abused in care, access and therapy prohibited to CAS. When short of police, enlargements should be made to youth bureaus instead of handing the investigations to CASs, to avoid CASs investigating themselves.

"Official guardians (government child lawyers) should present evidence from the child only and not rely on submissions of the CAS. Children should be free to choose an attorney, and not forced counsel by official guardians against his/her will.

"It should be illegal for CAS to threaten permanent separation because a parent doesn't want to sign for extended care when a period of two years results in the parent losing custody, regardless of the facts.... A group able to act should oversee that CASs don't put parents in humanly/legally impossible positions.

"CASs shouldn't force instruction on child therapists. Family court judges shouldn't rely on therapy reports as mini-judgements and should consider evidence of persons other than the CAS network.

"The police should recognize webs of victims in organizations that may tend to protect their own. A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada has favoured freedom of the press. General media and publication of names of dangerous persons should be practised, including CAS employees.

"CASs should report statistics of abuse in foster care and percentages of charges/convictions.

"The CAS should give clear, justifiable reasons in writing to parents for enforcing permanent family separation, silence/inaction not being an option.

"CASs should assist families who suffer aftermath of sexual abuse, regardless if charges are laid."

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition on behalf of the member for Don Mills, to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"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 this overcrowding creates excessive demands 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 the condominium corporations, through their own rules and regulations, the legal right to limit the number of persons per unit and a `right of entry' to ensure adherence to the rules;

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

NON-PROFIT HOUSING COOPERATIVE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend and which will prom