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

April 15, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L057 - Mon 15 Apr 1996 / Lun 15 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WOMEN'S ISSUES

HAMLET/PORTIA PUBLIC SCHOOL

NATURAL RESOURCES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

OUR HOME PROJECT

GASOLINE PRICES

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

BETWEEN FRIENDS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

USER FEES

OPP VEHICLES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

FOREST MANAGEMENT

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHEMICAL SPILL

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

SPEED LIMITS

APOLOGY

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TAX REDUCTION

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ANGLO CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Last Thursday the government announced, in the Interim Report on Business Planning and Cost Savings Measures, that the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues will be disbanded and replaced by a supposed minister-led consultation process. For those who are unaware, the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues was established in 1984 by a Conservative government to advise the government on matters pertaining to the achievement of economic, social and legal equality for women.

Obviously, the Harris government is not interested in women or in what the women of Ontario have to say. The minister responsible for women's issues will lead a Tory-style, so-called consultation process. I remind you that this is the same minister who has tried to bully women's groups into silence.

This government has one mission: to provide a $5-billion tax cut to the wealthiest Ontarians at the expense and the silence of the most vulnerable. This cynical move is one more nail in the coffin as the voices of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues is silenced. So much for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by women in Ontario.

Once again the cutthroat policies of this cruel government are harming Ontario's most vulnerable. This government has gutted protective services in second-stage housing, has cut funding for pay equity advocacy and legal services, has cut funds to prevent violence against women; now the government is gutting and cutting the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues, and the women of Ontario will not stand for this.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The doublespeak of which this government is capable continues to reach breathtaking new heights. A government plan to further gut funding for women's programs is preceded by a particularly galling bit of fluff that states: "The Ontario women's directorate helps the government achieve its commitment to economic, legal and social equality for women...and ensure safe communities for all." What twaddle. What is this so-called commitment?

The Advisory Council on Women's Issues is to be disbanded and led by a so-called minister-led consultation process. Translation: Whatever Dianne Cunningham says, goes.

The Ontario women's directorate will be restructured. Translation: Funding will be slashed.

New and innovative ways will be found to prevent violence. Translation: Your funding is gone. Do it yourself. Victims' rights indeed.

Streamlining the administration of violence against women prevention programs. Translation: Public awareness campaign designed to save women's lives gone.

Funding for women's centres to be slashed; centres will have a year to find alternative funding sources. Translation: Remember the time you used to spend directly assisting women in need? Now you're going to be spending it fund-raising.

An underlying message runs through the language in the announced cuts: Women's programming is, according to this government, a fluffy frill that we really don't need. Shame.

HAMLET/PORTIA PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise in the House today to offer my congratulations, encouragement and support to a fine group of young people in my riding who are making Ontario shine. I'm referring to Lois Burdett and her grade 2 and 3 students from Hamlet public school.

These fine young people have been working diligently to perfect their

interpretation of Shakespeare's Macbeth. Initially presented as a part of the program for the annual convention of the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America, which was hosted by the Stratford Festival this year, this troupe of young actors will be presenting six more performances this spring.

In addition to the many fine performances these young people are putting on here in Ontario, the show's run will be capped with a trip to Utah this summer to help celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Utah Shakespearean Festival and the 100th anniversary of that state.

The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation was in Stratford on Saturday to attend a performance of the play and was duly impressed. In her speech following the play she admitted being moved to tears, and I believe there was no better way to describe the performance.

I encourage the other members of the House to attend one of the performances scheduled for this spring. It's an ideal opportunity to see Shakespeare's work being brought to life through the hard work and dedication of the young people of Perth.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It took a while to read through the Tory doublespeak contained in Thursday's announcement, but I think we can now say that the following is true with respect to the business plans of the Minister of Natural Resources:

First of all, we can conclude that while the Tories talked about giving sole responsibility for forestry to one ministry -- the Ministry of Natural Resources -- prior to this election, Thursday's announcement suggests that meant responsibility for forestry would be given from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the private sector.

When the Tories say that the government is streamlining forest management, what they really mean is that they are privatizing forest management. When they refer to exploring a number of opportunities for the operation of provincial parks, that means they are either closing or contracting out as many as 60 provincial parks.

Following on this path leads one to conclude that eliminating "the majority of regulatory permits for activities on crown lands" means the Tories are making it easier for people to start fires in provincial forests.

Thursday's announcement confirms that doublespeak comes all too naturally to the minister sharing double responsibility for the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. It also speaks to the hypocrisy of this government. My advice to the minister is to stop sending mixed messages to the public on an issue as important as the management of our natural resources.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got an important observation to make. Back in the course of the election campaign, the Tories promised that funding for law enforcement and justice was going to be guaranteed, yet another promise broken at the expense of victims across this province -- the complete abandonment of funding for anti-drunk driving promotions that have been successful to a large degree in saving people from the carnage that's imposed and inflicted by drunk drivers on the highways and roadways of Ontario. The Tories simply don't care, and we're going to see an increase in the deaths flowing from drunk driving.

Victims of crime: guaranteeing funding for law enforcement and justice -- what a load of hooey. We're looking at a reduction of $4.5 million this year and twice that the year after in terms of reduced funding for law enforcement and for the criminal justice system. That means more and more cases are simply going to be pleaded away or withdrawn, abandoned. That means crime is going to be rewarded by a government that doesn't care about victims and doesn't care about families in those communities plagued by increasing crime.

Better management, my foot -- $3.5 million and then $5 million in consecutive years being withdrawn, which paid for the very important and relevant services of court reporters which helped make our criminal justice system run. This government's going to create more acquittals, more withdrawals of charges and more successful --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

OUR HOME PROJECT

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today to bring to the attention of members of this House the wonderful work being done by a group in my riding known as Our Home project for Community Living of Durham region.

Our Home provides housing and residential services to individuals with complex care requirements as a result of development and/or multiple disabilities. Their families are supported in an environment that respects their dignity and provides opportunities for participation and growth. Services provided are lifelong, community-based and in proximity to family and friends.

This type of accommodation and support is flexible and tailored to each recipient's needs, ensuring that they remain an integral part of their own families.

Care at Our Home is considered on a case-by-case basis as space becomes available and is provided by fully trained, 24-hour awake staff and family involvement.

Funding for Our Home is from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but other funding is secured through parental contributions, donations, membership fees and community fund-raising.

I know other members of this House will join me in commending Our Home for the very valuable work they undertake.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Consumers across Ontario are justifiably annoyed at the substantial increase in gasoline prices that represent a gouging of vulnerable motorists by oil companies.

In months gone by in southern Ontario, the price would fluctuate and bottom out at approximately 48 cents per litre. The low end of the scale appears to be in the neighbourhood of 56 to 57 cents per litre in this, the month of April, and as usual, prices seem suspiciously similar if not exactly the same at various gasoline outlets.

Purchasers of gasoline could be forgiven for their suspicion that there is price-fixing in the retailing of this industrial product which is essential to so many, and all the explanations and excuses by the oil industry spokespersons are failing to allay the concerns and anger of consumers in our province.

If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Environment and Energy care about consumers in Ontario, they will let the oil companies know that it is unacceptable to dramatically increase the price of gasoline without justification, and to cease the price-fixing that plagues the retail gasoline industry in this province.

The private member's bill of Mr Bob Chiarelli, MPP for Ottawa West, is most timely now at this time of price-gouging and should be implemented by the government without further delay.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today, Mr Speaker, to share with you and with the House and, most importantly, with the government what I'm hearing in my constituency.

People are increasingly more concerned and afraid. They want to plan for their future, they want to participate in the economy and access services, but they are anxious. They don't know what is going to happen next and, even more disconcerting, they don't think this government cares or wants to hear from them.

I met with several groups of people on Friday and over the weekend. At a health forum, I heard terribly troubling stories of people not being able to access in a timely and effective manner the care they needed.

In Sault Ste Marie, our hospital boards, administration and staff have rationalized and downsized until there is no place left to go to cut costs and not affect patient care. The new cuts for this year of over $3 million and the anticipated reductions for the following two years haven't even kicked in yet and already people are experiencing a very serious and real reduction in care.

I met with educators demanding that you travel the province with Bill 34. Like Bill 26, it will have a major impact on the quality of education and the life of our community. They, and others, want to be heard. They want to tell you that cutting $4 billion will affect significantly classroom education.

For them, and others, I ask, do you really know what you're doing? Do you understand the impact? What do we have to do to get through to you? Stop the damage and say no to the tax cut.

BETWEEN FRIENDS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today as the member for Scarborough Centre in order to bring to the attention of this House the 20th anniversary of an international music and cultural exchange that I had the great pleasure of participating in this past weekend in my riding of Scarborough Centre.

Between Friends is a band exchange between Scarborough Centre's Bliss Carman Senior Public School and Beach Grove Middle School from Beach Grove, Indiana, in the United States. Each year, one school band travels to the other school, and over the past 20 years, not only have the band members gained from many educational experiences, but also the schools and communities have benefited from the exchange. The exchange has created lasting friendships between the two schools and the two communities.

I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my personal congratulations to the overall dedication and spirit of the teachers, staff and communities at both schools who spent countless hours, days, weeks and months preparing for the exchange. These individuals are examples to the rest of us.

In the fall throne speech, Premier Harris placed great value on strengthening the role of volunteers in the community and bringing forth the best in neighbours among people of goodwill. This band exchange is all about cooperation, volunteerism and the giving of time, and it is the policy of this government to make these same values part of our province.

I ask every member of this House to join me today in congratulating the two schools on the 20th anniversary of their Between Friends band exchange and in recognizing the outstanding work of everyone connected with it.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that we had a choir from Portugal here today on the staircase, and we have many of them in the west gallery now. We welcome them.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This is the first day of the sitting since the announcement by the Chair of Management Board on Thursday of the layoff of 10,600 staff. The Premier is not here, and it's difficult when the ministers involved, who have been impacted by the decisions of the government, are not here to answer questions about the effects of these announcements on their ministries. I don't understand how we, as members of the opposition, or all members of the Legislature, are to be able to properly ask questions in question period if the government is not represented here adequately to answer questions on specifics with regard to each ministry.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member does not have a point of privilege. There is no bearing, on what I have here, to this assembly, to make sure that ministers are here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USER FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the acting Premier and Minister of Finance, who I believe is just about to resume his seat. Since I have a very short and very direct question, I'll give him that moment.

Prior to the election, Mike Harris said, and I quote, "A fee hike is the same as a tax hike." Minister, why did you introduce millions of dollars in new taxes last week?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): There are several increases in particular fees, as the opposition leader is well aware. We believe that people should be paying the cost of the service that they are provided. They should be paying for a particular service.

There are some things that are, of course, an obligation, I think, for government to provide, such as health care and education, in society. There are other things that perhaps it's more appropriate that individuals who use such services pay for such services.

Mrs McLeod: I think we have to remember that these new fees introduced last Thursday, fees that members of the government, including the Premier, used to call taxes, are on top of $250 million in new user fees that this government is now making seniors pay for their medication. These new fees are on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in new municipal user fees that Ontarians are forced to pay thanks to Bill 26 and your cuts. And they are on top of the countless property tax increases that we are seeing right across this province.

After the millions of dollars in new user fees, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars in increased tuition fees, countless increases in property taxes, I suggest to this government that its income tax cut will be nothing but a shell game for the richest in our society.

Minister, given the fact that you used to say that user fees were taxes, given the fact that you always said that taxpayers were already paying too much, how can you, I ask you again, possibly justify imposing these new user fees?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I would say to the leader of the official opposition that there is no need for municipalities to increase property taxes. The whole point of this exercise --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I know that members opposite find this difficult to comprehend, but the whole point of this exercise is to restructure and rethink what services governments at all three levels provide to their constituents. There should not be hundreds of millions of dollars, as the Leader of the Opposition says, in increases in user fees by municipalities. If there are, then those municipal leaders quite frankly are not doing their job and they are not thinking through restructuring.

I might ask the leader of the official opposition to put the increase in fees that we have into proper context, and the proper context is that over a space of two years, yes, there could be up to a $12-million increase province-wide in particular fees for particular services that people use. That's $12 million, I might point out to her, of a budget of $57 billion. Would the Leader of the Opposition care to calculate for me what percentage of the total budget that is?

Mrs McLeod: The minister likes to take a context which is really quite isolated and talk about the new user fees -- in other words, taxes -- that were introduced last Thursday. They come on top of the new user fees, otherwise known as taxes, that were introduced in Bill 26, both in the form of user fees for health for seniors and the disabled and in the form of user fees that municipalities were given permission to put in place to make up for the cuts this government was giving to municipalities. It should be in the context, when I raise this question, of a government that used to say a user fee was a tax.

Not only is this government cancelling vital services; they are now going to make us pay every time we use one of the services that are left. If those aren't new taxes, I don't know what to call them, Minister.

Last week's announcement will affect everyone in this province. There is no one who will be spared from these new user fees. Minister, your plan to pass the buck on to taxpayers in new user fees is so transparent that the licence plates in Mike Harris's Ontario should now read, "User Fees: Yours to Discover." Isn't this the reality in Mike Harris's new Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Put the signs down, please. Finance minister.

Hon Mr Eves: Was there a question in there? I don't think I heard one. To the honourable member opposite, I hope she and her colleagues didn't stay up all weekend producing those.

The leader of the official opposition makes comment about asking seniors to contribute $2 per prescription. I just might want to give her a little anecdote. The weekend after the announcement was made by myself on November 29, I happened to be in a pharmacy in Parry Sound and I was standing in line to get a prescription, unbeknownst to the person two people ahead of me. It was a rather elderly gentleman who asked his pharmacist if he could pay his $2 towards his prescription. The pharmacist said, "No, that doesn't come into effect until April 1 of next year." He said, "You know, that's too bad, because I think seniors such as myself should be contributing something towards the deficit."

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I know you find that hard to believe, but there are actually Ontarians out there who want to be part of the solution.

I will also tell the leader of the official opposition something else. The one thing that the leader of the official opposition, and certainly the third party, never point out with respect to our health care announcements is that as a result of our health care announcement on November 29, 140,000 low-income, hardworking, taxpaying, honest Ontarians will now have a drug plan through the Trillium plan: no thanks to you and no thanks to you, but they will thanks to us.

Mrs McLeod: I was in a mall in my riding on the weekend talking to a low-income senior who said she could not manage the extra cost for her medications if she has to pay the dispensing fee. You will hear from a lot more of those seniors than the one you --

The Speaker: Order.

OPP VEHICLES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. My second question concerns the radio and television ads that the government ran over the weekend to pat itself on the back for last Thursday's announcement.

Minister, here is the example that you chose to highlight, that you consider to be such a waste of money that you spent $350,000 to tell the entire province about how you were going to cut unnecessary waste and expenditures so you could redirect that money to priority areas. Of course you'll be aware, because you ran this advertisement right across the province, that the ad states: "...sending OPP cars to Thunder Bay for basic repairs are the kinds of inefficiencies that we can stop so we can direct your tax dollars into priority areas."

Minister, I assume that you and your staff, in preparing your announcement, checked closely on all your information before it was published, so I will ask you, how much did the Solicitor General's office tell you it was going to save by no longer sending OPP cars to Thunder Bay for basic repairs?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As the ad indicates, there are many cars within the OPP which have been directed to the Thunder Bay office for basic repairs in the past. Obviously, not all OPP cars from across the province of Ontario are directed to Thunder Bay, but there is quite a broad area where the cars, if they need maintenance, have been directed to Thunder Bay, many of them, of course, over a space of some considerable distance.

I would suggest to you that every one of us in this Legislature would consider this to be a waste of taxpayers' dollars, to take an OPP car from some considerable distance, to send it to Thunder Bay to have it repaired and then send it back again. That doesn't make much sense.

This government has instituted a new program involving the private sector, so in a locale formerly serviced by the Thunder Bay repair, the local office will now be able to send it to a private sector service station and have it repaired at considerably less cost. And yes, there will be a saving to the taxpayer. We think that's good business.

Mrs McLeod: Not only was the minister's $350,000 advertising campaign based on wrong information; his answer today is still based on wrong information. The fact is that the OPP has never sent cars to Thunder Bay for basic repairs. In fact, only cars that are used by OPP officers in Thunder Bay are serviced there. So cutting this program, the program you chose to highlight in your advertising campaign, will not save a single cent because it was never a program that was in place. You can't redirect a single penny of this to new priorities because you haven't saved a single cent.

When you looked for the worst examples of waste you could find, the best example you could put forward in your advertising campaign of your mammoth, innovative, cost-cutting restructuring program, your example was simply wrong. Minister, it points out the fact that your so-called business plans are not ready to go. You are scrambling to find the dollars to pay for your tax cut. You were in such a hurry to make your grand announcement that you didn't even bother to get the basic facts right. How many more mistakes are we going to find in last Thursday's announcement?

Hon David Johnson: In fact, there will be about $225,000 saved in this fiscal year as a result of this action. Next year, in 1997-98, there will be some $300,000 saved as a result of this particular action. The Leader of the Opposition may not consider that to be a useful method and a useful way to save taxpayers' dollars, but I would think that most taxpayers would concur with this government that we need to look at all opportunities to save money, and indeed that's what we're asking.

We're asking, through this ad, this ad that's going out to the people of Ontario, for people to get involved, to bring forward suggestions to this government, to come forward with their ways of how we can do better with less, because clearly, as the result of the spending of the Liberal government, as the result of the deficits of the NDP government, we have to do better for less or else we will continue to run huge deficits and run up the debt of the province of Ontario, and that is not acceptable to the people of Ontario any more.

Mrs McLeod: I hope the public has ideas that make more sense than the ideas that this government has been putting forward, and I hope that when the Minister of Finance finally brings forward a budget his numbers add up a little better than the Management Board chairman's numbers have just added up.

Minister, you will close the Thunder Bay office that did the repairs. No other cars but Thunder Bay cars were repaired there, so they won't be repaired there. But you forget to add in the fact that they are going to have to contract out those repairs and pay for those repairs. So your savings will not give you many dollars for redirecting to new priorities.

The Minister of Transportation also appears to have given the Management Board chairman the wrong information to justify budget cuts, in this case the budget cuts to GO Transit, because the minister has claimed that Go Transit is operating 2,000-seat cars to service just 20 passengers. I think all of us agree that that would be a horrendous waste of money, except for the fact that it just isn't true. Go Transit operates no trains that are that large, and it doesn't operate any routes that carry just 20 passengers.

When the minister's media assistant was asked to explain where the minister came up with this information, she said, "Who knows?" I think when this government says it wants to run government like a business, if any business did this kind of shoddy work, they would be laughed right off Bay Street.

Minister, it is abundantly clear that your government has not done its homework. You don't know what you're cutting, and you don't know what you're going to replace it with. You won't give us the business plans until after the budget because the business plans aren't there in any way that could stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Will you at least release publicly what you have up till now so that we can all see where the rest of the mistakes are?

Hon David Johnson: The Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the advertising campaign, and I might say that we're being very cautious and prudent about this particular campaign. There is a cost of some $350,000 to encourage the people of Ontario to participate. I would say, by contrast, in 1990 the Liberals spent over $1 million on an advertising campaign for OHIP.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I can't hear the answer. Order.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Tell us about the train.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East is out of order.

Hon David Johnson: This is a campaign to involve the people of Ontario with ideas. The Thunder Bay garage repairs up to 100 new police vehicles for service annually. We have to look everywhere. We have to look within the GO Transit system. We have to look within the Ontario Provincial Police. We have to look everywhere for cost reductions. We are asking the people of Ontario to help us make government affordable, help us to come forward with better services for less. That's not a difficult concept.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board. Last Thursday, we received the so-called business plans outlining how the Harris government is going to cut 10,600 jobs and $1.6 billion. At that time, the Chair of Management Board said that the business plans were a work in progress and he said that he couldn't give us any details because -- and I quote his statement -- "There'll be more decisions to be made and there'll be more positions...announced." He then went on to say, "The business plans are an ongoing proposition and they're being developed."

I would have found that odd enough in and of itself, given the nature of the decisions, but then the same minister on the same day went on to contradict himself when he said, "The various ministries, the ministers themselves, the deputy ministers and the staff in each one of the ministries have sat down, studied, analysed thoroughly the impact of these changes on their ministries."

I want to assume that latter statement more correctly represents what the minister and the ministers have done and so I want to ask the Chair of Management Board a very simple question on the basis of that analysis he says was done. He's announced the 10,600 reduction in the public service. What I'd like to know is, what is the impact of the cuts, given the analysis that they've done, in the broader public service in terms of jobs that will be lost and, more importantly, in terms of the range of services that will be lost? Can you tell us what your analysis tells us about those two things?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I wish to assure the member opposite that yes, the various ministries and deputy ministers and ministers have taken this review very seriously. There's been a great deal of time and effort put into it, but it is not complete. I will reiterate again here today that many of the proposals brought forward are still being reviewed and will be reviewed. It's a two-year window we're looking at and there will be decisions that will be made over the next year, and perhaps two, that will be a continuation of the process we're involved with.

What I have come forward with clearly, and I have indicated this right from the beginning, is a

summary of the decisions to date of that process. I said last fall in this House that we'd be reporting back this spring with regard to progress. That's what I did last Thursday, and that progress up to this point indicates 10,600 positions, some of which are vacant, some of which undoubtedly will be pursued through early retirement, some of which will be involved in terms of shifting business opportunities to the private sector etc.

I'm not too sure what else I can tell the member but that we have an approach, a thorough review, and we're partway through it.

Mr Silipo: The minister could have answered my question; that's what he could have done. I didn't ask him about the process. I asked him what the impact is of the decisions that he himself says they've made already. If they've done such thorough analysis, why couldn't the minister give us the impact of those changes?

But let me go on, because unlike the government, we have been talking to people about the impacts of these cuts. What they have been telling us are things like this: In Kitchener-Waterloo last Friday we heard, for example, from the social planning council an estimate that some 5,000 to 7,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the actions of your government, decisions that the Chair of Management Board either has no analysis of or won't tell us.

At that same meeting, we heard from one individual who works with people with disabilities, and she said, reflecting the views of many in that community, speaking about your government: "They have lied over and over again. They have cut services to the disabled and people are not able to be as independent as they once were. It's not just the cuts, it's the anticipation. Nobody knows what's going to happen." That's a direct quote, Minister.

Again I want to ask the minister: Which is it? Do you know the impact of the decisions, and if so, will you tell us what analysis you've done, Minister, or is it that you simply don't know or don't care what the impact is and you're just going to continue cutting and slashing?

Hon David Johnson: The answer is the same answer that was delivered last Thursday, which is that after the budget is delivered by the Minister of Finance, there will be a release of the business plans and the member will see the analysis and the review.

What I will tell the member opposite is the result if this government did not go through the process that we're going through and if this government carried on with the status quo, status quo as defined by the NDP government over the past five years and the spending patterns of the Liberals over the previous five years, the result would be growing deficits, spiralling debt, interest payments going through the roof, no money left for the services, the health, the education, the social services needed by the people of Ontario, all that money being consumed in interest payments, and the impact on the province of Ontario would be dramatic and drastic and extremely unfortunate.

Indeed, there would be a growing lack of confidence in the province of Ontario. There would be increasing unemployment. There would be a continuing lack of hope and opportunity for the people of Ontario.

What we're coming forward with is a program to tackle unemployment, to tackle the growing deficit and to tackle the increase in the interest payments. In the final analysis, as a result, there'll be more hope, opportunity and job growth in the province of Ontario.

Mr Silipo: The minister will continue no doubt in his rhetoric, the government will continue in its rhetoric, but the reality out there, Minister, is a far different one, and you can refuse to see it for as long as you wish, but people out there are hurting and they're going to hurt even more before you're done with them.

But one of the things I want to ask you in my last supplementary, Minister, is about where your priorities are, because one of the things that's already been raised here today is the fact that you saw fit to spend some $350,000 to advertise to the public what you were doing. I want to be very clear, Minister, in asking you this question, that you hear this part of it as well, which is that I am not criticizing your government for spending money on advertising and telling people what you're doing. That's your right to do that.

What I am going to question, however, is how you justify doing that when at the same time you see fit to cut from the same advertising budget the sum of $475,000 in initiatives to stop violence against women.

How do you square, Minister, your government's priorities, that says that it's okay to spend $350,000 parading your broken promises and spinning out that story, while at the same time you can justify slashing $475,000 out of the same advertising budget that would have gone towards preventing violence against women?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite says that people are hurting, and I agree. There's no question that people are hurting in Ontario and they have been hurting for many years now, and for this government to turn its back on that situation would reflect very badly on this government. The whole program that we are bringing forward is to address the fact that people are hurting in Ontario today and we need to do something about it. We need to put in place policies to encourage employment. We need to remove the barriers to economic growth. That's what we are doing.

We need to restore confidence in the fiscal management of the province of Ontario. That's what we're doing. If we can accomplish that, and I believe we can, then our program will result in more jobs and more opportunities.

The decision to advertise I think is one that all parties have acknowledged in the past. We need to advertise to let people know what the program is and we need to advertise to encourage people to participate, to write in, get a copy of the

summary that we have, to bring forward their ideas. How can we present services in a more efficient manner, the services that people need, and at less cost? That's why we're advertising, and yes, there are reductions across the board, including in violence against women. The minister indicates that she has a program, core funding, that will address the needs in that area, but there have been reductions.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's unfortunate that the minister isn't here to tell us how she's going to deal with the problems of battered women when she's cancelling this program.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Since the minister of northern destruction is absent, I will direct a question to the Chair of Management Board.

Last Thursday all of us in the House had the embarrassing experience of seeing the Minister of Natural Resources and of Northern Development and Mines try to explain the massive cuts in the Ministry of Natural Resources. He didn't understand what was happening to his ministry. He didn't realize that 2,100 full-time-equivalent jobs out of a total of 4,600 are being lost in that ministry. He tried to explain that laying off more than 40% of the staff and cutting $137 million from the MNR budget would still make it possible for him to protect the natural resources in this province.

Can the minister stand in his place and assure this House that the government axe we've seen with regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the major downsizing of over 40% of that ministry, will not put our resources at risk and will not at the same time significantly harm the economies of many communities across the northern part of the province?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I can certainly assure the leader of the third party that this is not only the objective, but that the goal of this government is to increase the services and do better. In the particular case of this ministry, there are a number of different alternatives that the minister is proposing: greater use of the private sector, for example, in the planting of trees and managing of forests,

whereas the ministry will be involved in setting the policy in the first instance and policing the policy, I suppose, but calling on the private sector to deliver the services.

In the case of parks management, the minister is proposing to enter into partnerships with municipalities and perhaps with the private sector in terms of the delivery of services in some of the parks.

There will be less cost, there will be fewer staff who will be required to manage the programs, but the programs will be delivered every bit as well, if not better, for less money.

Mr Wildman: The minister doesn't seem to be aware that the announcements made last week will have a devastating impact on small communities across the whole of northern Ontario as well as on the larger northern communities, certainly.

Minister, your government is cutting $46 million from forest management and protection in this province, and you mouth words that you'll be able to deal with this in terms of agreements with the private sector. If I could quote Robin MacIntyre, a member of the citizens' advisory group in Sault Ste Marie district: "You hear lots of words about sustainability being used, but it really doesn't mean anything. It's just a trade word. The forest industry hasn't proven that they are able to monitor their own sites and take responsibility for selective cutting."

You're turning over the management of resources and protection of forests to large companies as a result of this announcement. The forests of the province belong to all the people, not just to forestry companies, and your government, the Ministry of Natural Resources, has a responsibility for the sustainability of our ecosystem. What actions are you taking to ensure that our forests will be properly managed on behalf of the people of Ontario by this policy of letting the fox into the hen-house in our forest management?

Hon David Johnson: There will be staff reductions. The member opposite has indicated that. In fact, the reductions in southern Ontario actually exceed the reductions in staff in northern Ontario by about 10%, just for the information. But to directly respond to the question, there will be still over 4,600 staff remaining in this ministry. I believe, this government believes, the minister believes that -- this is the information that I have from the ministry, over 4,600 staff, and those people will ensure that, in terms of its involvement, will be able to administer the staffs and police the private sector and ensure that our natural resources are protected.

Mr Wildman: Minister, it's completely wrong. The total staff today is 4,600 and he's cutting 2,100 out of it. There won't be 4,600 left. You're cutting 40% out of the 4,600.

I'll give you an example of what this ministry is doing. According to the document that was provided to our critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources, the ministry is closing a total of 17 out of 19 fire bases in northern Ontario. In the eastern region alone, Temagami, Blind River, Bracebridge, Bancroft, Whitney, Moosonee, Kapuskasing, Hornepayne, Gogama, Kirkland Lake, Elk Lake, Manitouwadge have all had their fire bases closed as a result of this announcement.

Surely the minister is aware of the significant risk to communities as well as our forest resources if we don't have adequate ability to meet a forest fire emergency. Surely he doesn't forget that last year we had to evacuate communities like Dubreuilville because of serious fire risk during the fire season.

Minister, with the closure of 80% of the northern fire bases, as part of a 40% cut in the staffing of the Ministry of Natural Resources, how can you explain that that ministry is going to be able to do better with less? The fact is, we're doing less with less and our resources and northern communities in particular are at risk as a result of your decision. How can you guarantee that there'll be proper firefighting ability for the Ministry of Natural Resources when you're closing 80% of the fire bases?

Hon David Johnson: There will be a consolidation of the offices and this government is clearly attempting to do the same job with less resources --

Interjection.

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

Hon David Johnson: This government has had to revamp government. We are running deficits, your deficits, of over $10 billion a year. How long do you think that that can carry on? How long do you think we can carry on with the status quo? Government has not been revisited for over two decades.

I can assure the member opposite and the people of northern Ontario that this government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the safety and this government has reviewed the program in place for firefighting, is consolidating and is coming forward with a program that will work. I can assure the member opposite that the note I have is that in fact there will be over 4,600 full-time equivalents in this ministry. I think the people of the province of Ontario would say that's a good number of people to look after the services, to look after the environment, that is necessary in northern Ontario and indeed right across the province.

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns Hydro policy. Minister, as the person who articulates the provincial government's Hydro policy, I'd like to ask you whether or not you and your government are prepared, as a matter of policy, to sell off the public's hydro-electric assets at Niagara Falls.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the member opposite for the question. What we have been attempting to do since forming the government is to find ways to ensure the competitiveness and the stability of Ontario Hydro. In Ontario we're faced with uncompetitive rates from our public utility.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): You can't be selling Niagara Falls. Say no.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order, the member for Oakwood.

Hon Mrs Elliott: We have established the Macdonald committee, which will be returning to me shortly with some recommendations for the government.

Mr Colle: There is nothing sacred.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood, come to order.

Hon Mrs Elliott: We will be formulating a government approach on different ways to restructure that utility so it can indeed provide reliable power and competitive rates.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear: As a matter of public policy, are you and your government prepared to sell off the public's assets in terms of hydro-electric resources at Niagara Falls?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Over the years, the taxpayers and the citizens of this province have made an enormous investment in Ontario Hydro. It is a utility that has been admired throughout the world for many things it has done. We require its power; it's very, very important to our economy. We recognize that. We also recognize the fact that it is approaching a state where its rates are uncompetitive. We are looking at the entire system to see how we can restructure it to make it competitive to provide safe, reliable power. As a government, we have not made determinations on how we are going to change this utility.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is regarding this government's latest surprise attack on the health and safety of working people in the province of Ontario and it's directed to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Your government has not been content with just abolishing the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, slashing mandatory health and safety training, and taking away support and benefits from injured workers. Now we learn that your government and your ministry are intending to change the Coroners Act and remove the mandatory requirement for inquests whenever there are deaths on a construction site or in a mine.

Workers and their leadership in this province are shocked and angry. We know that in Steelworkers Local 6500 in Sudbury Dave Campbell said, "Fatalities in the mining industry used to be through the roof and mandatory inquests help reduce the number of deaths." Roly Gauthier of Mine-Mill CAW Local 598, representing Falconbridge workers, said, "You can't quantify the number of lives and limbs that have been saved by inquests, but we know there are many."

Why didn't you listen to workers and their representatives before you made a decision that could very well make their working lives very, very dangerous? Why didn't you do that?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): We've listened to the advice of the chief coroner's office, and they are not ruling out inquests with respect to deaths in the construction or mining industries. If there's a clear justification for an inquest to be called, it will happen. I think the member is being alarmist with respect to this issue. If you take a look at virtually every other province in this country -- the only one we haven't been able to confirm it with up to this point is Newfoundland, but every other province has moved in this direction.

We feel very confident in the abilities and skills and the responsiveness of the chief coroner's office with respect to concerns that are raised surrounding any questionable death in either the construction or mining industries.

Mr Christopherson: Let me just say to you that to the working people of this province, "Inquests if necessary, but not necessarily inquests," is not a good enough policy when we're dealing with life-and-death issues affecting working people. We know the track record of this government in terms of not wanting to talk to anyone outside their friends and the bureaucracy.

The fact of the matter is that under Bill 7, where you took away rights that, in part, caused the strike with OPSEU, with the royal commission on WCB and even with the current Jackson report, which intends to gut the WCB, there's no opportunity for public consultation, meaningful input from the people whose very rights you're taking away.

My question to you is very specific and it's very straightforward: Will you commit today to meeting with workers' representatives in a public meeting to allow them to give you their side of this issue before you arbitrarily and unilaterally take away a right they now have that you didn't run on in this province as a mandate? Will you commit today to that kind of meeting in an open, public forum?

Hon Mr Runciman: Before this change does become law it requires an amendment to the Coroners Act, as I would think the member is aware. There will be an opportunity for public input through that process, and in this assembly. I want to assure that member that we in no way will do anything that is going to jeopardize workers' safety in this province.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. On Monday last, thousands of gallons of chemicals spilled into the Etobicoke river after a holding tank ruptured at an Etobicoke plant manufacturing margarine.

The 4,600 gallons of lye posed a serious environmental hazard to river life. Citizens have been warned to keep away and also to have their pets kept away from this situation. There's also a possibility that the lye could have an adverse impact on the sewer system in that particular area between Belfield Road and Dixon Road.

Minister, how can you assure us that the safety of the citizens of Etobicoke will be protected and wildlife simultaneously protected?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for the question. He's quite right that there was a serious spill into the river in his riding last week. I would like assure my colleague and the citizens in his riding that the ministry was there shortly after it happened. There was a significant rise in the pH level of the creek, and I would like to assure him that as of today the pH level is returning to normal. The ministry staff is testing the sediment in the creek at this point in time.

Under the rules of the Environmental Protection Act, the company itself is responsible for the cleanup in an unfortunate occurrence such as we've experienced. I would like to assure the member that the company is taking its responsibility seriously. They have hired a private security company to guard the edges of the river bed to warn people of the dangers at present and to keep them away from any hazardous situations that arise.

Mr Hastings: The supplementary deals with the ministry's role in providing a specific update and a comprehensive report on this incident at the most appropriate time.

Hon Mrs Elliott: We are on the scene. The investigation and enforcement branch has been called in to investigate. It does not appear at this point that there is damage to the infrastructure, but we will continue to investigate and monitor this. We will ensure that the citizens are protected and that the site is returned to normal.

If charges are required, they will be laid, and I would like to assure the member that not only will we be investigating and making sure the cleanup occurs, but we will be working with the company to ensure that such an occurrence does not happen again. I will be most happy to report to my colleague at the conclusion of this investigation.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The enormity of the damage of the cuts announced last Thursday on northern Ontario is indefensible and unjustifiable and certainly will have to be revisited by all ministries, in particular the minister responsible for the protection and viability of the north, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

The business plan not only impacts upon the lives of northerners, but from now the removal of the provision of mandatory inquests for construction and mining deaths from the Solicitor General's business plan affects the deaths of miners and construction workers and their families.

My question is simple. As the person responsible for miners, miners' safety and safety in the workplace, do you agree with the direction taken by the Solicitor General and did you advise him, or did he seek your advice about this particular aspect of his business plan?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member opposite, I certainly share your concern for the safety of the mining community. I would indicate to you that I have been assured that no changes have yet been made to the Coroners Act, and that when those changes are going to be made, there will be consultation and there will be in no way any compromise of workplace health and safety. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, our objective is to create the safest workplaces in this world. We intend to do that.

In fact, I want to also indicate to you that the Ministry of Labour will continue to investigate all workplace fatalities. We will continue to make the information available to the coroner, who then will make the determination, and we will continue to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act as a result of the information. I can assure you that people in the mining industry will be provided with greater safety than ever in the past.

Mr Bartolucci: The rhetoric of it is very nice, but in fact the mandatory obligation for an inquest is removed.

There is obviously a correlation between the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and your ministry when it comes to safety in the workplace and in particular safety in the mines. Could you please inform the members of the House, did you meet with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and did you, jointly or independently, make any recommendations to the Solicitor General with regard to this particular aspect? If so, would you please inform the House what those recommendations were?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you that we will be meeting with the Solicitor General, and I have been assured that there will be no compromise to workplace health and safety.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, I did have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues, but I see that once again she isn't here, in fact has not been in the House since the so-called business plan and

summary were released.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Not only is the member's comment about somebody else's presence inappropriate; she might want to know that the minister's son today is having very serious surgery and she thought she might want to be there for her son. I know the member for Riverdale wouldn't understand that. You might have the class to stand up and apologize.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: That is exactly why you are not supposed to make the comment, dummy. I withdraw the word "dummy," Mr Speaker. Just "insensitive."

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Point of order.

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

Mr Crozier: The word "insensitive" is not?

The Speaker: No, there's nothing out of order. We're in question period. If you have a point of order you want to raise later, you can --

Interjections.

The Speaker: No, there's nothing out of order. Member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, given that information, I withdraw that comment.

There is an issue I would like to address to the Minister of Community and Social Services on a very sensitive point. I would like to ask the minister what his government has against single mothers and their children.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Nothing. We're trying to assist them.

Ms Churley: I have news for the minister. He might be interested to know that to date, although this government likes to talk about helping get people receiving social assistance out of the cycle of dependency --

Hon Mr Eves: Give me a break.

Mr Crozier: I wish I could. You don't deserve it.

Hon Mr Eves: You don't think somebody should be there when their child is having an operation?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I did withdraw the comment, given the information. And I note that there are many ministers missing here today, which can be very frustrating to us, after this document was released.

I am asking a question about the cycle of dependency, which this government has said time and time again it would like to see people receiving social assistance get out of, so let's look at what you've done so far to help single mothers in this province.

You've cut the counselling dollars for second-stage housing that help them find jobs and new housing. You've changed the funding formula for the Jobs Ontario child care spaces. We know municipalities have already eliminated more than 4,700 subsidized spaces and will soon announce a workfare program that does absolutely nothing to help single mothers get back to work, including no new child care spaces.

Now, Minister, you have told those pursuing post-secondary education that they will be cut off welfare and to rely on OSAP, not only saddling them with a huge loan burden but taking away the medical and dental benefits they now get for themselves and their children. Will you explain to the women of Ontario how this policy is supposed to give them a hand up?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Let me be clear that in most cases post-secondary students will be eligible for more assistance for living costs and education costs than they would be under the old system, and this is part of our overall objective to improve the system. We believe in giving people the opportunity to invest in their own education and allowing them to chart their own course for self-independence and self-sufficiency. We're no longer going to force students, as the old system did, into the welfare system in order to get post-secondary education; we encourage them through OSAP, and clearly our whole system is geared to provide student assistance, not welfare assistance.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question today is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, a number of people in my riding have expressed a concern over friends and family who have moved to Ontario and are unable to practise their professions because either academic or professional credentials are not accepted here in Ontario. We've heard all kinds of stories about chemists sweeping floors, skilled engineers waiting on tables, and things like that. Minister, are you prepared to take any steps so that these talented newcomers can receive an opportunity to work here in Ontario in their chosen field and thus provide the maximum benefit to this province's economy?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Brampton North for the question. As part of this government's commitment to the equality of opportunity for all people in Ontario, the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and my ministry have been working together to address those issues the member has brought up so well today and has identified so well, the issues particularly of people who are recent to Ontario who have credentials from other parts of the world who want to practise their professions here in Ontario.

We are exploring now the options for servicing those people through a credential assessment service. This was announced earlier this year. We're cooperating with other provinces in Canada that have offered this service and have a model for offering this service. We're looking into that now and we hope to have, and in fact we expect to have this service up and running in 1997, and we have budgeted for the startup funds for this project, so it's well under way.

Mr Spina: Minister, we know that Ontario's immigration pattern is shifting, with a large number of immigrants coming from countries whose education and professional criteria are really quite different from our own. As part of these assessment processes, do you feel you'll be able to get the appropriate information on these international programs to be able to apply them here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, the member for Brampton North points to a very particular part of these assessment and credential problems that we have currently. In fact, Ontario receives over 50% of immigration to Canada currently, and over half of that is from Asia, Africa, Central or South America. From many of those countries of origin the exact nature of the credentials is not well known, particularly not well known to the professional governing bodies here in Ontario. So part of the job of an assessment service will be to keep a database up and to be able to identify what the equivalencies are of those accreditations from around the world.

That's one of the reasons why we think it's important to have this agency, so that those comparisons can be both impartial and consistent and so that those recent immigrants to Ontario who have professional status in their home country can, if that professional status matches with the requirements here in Ontario, perform their profession here in Ontario and save the taxpayers of Ontario obviously the cost of reinvestment in an education that's already happened and allow those people to enjoy the full benefits of life in Ontario.

SPEED LIMITS

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Mr Minister, as you know, last week the Minister of Transportation announced that he was planning to increase speed limits on Ontario highways in the 400 series from 100 kilometres per hour to 120 kilometres per hour.

Given the concerns raised over the last two or three days by a number of front-line OPP officers about the negative impact this greater speed will have on people's safety on Ontario highways, I wonder whether or not the Minister of Transportation consulted with you or the OPP before he made the announcement, and I wonder whether or not you support or agree with this proposal to increase the speed limit to 120 kilometres per hour.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I don't believe that the Minister of Transportation has made an announcement with respect to increased speed limits. I believe he was indicating that he was prepared to take a look at that question that had been raised with respect to the 400 series of highways. We did indeed have a brief discussion following that comment and I know that, as the member has indicated, there certainly are concerns that members of the OPP would have if indeed that change took place, essentially with respect to having the ability to enforce a zero tolerance policy and the manpower that would involve.

Mr Colle: A lot of people have been saying that it's almost a rare sighting to see an OPP cruiser on our provincial highways because of the cutbacks, so they're just wondering where this government is going to get the resources to implement a zero tolerance policy when right now they can't find the resources to fund highway safety and enforcement.

I just wonder again, Mr Minister, whether you, as the minister in charge of the OPP, knowing the constraints you have, will have the ability financially to increase the enforcement, especially when you don't have the option of photo-radar any more so you're left with basically a manpower-personnel option only. Can you support this proposal, given your constraints in your department, because you're going to have to be out there in the front lines ensuring people don't travel 150 or 160? Can you support that, considering your constraints?

Hon Mr Runciman: This is truly speculative because the minister has not made a formal proposal along these lines or had any formal consultation with my ministry, nor I with the OPP or police services across this province.

I do want to indicate that I was informed by the OPP commissioner about two weeks ago that we now have an additional 85 marked police cars on the highways of this province, so that hopefully the visibility question is going to be addressed by those additional marked cars on highways in this province.

Certainly if this is under serious consideration, I know the minister and others concerned with respect to road safety questions will sit down, will discuss it thoroughly along with his officials, my officials, others who will be impacted by road safety questions and certainly the police services across this province.

APOLOGY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, a point of personal privilege: I would like to apologize to the minister responsible for women's issues for my comments. In the heat of the moment sometimes we say these things. On behalf of me and all my caucus, I sincerely wish the minister and her son all the best.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have today an additional 4,050 names on a petition which now amounts to over 18,000 names from 51 communities across this province that have been gathered by Rose Kulimouski and Mae Mussolum. I want to add these 4,000 to those that have been presented already.

They "call on the Minister of Health to restore the $1.3 billion that was cut on November 29, 1995," from the health care budget, "and to ensure that the health care budget will stand at $17.4 billion for every day of the life of this government."

I affix my signature to this petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition that was sent to me by a member of my riding, asking me to present this to the Legislature, indicating that those who have signed this petition conscientiously object to tax breaks the present government is planning to implement.

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

I agree with the comments of my constituents and I am proud to sign this petition.

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today to present a petition for the people from Durham East.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to not proceed with the privatization of Ontario Hydro, especially under the nuclear component which represents a potential safety threat to the people of Ontario (in any unregulated environment)."

I sign my name to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

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

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

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

I will add my name to this, and this will make over 10,000 signatures that have been presented to this House on this issue.

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the matter of selling Ontario Hydro is likely to come before the Legislature in the near future;

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, who have through the payment of electricity rates paid for Ontario Hydro, are concerned about privatization of Ontario Hydro, leading to higher rates, lower reliability and compromised nuclear safety;

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

"Please preserve the public ownership of Ontario Hydro and refuse to sell this important public asset."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to rise today and present a further 2,000 signatures gathered by Rose Kulimouski and Mae Mussolum, to bring to over 20,000 the signatures to the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas the Conservative government has already cut $1.3 billion from the budget of the Ministry of Health when on November 29, 1995, the finance minister announced a series of spending cuts designed to reduce the deficit; and

"Whereas the $1.3 billion in funding has gone directly to reduce the deficit and therefore cannot be reallocated within the health care system;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to restore the $1.3 billion that was cut on November 29, 1995, in order to maintain the promise made by this government to protect health care funding and not cut health care; to reaffirm this government's commitment to no new user fees; and to ensure that the health care budget will stand at $17.4 billion for every day of the life of this government."

I'm proud to affix my signature along with the 20,000 other people in this province who have already done so.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have another petition. This one is on the family support plan. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr Peter North (Elgin): There are more than 16,000 signatures I've received against the closure of the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That a recommendation by the psychiatric hospitals restructuring committee to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital be rejected.

"We believe the restructuring committee has not fully considered the case for retaining the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

"We believe the hospital and the community of St Thomas provide care and caring for psychiatric patients which is equal to, and better than, London.

"We believe closure of the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital will have a devastating impact on the economy and the residents of St Thomas and Elgin county.

"We believe London can better absorb the impact of closure of the London Psychiatric Hospital.

"Finally, we believe it would be cheaper for government to retain the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital in terms of capital improvements required to both facilities."

"Therefore, we request that the government refrain from endorsing and implementing the recommendation to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital."

I've affixed my signature to this as well.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition.

"Whereas this Conservative government's stated plan in the Common Sense Revolution is to improve the long-term economic prospects of Ontario; and

"Whereas research from all over the world shows early childhood education leads to lower dropout rates, improved reading, math and language skills, less chance of future unemployment, teen pregnancy or delinquency and higher enrolment in post-secondary education, thus resulting in a better-educated, highly skilled workforce; and

"Whereas this Conservative government states it is committed to ensuring a larger share of the education dollar goes to the classroom; and

"Whereas this Conservative government fully expects boards to meet transfer reductions by cutting costs outside the classroom; and

"Whereas this Conservative government has made junior kindergarten a matter of choice for local school boards and has reduced the funding for junior kindergarten;

"Therefore, to ensure this Conservative government meets its stated commitments in regard to education and to Ontario, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and Training to restore the funding for junior kindergarten to its previous level and require all school boards to offer junior kindergarten classes."

I affix my signature to this petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased to present petitions and letters from Gwen Lee, Donna Bentley-Ward and Rose MacGowan from my riding on behalf of thousands of constituents. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Realty Corp was directed to develop a plan to sell the more than 84,000 units owned by the Ontario Housing Corp; and

"Whereas the cut, slash and burn policies of the Progressive Conservative Party have forced seniors, families and social assistance recipients to rely, more than ever, on rent-geared-to-income public housing in order to maintain a decent quality of life; and

"Whereas the sale of OHC units would impose undue hardship on hundreds of thousands of people across Ontario; and

"Whereas the administration of rent-geared-to-income OHC properties by our local housing authority of Hamilton-Wentworth is conducted in a more responsible and cost-effective manner than the proposed privatization-shelter allowance concept;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned representatives of the three area tenant advisory committees in Hamilton-Wentworth, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing address the concerns and answer the questions of the 2,750 signators of the accompanying letters and petitions, and we request consultation with OHC tenants beyond Metro Toronto regarding the proposed sale of their homes."

I proudly join with my constituents and add my name to theirs.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I am presenting a petition my office received from the OSSTF, PR division, with respect to the proposed Ontario College of Teachers. It's not in the right format, but I'd like to present it anyway.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Legislature signed by 330 teachers:

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

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

I affix my signature to the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Chudleigh from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report on draft legislation on auto insurance and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It is my pleasure to stand in the Legislature and deliver the standing committee on finance and economic affairs' report on auto insurance.

As the House would know, the committee travelled to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Ottawa and London, in addition to hearings in Toronto. On this journey, we consulted and canvassed a wide variety of opinion which included all sectors of the auto insurance industry. Those representing insurers and those personally injured had an excellent opportunity to air their thoughts and views on the government's proposed legislation.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all groups and individuals for their input into this decision-making process and assure them that their opinions and views were taken into consideration in drafting this report.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues in all three parties for their time and effort on the report and draft legislation.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Chudleigh moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I was informed earlier today that there would be two guests in the Speaker's gallery: the Honourable Angela Knight, British Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr Peter Davies, British consul general. Those are the two people I was informed would be in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ANGLO CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

Mr Bob Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting Anglo Canada General Insurance Company.

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

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to deal with the motion for interim supply.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Eves moved the following government notice of motion:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of civil servants and other necessary payments pending voting of supply for the period commencing May 1, 1996, and ending October 31, 1996, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I have no further comments with respect to this matter, Mr Speaker. There will be several speakers from our side of the House, and I would defer to the official opposition.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I will be sharing the leadoff time under our orders with my colleague the member for St Catharines. Let it be clearly indicated that Mr Bradley and I will be sharing the 90 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Can I have unanimous consent to allow that to happen?

Mr Conway: I didn't seek consent to that. Let me seek the consent of --

The Speaker: We have consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I want to thank honourable members for that.

I'm happy to see the chancellor of the exchequer here today. He seems to be somewhat calmer after question time. I worry, quite frankly. I've known the chancellor for 16 years now, 15 years, and the chancellor is altogether too exercised and often too angry at question period. I know I'm the one saying that, but you can't and shouldn't be as bad as I am. You're too young to be too angry that continuously at question period. So we've got to see more of the relaxed Ernie in question period.

But it is good to see the chancellor looking in a happy and expansive mood when I think of the social credit economics with which he has to now deal, particularly as between now and budget day three or four weeks hence. One of the things that I can say, as someone's who's known the chancellor for, as I say, a decade and a half is that he is a supremely sensible, practical man. He knows the kind of hocus-pocus economic and fiscal game into which his seatmate has now forced him, and it must cause the chancellor, in a private moment, some considerable anguish.

I know his deputy, who I gather has embraced the new canon with an enthusiasm that has to be seen to be appreciated, so I would say to the chancellor that he might want to convey my very best seasonal wishes to the deputy, who I'm sure is engaged in very important public business elsewhere.

I wonder how many of the deputy's old friends at the University of Western Ontario looked at the sunshine list and said, "Aha, he got us after only nine months."

Speaking about the sunshine bill, wasn't that an interesting list? We've been asked to come here today to vote supply, and that's a very important business for the Legislature to do, for any Parliament to do.

I must say that in the county of Renfrew there was more than passing interest in the century club. I think it is fair to say that the absence of my good friend the mayor of Montague, the member for Lanark-Renfrew -- I don't want to speak too completely on the subject, but certainly it was of some interest to find that there were five members of our public board of education who had made the list. It was of some interest as well, I think, to find out that directors of education are paid better than provincial court judges in some cases. It was interesting, as I said earlier, to find out that some school boards seemed to have more people on the list than others.

I just want to make a very candid confession to my friend from Wellington. I took Stevie Paikin out to lunch a couple of weeks ago and I paid. I want that on the record. I took Steve Paikin to lunch and I paid. The member for Halton North and I were Mr Paikin's guests --

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): When's my turn? I want to be next.

Mr Conway: You want to be next? I guess I'm in a better position to do so, having read Mr Walkom's piece in the Saturday Star. And let me in a very generous way congratulate the chancellor and his colleague the member for Nipissing. I've been around here a long time, and I have seen successes and I have seen ultrasuccesses, but the efforts of last Wednesday that the treasury bench effected with respect to pay and pensions in Her Majesty's service will, when I write my book decades hence, go down as the greatest victory on the public relations account that I have seen in 21 years. I want to, in a very generous and ecumenical way, say to the chancellor, you outdid yourself.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: No, I promised my colleagues that on that subject I would keep my silence. Beyond that I will say no more, but I do want to congratulate the chancellor because that was a success one can only marvel at.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, the member from High Park, fresh out of Chaucer.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Dewy-eyed.

Mr Conway: Oh yes, the member from High Park, right out of Chaucer. But my Lenten drought is over and my generous mood is here, so I will leave the pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

Last Thursday the government made an announcement that was very significant. It had to do of course with the subject of question period today and last Thursday as well, and that was the subject of the cuts. I was struck today by the exchanges, particularly between the leader of the third party and the Chair of Management Board, about what happened to natural resources. Let there be no confusion: There was a skewering of the old Department of Lands and Forests. I mean, it was eviscerated last week.

The argument that the government will advance is consistent with the mantra, "Well, it was all of that spending of the bad old days, particularly the bad old days from 1985 to 1995, that has occasioned all of these cuts." More on that later.

I did go to the library and I pulled out a random sample of budgets from the early 1980s, because while I was generous a moment ago, particularly this -- I excuse just about everybody here from this. I excuse the member for Willowdale and all of the new bloods from 1995. But I have to say that it gives chutzpah a new lease on life to see Mike Harris and Ernie Eves in here, as consistently and as aggressively as they are, talking about the deficit spending of the last decade. There is no question there was deficit spending in the last 10 years; that is clearly a matter of public record.

To be fair to the chancellor, he is more cautious than his incautious colleague the first minister. Mike Harris must think we all have the kind of amnesia he seems to suffer from on occasion. Because the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was here from 1981 to 1985. He will remember; I know he commented. Was there ever a more willing and dutiful acolyte than Mike Harris back in those years? When Frank Miller and Billy Davis said, "Jump," Mike said, "How high and how often?" The Taxfighter, Mr Harris, was here in the 1981-85 period. He was an upwardly mobile Tory. He was chair of a legislative committee that handled a number of the finance bills.

I will digress for a moment. The 1982 budget: Here is a partial list of the tax measures that netted the government an additional $1 billion, fully annualized, that I can remember Mr Harris ramming through in the committee with great alacrity and greater efficiency.

What did the Harris-Eves canon of that day call for? Tax changes to the Retail Sales Tax Act, as contained in the 1982 budget, by the description of the holy mantra, now "the good old days." Just listen. If you live by the sword, you'll have to at least play by the sword and perhaps even die by the sword.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You're supposed to die by the sword.

Mr Conway: Well, that's too vulgar and too aggressive. But did you hear the Chair of Management Board today? We got more of the mantra. I just go back and I look at the 1982 budget. Thanks to Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and Frank Miller, we imposed provincial sales tax for the first time on trees and shrubs, on feminine hygiene products -- that's the one I remember. They were real taxfighters back then. I remember that was part of what they were prepared to tax. I want to say to the television audience, who might not have been listening 12 and 14 years ago when Mike Harris was cutting his teeth around here, that's part of the record.

Interjection: Was there TV in those days, Sean?

Mr Conway: There was TV, actually. There was some quite good television back then.

But I say to the Tory caucus -- the member from Ottawa-Rideau smiles knowingly -- taxes for the first time on trees and shrubs, feminine hygiene products, street flushers, storm doors, soaps and tissues, classroom supplies, student supplies, buses and repair parts purchased by municipalities -- and the list goes on -- a billion-dollar tax increase in the gut of a recession. Who was in the committee doing the tough, dirty work to make sure it happened? Mike Harris and his friend the member for Parry Sound.

Interjection: Morley?

Mr Conway: Morley? I want to be fair to Morley, because Morley, then and now, had a kind of healthy eclecticism. He knew he was going to have a harder time than perhaps some of these more supplicant acolytes like Mr Harris. Oh boy, because Mike would do the bidding. If Frank and Billy wanted it done, Mike particularly was there: "You want a tax increase, you want a tax bill run through the committee? I'll run it through." A billion dollars' worth in that year, and more the year after.

Deficits? Oh, I don't want to upset the equilibrium of the treasury bench, but deficits -- $1 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, just in that 1981-83 period. I see the member for Durham East looking incredulous, but it is true. There's something even more true. This is being perhaps more archival than people should be allowed to be, but my favourite is the 1975 budget, because you see, if the early 1980s were the good times, according to the current mantra, surely the mid-1970s were cornucopia itself.

What have we got? I like this because this was the first budget that I saw when I came here. Darcy McKeough -- was there ever a more credible pillar of the Tory right-wing establishment in the history of old Upper Canada? Hardly; I couldn't imagine one. Now I want you all to hold your stomachs over there because this budget 21 years ago, in the halcyon days of Tory prosperity, called for a $1.8-billion deficit on a spending plan of slightly less than $13 billion. The author of this document was, as I said, W. Darcy McKeough, duke of Kent, pillar of right-wing fiscal conservatism.

I know the member for Lambton and the member from south Hastings and the member from north Hastings are going to say: "But that was then; this is now. We are a new breed." Let me say, you are, and that has to be admitted; I'll talk a little more about that later on. But I just say for my efficacy, if for no one else's, I would like Ernie Eves and Mike Harris to at least stop shoving such nauseous craperoo in my face as that which they shove on an hourly basis to the effect that there were no deficits prior to 1985.

I want to say that again for the record, because one of these days I'm going to get a little angry and I'm going to get up and be even more specific in some of these remembrances. I guarantee that if the chancellor and his friend the first minister think this attracts their attention, and it probably doesn't, there is more in the annals of their past around here that will certainly, on the fiscal front, attract the attention of the House.

I remember Mike Harris back then, and he had a great line. I'm sure he won't mind my quoting it. I used to say, "You know, Mike, you're the member for North Bay." My goodness, can you think of another provincial town where there is more provincial government activity, direct and indirect? Harris had a great line. He said, "I want my share of the waste." That was Mikey. He appears to have done rather well.

I say to my friend the member for Lambton, now to get a lecture from the first minister would be like my getting up and making a speech about the benefits and first-order importance of short speeches. I wouldn't expect the member for Wellington or anyone who's been around here for a while to take that with much comfort.

Last week's announcement on the government's spending reductions has a very considerable impact in my part of eastern Ontario. Let me say, unlike others perhaps in the opposition, that I understand entirely the situation in which the government finds itself. I was perhaps a bit jocular in talking to the finance minister when he was here a while ago, but he is facing an almost impossible situation.

Anyone who knows anything knows that to take a deficit line that's at or about $8 billion, to cut taxes by $5 billion on a fully matured tax cut implementation, to maintain core programs and to balance the budget in five, six or seven years are absolute impossibilities. You can't do it. I give people some credit for saying they're going to, I suppose, but you just can't do it without so crippling the core programs that you say you want to protect as to make your undertaking almost ridiculous.

That's what I find interesting about this fiscal plan when I look at it, understanding as I do something about what I thought Conservatism was all about, and in some ways I am quite conservative on some of these matters myself. My constituents indicated to me both during the recent election campaign and since that while they all like a tax cut, they want core programs maintained and they want the fiscal house of the province brought into a greater order; there's no doubt about that.

The notion that we are going to cut taxes by $5 billion at a time when the deficit is $7 billion or $8 billion or $9 billion is to most people I know a dangerous business. Over the next year or 18 months we will see just how the chancellor and his colleagues work out the arithmetic.

I see the minister of justice looking very studious as he reads what looks like Time magazine. You know, he's looking rather relieved. The national newspaper reported on the weekend that they were breathing very deep sighs of relief over at the justice department because, thank God, they had been spared the worst of it. They may have been spared the worst of it in this round, but if this fiscal plan is to be effected, let me tell my friend the justice minister that there are going to have to be deep cuts into the muscle of every program if that commitment is going to be kept.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Wrong.

Mr Conway: The minister opines, "Wrong." I don't say I'm surprised he would say that, but we will see what we will see.

Speaking for my constituents in rural eastern Ontario, they know they are getting hammered. Someone said to me the other day: "You know, the Ontario government is going to start looking a lot like your neighbourhood bank. There are going to be fewer of them around, fewer people in the banks that are around and a heck of a lot more service charges than you ever dreamt possible." There's no doubt about that. I mean, I was left speechless that the party of family values was going to nearly double marriage licence fees. Incroyable.

Mr Guzzo: How much is a divorce?

Mr Conway: The member for Ottawa-Rideau makes a very good rejoinder: "And how much is a divorce?"

I'm not here to beat up on lawyers, and I wouldn't expect retired judges would want to do that either. But rural Ontario, which I represent, certainly is going to have a much less present provincial government.

You may have noticed that within the last couple of days I've been trying to engage my friend the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in a little debate, because there is no doubt that despite his solemn promises of the last campaign, he's going to be breaking those promises just every day between now and the end of his mandate.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): He won't. He won't.

Mr Conway: The member for Lambton shakes his head and says: "He won't. He won't." Well, let me just say that a whole series of Ag office are going to close, that colleges at Ridgetown and Kemptville are going to be gutted, a whole series of field services.

Mr Beaubien: No.

Mr Conway: My friend from Lambton shakes his head and says, "No." I guess all of the farmers I've talked to in the last 10 days and all of the public servants I've talked to at the Ministry of Agriculture have got it all wrong. But the member from Hastings, fine fellow that he is, will appreciate -- in fact, I read in the Tweed News the other day that he, unlike some of his colleagues, was on the street during the recent labour difficulty, and according to the Tweed News, a very reputable newspaper, Mr Danford was saying that, yes, he understands the pressures and some of the problems.

He was being told by his constituents that in fact offices in Hastings were either going to be downsized or transferred out to Kingston or Belleville or wherever.

That's certainly the reality in my community. We're probably going to lose our Ag office, and the farmers of Renfrew will have to go to Ottawa. Isn't that a wonderful situation? I can tell you, the people of the upper Ottawa Valley will really appreciate going to Ottawa and/or Toronto to get the kind of field services they have been accustomed to receiving at a more local level.

The Ministry of Environment, very important in our part of Ontario as a superintendent of important public interest in the public domain, particularly as it relates to waters, lakes and streams, has been very substantially reduced in terms of its mandate and its responsibility.

Mr Wildman this afternoon rightly pointed out that almost 40%, probably more than 40%, of the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources are going to be terminated. Let there be no confusion about this: The crown lands of this province, in terms of their superintendents, are essentially being turned over to private forest operators. There is no question about that.

Now, some people who know me and my relatives will say: "Aha. You should be happy about that because you're in that business." It is true I come from a lumbering family. I have no direct interest, you understand. But there can be no confusion that the crown lands of the province are being turned over by and large to private interests. In fact, I would go one step further and say that the effect of the government policy is going to be to turn over the crown lands to major corporate interests in the resource sector.

We will see what we will see. I can recall a time when the presence of the government was less in areas like forestry, for example, and we had some very interesting results. We had some very interesting activities that in many cases Her Majesty's local government had to come and fix up and pay for.

One of the questions I have, particularly from many of my friends in the business community, who are not disappointed about what is starting to look like a great barbecue -- there is going to be opportunity here the likes of which some people have not seen in over 50 years. There is a very strong move afoot to eliminate the government presence and monopoly in areas like liquor and electricity. I was saying not too many days ago that we could be back in those good old days of the pre-war years when liquor and Hydro gave this province the best scandals it has ever known.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Don't forget the pipelines.

Mr Conway: No, no. Pipelines were a national concern. I'm talking about provincial affairs. When we look over the last century at some of the really interesting political difficulties this province has had, let me tell you, Hydro, crown lands and liquor have produced some of the very best.

Now, I know it's 1996 and we have a much more public-spirited public and private sector than might have been the case in earlier times.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That's right.

Mr Conway: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke West for his observations in that respect.

On behalf of my constituents in rural Ontario, let me say that we note the loss of the provincial government presence in areas like natural resources, like environment, like highways. The poor minister of highways is not with us this afternoon, and it's not all his fault, but I'll tell you, I live on the highways of the province, and I have never in my adult life seen the King's highways in such bad shape as they have been in the last two or three months. In fairness, it is partly the weather. We've had a peculiar winter.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Not at all.

Mr Conway: Spring has finally arrived. Someone in the back corner, Hastings by name if the seating plan is to be credited, has awakened in a way that tells me spring has arrived. But it is the first rule of rural Ontario that you do not tease just-awakened bears in springtime, so I will give Mr Hastings a wide berth.

But we observe, in eastern Ontario at least, really deplorable highway conditions: Highway 41, up the spine of the Frontenac axis; Highway 401, particularly in the Napanee area -- Highway 17, between where I live in Pembroke, up through Deep River, to Rolphton and Mattawa, is absolutely deplorable.

Hon Mr Harnick: Who has been looking after them for the last 10 years?

Mr Conway: I only know, I say to the justice minister, what I experience on a daily basis.

Hon Mr Harnick: Let's be fair.

Mr Conway: I'm trying to be evenhanded and fair. I drove the King's highways in the period 1967 to 1985, which was 18 years of Conservative administration, and they were very good highways. They were -- what were the old slogans? every election brought a new slogan -- "Highways for Progress," "Roads for Development" etc.

But the other day, driving the 401 in the Napanee area of eastern Ontario, I thought I was someplace just north of Gary, Indiana, on the interstate, making the turn into Chicago: pothole central. To call them potholes is to understate it. There are places in eastern Ontario where the roads are breaking up.

Hon Mr Harnick: Ten years of neglect.

Mr Conway: Absolute poppycock, I say to the justice minister. I have too much respect for my friends on the government side to imagine that in this kind of debate they want to engage in that kind of adolescent politics.

A baby cried.

Mr Conway: I say to the member for Wellington that he's added a particularly insightful voice to this debate.

Rural Ontario is getting the short end of the stick from a government that promised it the long end of prosperity. Hydro rates: The Minister of Energy was up here a few months ago saying, "We've frozen rates for five years." And you know what? She has. But in the delicious irony of our time, she has frozen rates and substantially increased costs for thousands, tens of thousands, of rural and seasonal hydro users. I am sure my friends from Hastings and Lambton and Oxford are getting the calls I'm getting, because my phone has been ringing off the wall for the last few weeks.

Mr Beaubien: I don't have a phone.

Mr Conway: You don't have a phone, the member for Lambton? Well, that I can understand.

Let me be clear that the Minister of Energy's statement of a few months ago that hydro rates were in fact being frozen is only part of the story, because there are, and the member for Quinte will know this, thousands of people who this month and last month are starting to get bills, and I'm getting calls from farmers who are apoplectic. They want to know how with a rate freeze they are now getting increases of 200% and 300% with no more use of energy; in some cases less.

I only raise it today because the people who are getting tagged with this injustice are, I repeat, in the main people in rural Ontario and seasonal property owners.

Mr Stockwell: Flat fees.

Mr Conway: Well, flat fees. If the cost structure has been changed to double and triple the price, the farmers are noticing that and they are not happy campers at all.

As one of the members from rural Ontario, I simply want to say to the House today that when farmers I represent see their electricity costs going up dramatically at a time when the rates are supposed to be frozen, when they see their provincial highways literally crumbling at the gate, when they see their field services in agriculture being shut down and withdrawn to an urban place, when the farmers are told their children are not really going to be able to go to Kemptville and Ridgetown but they better pack their bags for Guelph and they may not even get into Guelph, when their bus routes are starting to disappear -- we don't yet have the evidence before us, but let there be no confusion.

I represent places, and so does my friend from Rawdon, in all the milk run through east-central Ontario. You get on the bus in Pembroke and you go across to Eganville, to Golden Lake, to Killaloe, to Barry's Bay, to Maynooth, to Bancroft, to Apsley. Do you think that route is going to be there when deregulation is with us? Let me tell you, it is not going to be there, I'm sorry to say.

I guess the question that the members from places like Hastings and Renfrew and Glengarry and Wellington are going to want to come to the House and ask is this: Why would we be voting supply to OC Transpo?

Why would we be voting appropriations -- why would we be paying taxes to a federal Parliament that can't wait to build airports and that subsidizes air tickets? -- to the provincial government that transfers substantial moneys to the TTC and to a lot of local urban transit authorities, when the only transit, the only public transport we've got is the Voyageur bus that snakes its happy way through the hardwood hills of Renfrew into the pine valleys of Hastings? It's gone. That's going to be the reality of deregulation.

Yes, the bus from Ottawa to North Bay will still run, the bus from Cornwall to Toronto will still run, the bus from Toronto to Peterborough, and from Toronto to Barrie, will still run, but if you're in Maynooth or in Killaloe you're out of luck.

It will be a good question for the minister of transport, federally and provincially, "What have you done to assist reasonably my citizens' interest, as a senior citizen or as someone who does not have his own car or half-ton truck, what have you, government, done to facilitate my transportation needs in rural Ontario?"

I just say to my friends in the government caucus, as one member from rural Ontario I'm hearing from farmers and rural residents that they're concerned about deregulation in the motorcoach industry; they're really angry about the impact of this new cost structure at Ontario Hydro that is driving up by two and three times their cost for electricity on the farm and at the cottage; they are extremely concerned about the loss of a whole range of field services in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs that have been withdrawn or are in the process of being withdrawn; they are really concerned about what is going to be happening on the crown lands.

In my county, almost 50% of the land base is crown land -- 50%, nearly, of Renfrew county is crown land -- and we are essentially dismantling the Ministry of Natural Resources and hoping and praying the private interests are going to maintain the public interest in our crown lands and in our crown forests.

I mention today that inquiring minds in my part of the province want to know, is Mike Harris really prepared to sell our nearly century-old public assets, our public hydro-electric assets, at Niagara Falls? Is he really prepared to do that?

Interjection.

Mr Conway: The member from the Kingsway says, "Not likely," and my constituents in the main are going to be happy to know that, if that is government policy.

I might ask the always-knowledgeable, ever-vigilant member for Etobicoke West, the Kingsway, if he'd like to offer a response on this question. He might want to comment on whether the government, the politicians over there, unlike the president of Hydro, is able to offer the consumers of electricity in the province any greater comfort about what residential and farm customers are going to see should a significant privatization occur. Mr Kupcis, at the Macdonald commission, said he had no idea as to the impact on rates of a significant privatization.

What I have to say to the member from the Kingsway is that most people he represents and I represent will expect, will assume, that there will be and there ought to be no privatization of any significant kind if it cannot be demonstrated that there are going to be price benefits to residential and farm consumers, since we all assume in the nature of things that industrial and commercial consumers will be well provided for.

The member confesses -- and I appreciate this -- that he, like the president of Hydro, does not know. I can accept that. But I just assume we are not going to betray the legacy of Adam Beck for some kind of ideological nostrum that is not at the same time going to be able to produce a price advantage for residential and farm electrical consumers.

I noticed in the Economist today that the British government, the Conservative government of John Major, is going to allow the merger very soon of two giant private generators with two very significant regional electricity distributors. What we will have in Britain, which is always held out as the example of what it is we want to emulate, is a situation where we're going to have increasingly a private monopoly at the expense of the electrical consumer, especially the residential and farm consumer. The city of London is very happy; they can scarcely contain their enthusiasm.

And I don't doubt that when Bay Street reads the public ruminations of the energy czar, the Minister of Environment and Energy herself, the first minister, Bay Street must be salivating.

But, you know, Main Street has an interest here as well. Adam Beck understood that 85 years ago. I'm one of those who does not believe that in Adam Beck we had any perfect saint; I never met a London Tory then or now who had that quality of saintliness about them. But I say to my friends in the government that surely before a public policy is decided in favour of any significant privatization, you are going to be able to tell the residential and farm consumers of electricity that they are going to have a benefit in terms of not just reliability and safety, which they've come to accept as part of their patrimony, but also that their rates are going to be favourably affected.

I'm happy to see the member for Mississauga West here. He has been busy, engaged in a reform of automobile insurance. I want to just take a moment this afternoon to offer some personal and constituent views on that subject. Governments of all stripes in recent years have tangled with this cobra, and governments of all stripes and taxpayers of now over a generation have been stung by this cobra.

Mr Stockwell: Remember "I have a plan"?

Mr Conway: Absolutely, and I am suitably chastised with that cut to the quick.

But the government has a plan, or it is trying to strike a plan. I just simply want to say to the House that a number of my constituents -- and on this, let me confess a conflict of interest -- myself included, are increasingly concerned by what we are seeing at this point from the industry.

It's a credit to the minister of justice. He sits there sagelike, saying nothing, breathing slightly more heavily than otherwise, because upon his arrival here six years ago, I mean, did we have --

Mr Stockwell: You can't see what he is doing.

Mr Conway: Now, Christopher, that is rude.

When Mr Harnick arrived here six years ago, he arrived as the unvarnished ambassador for the old order, the trial lawyers and the old insurance order, and did they have a dutiful acolyte. He was very effective. He lacerated poor Peter Kormos and he laughed at, with considerable effect, those old Liberals who had made such a tangled mess of it all.

I just want to say to the government and especially to the very able parliamentary assistant -- able, I am told, by the most interesting of my friends and relatives -- that there is still a lot of unresolved business.

Hon Mr Harnick: Blame me for Kormos.

Mr Conway: I am not blaming you for Kormos. I would blame very, very few people for Kormos. I think, actually, it is Frances Lankin who is going to have to figure out Mr Kormos in the short term and not any of us, but that convention is still two months off.

I simply want to say that some of what is being reported in the insurance sector at the present time is very upsetting, and some of it appears to be perfectly scandalous: people with minor incidents being thrown into Facility, people who are paying now $3,000 and $4,000 for minor incidents that weren't even their fault. I tell the House, I say to the government, that consumers are not going to stand for it. Yes, there will be an acceptance that there must be -- and it's still secret.

I have had my problems with the Highway Traffic Act's speeding provisions, and if I'm a speeder and if I'm getting into accidents, clearly that should be reflected in the risk assessment attached to my premium. But there are simply too many people out there now, people I represent, who are starting to get premium notices that are driving them through the roof, and they're not going to tolerate it. This is a system that is not working. It is going to have to be fixed in some way that hopefully the government proposes, that the opposition amends and that consumers are going to accept.

I say to my friends in the New Democracy that as a result of Bill 164 I think we have opened the door to a new level of fraud that, if my experience is any indication, is positively outrageous. If I end up in Facility for some kind of a ding that was not my fault and that was purely fraudulent, I am not going to be a very happy consumer. I'm not going to embarrass any of my colleagues who have been reporting some of their situations, and I'm sure they're telling me the whole story and the whole truth, but I simply say that Dave Brown in the Ottawa Citizen for six months has been documenting

chapter and verse of stories in the Ottawa area where consumers whose behaviour seems to be reasonable have been really penalized by the new calculations, it seems, of the insurance industry.

As I wind up, because my colleague the member for St Catharines has joined us, I want just a couple of more minutes to do a couple of snappers, as they say on the old game shows.

I may be the only one, but I have to just say it for the record: How many here remember my old friend Jane Fulton? I want to say for the record that it was interesting to read that Globe and Mail report of a couple of months ago that Jane Fulton, like Mike Harris, appears to have oversold herself. I just hope Mr Harris is following poor Jane Fulton's difficulties out there in Klein land, in Alberta. I thought it interesting because for years we used to see Jane around here, and she is now the Deputy Minister of Health. By gosh, she had a great résumé.

It was the most spectacular galaxy of achievement we had ever seen. That nasty old Globe and Mail just went and checked the file and it turns out that, a bit like the Mike Harris plan, there's substantially less than met the eye.

I noticed in the office today that the Niagara Falls casino site has been selected, and my friend from St Catharines will be talking about this. I just want to say, and I don't mean to be preachy or judgemental on this, but I went for the first time in my life, a month ago, to a casino.

Mr Pouliot: How'd you do?

Mr Conway: I lost 50 cents.

Mr Pouliot: You made a contribution.

Mr Conway: I spent 50 cents.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: My friend from Hastings says, "I hope it was in Quebec." It actually wasn't. It was in Connecticut. It was at the Foxwoods Casino, which sits south of Hartford, between New York City --

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It was 63 cents, Sean.

Mr Conway: Very good. I thank the member for Halton North. I just simply want to say, the day I was there, there were something like 15,000 or 20,000 people there. It's owned by a native band. I think the band is 350. I think their net revenues last year were something in excess of half a billion dollars. I just want to say on my own behalf, having spent 90 minutes in the place, I never felt more demoralized and more saddened in all my life. Quite frankly --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I don't know if anybody remembers Bob Welch. I remember talking to Bob Welch years ago about the casino and gambling business we were getting into. I'm sure the member for High Park has perhaps even preached on this. On that afternoon, I must say, I've never seen so many impassive, joyless people in my life, and if that is the economic future of this civilization, then I've got to tell you, we are in for a very interesting time.

Mr Pouliot: People ain't going to Las Vegas, Sean.

Mr Conway: Listen, I know people go. I'm a good little Catholic boy. I used to work church bingos.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: That's right, I was a little Catholic boy; never very good. But seriously, I just looked at that spectacle and I thought to myself -- do you remember the old movie They Shoot Horses, Don't They? on those dance marathons of the 1930s? That's the kind of sense I had of the place. Listen, many in my own caucus -- I'm speaking only for myself. It was something I'd never done before. I'm not going to rush back. It was certainly an experience I will remember for a long time.

I've tried to touch on some of the issues that are of concern to my constituents. I want to repeat as a representative from rural Ontario that the Harris government's approach to policies, whether in agriculture, transportation, environment, natural resources, is beginning to give some very real pause and concern to people who do understand that we have to make change, that we clearly have to bring the financial house in order, but it is a matter of doing it fairly.

I have not spent a great deal of my time talking about the tax cut, but a number of my constituents think it is absolutely immoral to be talking about a multibillion-dollar tax cut at a time when we are wrestling with a multibillion-dollar deficit and debt-servicing costs that are of an order of magnitude that the Treasurer and the Chair of Management Board have often observed.

One of the reasons I'm a Liberal is that I think those values of balance and moderation and fairness are important. I noticed a few weeks ago that even the Premier himself expressed publicly a concern that his policies were dividing the province, and there is no question that they are dividing the province. There are divisions now that are troubling to many people and even in the government caucus itself. There is an anger abroad in the land that is being fed by a certain kind of politics that I think is very, very dangerous.

As I said earlier, there's no question there were excesses that had to be corrected, but it's awfully difficult for my typical constituent who is a farmer, a small business person or a logger to pick up the Ottawa Citizen or the Financial Post and read that the overwhelming majority of this tax cut is going to go to the overwhelmingly well-to-do in this society at the very time that that family member or that family as a group is going to be faced with an array of fee increases, and I'm now talking about the real fee increases like college and university fees, a series of municipal levies that are going to be substantial and noticeable.

My constituents are quite prepared to play their part and do their share, but this policy of redressing some of the excesses of the recent past in terms of spending against revenue is only going to be successful if we convince the broad base of the public that what we are about is both necessary and fair and that we can show people that from the Premier on down, and