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

October 3, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L005 - Tue 3 Oct 1995 / Mar 3 Oct 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS / TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES

RAY NAPPER

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

NORTHERN HIGHWAY SAFETY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

GOVERNMENT POLICY

DREDGING OF LAKE ONTARIO

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

VISITORS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOB CREATION MEASURES

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS

JOB CREATION MEASURES

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

JOB CREATION MEASURES

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

JOB CREATION MEASURES

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

JOB CREATION MEASURES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CLOSURE OF HALFWAY HOUSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOSPITAL FINANCING

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

EDUCATION POLICY

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDING

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

HEALTH BUDGET

VISITORS

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

PETITIONS

MOOSE TAGS

HOMOLKA CASE

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

VEHICLE SAFETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES CHEMINS DE FER D'INTÉRÊT LOCAL

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS EXIGÉS DES PERSONNES MORALES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS / TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I am pleased today to recognize St Jerome's Day. Named after the Christian saint of translators, September 30 has been declared National and International Translation Day by the Canadian Translators and Interpreters Council and the International Federation of Translators, a worldwide organization having consultative status with UNESCO.

Here in our province, members of the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario, or ATIO, have been undertaking the valuable work of translating and interpreting since 1921. ATIO, which presently has about 1,000 members, is the oldest translators' association in Canada and the first in the world to obtain legal status for its members in 1989.

La capacité de communiquer en nombreuses langues, compte tenu des particularités culturelles de chacun, est un facteur de toute première importance pour l'harmonie sociale et pour le développement dans notre province.

Je profite de cette occasion pour rendre hommage aux membres de l'ATIO qui, de par leur travail dans les secteurs public et privé, contribuent si précieusement à l'atteinte de ces objectifs.

RAY NAPPER

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's with great sadness, yet at the same time great pride that I want to speak to this assembly today about Ray Napper from Welland who was laid to rest in Welland this morning after being taken from his family, his friends and his community at the very early age of 63.

For 18 years, Ray Napper had run Napper's Boxing Club at great cost to himself both monetarily and in terms of the time commitment that he made to youngsters and what have now become generations of boxers, including Tom Glesby, Canadian national heavyweight champion.

Nobody was ever denied access to Napper's Boxing Club because they didn't have any money, because Ray would take care of any kid who wandered through those doors. In a gentle, avuncular style that one may not normally associate with the sport of boxing, Ray cultivated and nurtured young men and young women to become strong and capable athletes, to become good sportsmen and to become committed members of their community.

Ray, as we know, coached two Canadian national boxing teams at the Olympics, both in Spain and in Korea. He nurtured the careers of many young boxers. I want to express on behalf of this assembly, on behalf of the province, our sympathies to his family, to his friends. He will certainly be missed but he has left a great legacy.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I want to take this time as well, Speaker, for the first time in the Legislature to congratulate you on winning the Speaker's chair and your personal re-election in Simcoe East.

It gives me a great deal of pride and pleasure today to inform my colleagues on both sides of the House that Brantford was recently awarded and won the 1995 Communities in Bloom competition.

For those who haven't heard about Communities in Bloom, it's a national competition for communities of a certain size and population that really vie for bragging rights to have the most beautiful community and the community with the most community spirit.

We beat out, by the way, other communities in the 30,000 to 100,000 population category, including Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Saint-Léonard, Quebec; Brandon, Manitoba; and Lethbridge, Alberta. I think that's a significant achievement not only for Brantford but for the entire province of Ontario.

Certainly this accomplishment would not have been possible without the fine work of our mayor and city council. However, there's an example of a person in my community by the name of Margaret Howe who together with her brigade of volunteers seized the opportunity and went out and cleaned up parts of the city which otherwise would have gone unattended. It's that kind of initiative that really stands for the true meaning of community spirit in this province.

Congratulations also to the parks board of Brantford.

I can tell you that the people of Brantford have always known the wonderful community that we live in. We've taken some hard knocks economically in the past, but winning this competition comes as a vindication of the kind of spirit and drive that prevails in Brantford.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): With $20 billion worth of value added agricultural sales, the Liberal Party recognizes that agriculture is crucial to Ontario's economy. In fact, it is the second-largest industry in Ontario after the automotive industry. As a farmer and the Liberal Agriculture co-critic, I intend to be a strong voice for agriculture, to speak for the farmers who represent only 2% of the population, yet are responsible for such a huge contribution to our economic wellbeing.

When the NDP assault on agriculture reduced agricultural spending by 14% and reduced agriculture's share of the provincial budget by 25%, the Tory revolution document promised, and I will read this directly, "Under a Mike Harris government, agriculture will regain its fair share of government support." It's right in here for everyone to see.

Just over a year ago, Mr Premier, you stood in this House, and I would like to remind you of your words. You said, "In the Common Sense Revolution, we call for no cuts to agriculture: not a single nickel." You reiterated that promise over and over during the campaign.

This is a betrayal, Premier and Minister of Agriculture, a betrayal and a breach of trust. You may have a majority in this House, but as long as I am here I won't let you forget your broken promises.

NORTHERN HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today, I would like to direct my statement to the Minister of Transportation. Recently, I heard the Ministry of Transportation plans to cut the use of snowplows and sanders in the north. This is an essential service. Northern highways during the winter months need to be clear and safe.

The plans, I understand, are to reduce plowing by a quarter and sanding by 30%. Highway 11 will remain a priority, but Highway 655 linking Driftwood to Timmins and Highway 634 connecting Smooth Rock Falls to Fraserdale will be cleared only after the Trans-Canada route has been cleared. Route 631 between Hornepayne and Highway 11 would also be affected.

With these reductions, we'd be looking at a disastrous scenario in the north. The clearance of Highways 655, 631 and 634 is a priority. Even in the north, life must go on.

Lives will be placed on the line, including young lives. Babies are not delivered in Smooth Rock Falls; they are delivered in Timmins. If the roads are not cleared and the planes cannot fly, pregnant women would be in a predicament indeed.

We already have two or three deaths a year on the road in northern Ontario due to hazardous driving conditions. No doubt more lives will be at risk. There needs to be a more reasoned approach to trimming government spending. Cutting the budget and risking lives is not an approach that would be taken by a responsible government.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I wish to draw the attention of the House to the previous government's labour legislation, Bill 40.

Already, small business owners from Lanark-Renfrew are writing to me requesting that I, as a government member, stay the course and help repeal this divisive, job-destroying bill. During the election, many business people in my riding spoke out against the former government's bill. Now the people of Lanark-Renfrew want to ensure that their newly elected government does as it promised.

Furthermore, I wish to reassure my constituents that we are going to restore balance to Ontario's labour laws. We are going to do what is right for the hardworking people of Lanark-Renfrew. We are going to repeal Bill 40.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): This summer, Mike Harris and the Conservative government began to dismantle many things. There's one thing they've been extremely successful at dismantling, and that's their own credibility.

Remember Mike Harris's promise to protect health care spending? Gone. The Conservatives have chopped $132 million from the health budget and the government is said to be looking at another $2 billion in health cuts and 32 hospital closures across the province.

Remember the Premier's promise to spare seniors and disabled from his knife? Gone. The Conservatives have targeted seniors and the disabled for massive cuts. Wheel-Trans has already been chopped, and the cabinet is now considering gutting the seniors' prescription drug program.

Do you remember Mike Harris's promise to protect funding to law enforcement and justice budgets? Gone. The Conservatives have already cut $14 million from the budgets of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General; this while Conservative cuts to municipalities promise to eat into the budgets of police forces right across this province.

Do you remember that government's promise to find work for people on welfare? Gone. The Conservatives have no jobs for those on welfare and no plans to give them a hand up, just advice on how to buy tuna.

Gone with these and many other Conservative promises is the credibility Mike Harris promised when he said, "If I fail to deliver on my commitments as Premier, I'll resign." Shame on you. Shame on the government.

DREDGING OF LAKE ONTARIO

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I wish to bring to the attention of members of this House a proposal by a company named Bedrock Resources. This proposal is to dredge sand from the bottom of Lake Ontario. The proposed area for dredging is located due south of my constituency of Beaches-Woodbine.

Our community's major concerns, in addition to the complete lack of public input thus far on the proposal, are, firstly, the possible contamination of our drinking water and that the supply for all of Metro Toronto is at risk. The dredging is very close to the intake pipe for the R.H. Harris water filtration plant, which of course supplies all of Metro Toronto.

Secondly, the 54 million tons of lake bottom that we're talking about that would be dredged is possibly playing a very important role in the management of toxins in the lake bottom, and the resuspension of toxins is definitely a threat to our environment and to our public health.

Third, the threat of erosion, to the beach shoreline certainly but also to the very sensitive land structures of the Scarborough Bluffs, is an issue for consideration.

The heavy

schedule of dredging, the noise, the visual pollution and the water safety are all issues that need to be examined, and of course the potential impact on the community's recreational amenities, fish habitats and waterfront regeneration projects.

The Minister of Natural Resources has received a letter from me detailing all of these concerns and I request him to respond as soon as possible. This project is not appropriate to an area where so many people, as well as the environment, will be negatively affected by its implementation.

Public awareness has heightened. The city of Toronto and Metro have both rejected this proposal, and I urge the minister to stop it now.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Yesterday, I had the pleasure of sponsoring and speaking at the Community Health Fair on the front lawns of the Legislature. It was sponsored by the Association of Ontario Health Centres and launched the second annual Community Health Week.

This year's theme is entitled Taking Back Our Health. In other words, in the words of the executive director of the association: "Meaningful health reform can only be achieved through the active involvement of individuals, families and communities. [This] is an urgent call for community responsibility, action and self-reliance in the matter of life and health."

Over 50 agencies, including community health centres, presented information about the important factors that affect our health.

Community health centres are the kind of innovative organizations that this government wants to encourage. Community health centres have strong community involvement, high volunteer participation and foster partnership with other non-profit and charitable groups from outside government.

Many of the community health centres have also been leaders in making maximum use of their limited resources, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their outstanding contributions to our community.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation from Serra San Bruno, Calabria, Italy, headed by His Worship Mayor Mr Nazzareno Salerno. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing the following members as commissioners to the Board of Internal Economy:

The Speaker, who shall be chair;

The Honourable David J. Johnson, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council;

The Honourable Robert Runciman, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council;

The Honourable Noble A. Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council;

Isabel Bassett, MPP, appointed by the caucus of the government;

Elinor Caplan, MPP, appointed by the caucus of the official opposition;

David Cooke, MPP, appointed by the caucus of the New Democratic Party of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOB CREATION MEASURES

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): A priority of this government is to restore Ontario to its former position as a place of opportunity and growth. We are very mindful of the need to increase the opportunity for employment in Ontario.

My background has taught me that government does not create jobs. But there is a great deal government can do to encourage job creation: by removing barriers to economic growth; by helping to shape the environment in which businesses and jobs flourish; by improving the ability for us to compete more effectively in an extremely competitive global marketplace.

Today my colleagues and I will be announcing some of the measures we are taking to facilitate job creation. My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will introduce amendments to the Corporations Information Act that will revoke the annual $50 filing fee which, I might add, will reduce red tape, and this is clearly a barrier to business and job growth.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): A major barrier. Major barrier.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It is.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Saunderson: My colleague the Minister of Environment and Energy will announce measures to freeze for five years the average rate charged for electricity by Ontario Hydro.

Finally, my colleague the Minister of Transportation will announce new legislation under the Ontario railways act to encourage investors to establish and to operate shortline railways in Ontario.

Combined, these initiatives further demonstrate our commitment to further expand employment opportunities in our province and put our economy back on a course to full recovery.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Later today I will be introducing for first reading amendments to the Corporations Information Act. As one of the first orders of business of our government, I am delighted to inform members of the House that we are acting on our election commitment that the annual $50 filing fee imposed on Ontario corporations will be eliminated. This will be retroactive to July 1, 1995, five days after we took office.

We have also suspended the current annual return filing cycle, which runs from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. Beginning on January 1, 1997, corporations will file basic corporate information with the Ministry of Finance along with their corporate tax filing.

The Finance ministry will then transmit the corporate public record information back to the companies branch in my ministry.

This is great news for many corporations. It means filing with just one ministry, not two. It also means fewer administrative costs, less paperwork and even less dealings with the government. It's good for Ontario, good for job creation and especially good for small business.

Of the approximately 400,000 corporations registered on the public record, 300,000 will give us corporate information through their corporate tax return. The other 100,000, which don't file a corporate tax return, will file a corporate annual return with the Ministry of Finance but without a fee.

I'd like to add that as a result of this new integrated data collection program, this province will have the most streamlined reporting process of all Canadian jurisdictions and will be the only province in all of Canada without an annual filing fee.

We believe this is an important step towards simplifying the filing processes in Ontario. It's also an example of this government's commitment to streamline all its operations and procedures.

In

summary, for the great majority of companies in our province this amendment will mean a reporting process combining forms and filing and with no fee. I urge all members to support this bill, which cuts red tape and duplication, which I will introduce later today.

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): It gives me great pleasure to share with my colleagues in the Legislature today an important action this government has taken with respect to Ontario Hydro electricity rates.

For many years we have enjoyed relatively low-cost electricity. However, this changed in the late 1980s and the early 1990s as Ontario Hydro's financial situation worsened. As a matter of fact, between 1988 and 1993 electricity prices rose 36.3%. Simply put, Ontario Hydro's competitive edge had been allowed to slide.

Some large industrial consumers and municipal utilities threatened to buy electricity from other suppliers. Some businesses threatened to move out of the province. Residential consumers were hit hard and no longer believed they were getting top value for their dollar.

This government understands the need for stable energy prices. Today, through the Ministry of Environment and Energy, we are taking another step towards ending the era of spiralling expenses.

In the Common Sense Revolution we promised a five-year freeze on the rates Ontario Hydro charges its customers. Today we are making good on that commitment. Last Wednesday, as announced in the throne speech, I advised Ontario Hydro chair Maurice Strong of the government's decision. We are holding Ontario Hydro accountable for ensuring no increases in its average rate between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000.

With this announcement our message is clear: Ontario is open for business; Ontario is offering unprecedented stability. To employers and industry, to families struggling to balance the household books and to young adults juggling bills as they strike out on their own, the message is clear: We are listening.

Taking inflation into account, we anticipate an average 15% reduction in the price Ontario Hydro customers will pay for electricity. This is good news for the municipal utilities, for large industries and for the rural customers who buy electricity directly from Ontario Hydro.

We are counting on our partners in the municipal electrical system to support our efforts by holding down their costs and rates. In doing so, they will pass on the benefits of the rate freeze to their residential customers.

We recognize that Ontario Hydro already has cut costs to become more competitive, and we fully expect the utility to continue to look for new ways to further reduce its average rate during the five-year period.

We also appreciate the need to ensure that Ontario Hydro can maintain its financial soundness and meet its debt obligations. To this end, Ontario Hydro will retain the flexibility to adjust to changed market conditions or unforeseen circumstances.

Stable electricity rates are essential to creating a thriving business climate in this province, and they are essential to Ontarians who need and deserve a solid foundation on which to build for the future. This five-year freeze will help restore Ontario's competitive edge and put Ontario in great shape to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I rise today to introduce legislation that will remove one of the major roadblocks to the creation of shortline railways in Ontario. This legislation will make it easier to start a shortline rail service in Ontario. It will free up the private sector to create jobs.

Short lines give us a way to keep freight moving by rail. With their small, flexible workforces and low operating costs they can tailor their service to shippers' needs. Above all, they are the way the rail industry is moving in the 1990s.

Ontario's railway laws were last updated in 1950. The world some 45 years later is a much different place. Today shortline operators face a maze of rules and regulations. Ontario's current laws make it time-consuming, expensive and risky to set up a short line.

Investors are interested in doing business in Ontario. They believe they can run these short lines at a profit, and so do we. We will help them by removing barriers to business. This will allow them to do what they do best: create jobs. Together with the measures announced by my colleagues this legislation will help make Ontario's economy stronger.

JOB CREATION MEASURES

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I was disappointed in the minister's initial statement. I was quite pleased when I heard he was going to be making a statement. I thought maybe he would address some of the shortcomings of the speech from the throne. When you consider that trade constitutes one third of the total economy of Ontario and there wasn't even a mention of it in the throne speech, I was anticipating that maybe I would have heard something about that today.

Instead the minister made a statement in which he said his colleagues and he would be announcing measures. I kept looking. I looked on both sides. There are no measures that he announced. He was acting as a master of ceremonies for his other colleagues, and I would hope that in the future, when he's going to stand in this House, he will have a more meaningful role rather than announce what his other ministers are going to say.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: We acknowledge with interest and pleasure that you have taken an important step in simplifying the filing fee and reducing the cost of $50. It's only a surprise to me that you didn't announce that you were going to have a 1-800 number -- 1-800-NOFEE -- but in any event I suspect corporations will find this in due course. I would hope that the minister will continue on this course to practise the 3Rs with regulations, that is, to review, reduce and rescind.

JOB CREATION MEASURES

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'm glad that the shortline railway announcement was made, but the thing I have trouble digesting is that this has been in the guise of job creation. I wonder what the net job creation is when you take into account that this minister has taken away 18,000 jobs from subway construction in Metro, has gutted GO expansion -- you can't even get in and out of Union Station -- and then the disabled transit across this province is being gutted. How many jobs were lost there, and what do you net out with this minor announcement here?

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Concerning the announcement today about a five-year freeze on Hydro rates, I'm sure the people of Ontario will be pleased to know that the new government has issued an instruction to carry forward the recent pattern of freezes on Hydro rates. I must say that Hydro rates are something that touch all of us in the Ontario community and in the Ontario economy. I repeat, I'm sure there is widespread approval across the province today for the commitment to maintain a zero increase through to the end of this decade and into the year 2000.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): However --

Mr Conway: However, I do note -- and let me read from the statement -- that the government appreciates "the need to ensure that Ontario Hydro can maintain its financial soundness and meet debt obligations. To this end, Ontario Hydro will retain the flexibility to adjust to changed market conditions or unforeseen circumstances that may arise." That is the parachute clause that we should all note.

I think it also has to be observed that while the public, and certainly business, will be very pleased to see this five-year freeze, there is also an expectation that the government and the crown corporation are going to maintain a utility that is reliable in terms of its service.

There is clearly a very deep-seated concern at the Atomic Energy Control Board, the federal regulator, about the safety performance of certain of Ontario Hydro's installations in this province. Honourable members will know that in recent weeks there have been reports from the AECB which raise very serious and legitimate concerns about the safety performance of some of our nuclear reactors. The question is being raised, not just by the federal regulator but by others in the province and country, as to what is being sacrificed in terms of safety at Ontario Hydro in these deliberations.

So let me say that we are pleased to see measures taken to moderate rates but we expect that the government and the utility will ensure that there is a reliability of service and, most especially, that the safety of Hydro workers and Ontario citizens will be in no way jeopardized as we move forward to control costs.

JOB CREATION MEASURES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise to begin our response to the statements by the ministers across. I have to say that we know the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism comes to this place with a fairly good business reputation. So I think it's startling, to say the least, that he begins a statement around job creation and does not reiterate this government's commitment to the 725,000 jobs. I think it is therefore a very telling conclusion that we can come to, that this government has abandoned that commitment.

I think that time will confirm that in fact they have done just that because, again, what a terrific opportunity for them to reiterate that commitment in what purports to be a major statement on job creation.

We don't believe that the attitude that this government is taking, of simply abandoning the field, of simply getting out of the way, is going to create the kinds of jobs that we need in this province. We believe that what you need is a partnership between government, business and labour working together, as we did, to create jobs.

That is what I think this government will find as they develop their ultra laissez-faire approach, that they will not create the jobs and people will be hurt because of the mean-spirited approach that they are taking of removing, one after the other, protections that are there for workers, structures that have been built up through the labour legislation of this province, through the health and safety protections of this province, to create a balance in the work environment that says that government does play a role in working together with business in creating a healthy climate.

That is the way you create jobs in this province, that is what's missing from this government and that is what will come back to haunt them, when the jobs they have committed themselves to and that they are now reneging on today will come back to haunt them.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Job creation. Yeah, sure. That's about as believable as the proposition that the O.J. jury wasn't in a hurry to get home. This has nothing to do with job creation. This has a whole lot to do with piecing off the corporate world, piecing off the Tories' good buddies on Bay Street. They don't know who small business is. Down in Welland-Thorold small businesses aren't incorporated; they're mom-and-pop operations.

These guys have the audacity to impose user fees on the sick, to cut the welfare rates of the poor and their children, to impose user fees on every other sector of the taxpaying society, to ignore the unemployed, and then they give this little giveaway to their corporate buddies and they don't expect the corporate world to accept some of the financial responsibility for maintaining a registry system that, in large part, is consumer protection in device and orientation. That's an abandonment of consumers and that's a piece-off to the corporate world. Shame.

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): To the Minister of Environment and Energy, I, on behalf of our caucus, would also like to say that we're very happy to hear that you are following through with the NDP's commitment to freeze rates. That was not in your statement; you cut it off somewhere way back there.

I do want to point out to people -- I have two documents here. One is the famous Common Sense Revolution and the other is the throne speech, and also your document of today.

If you will look in the Common Sense Revolution, you will see that it says, "A five-year freeze will be placed on Hydro rates." In your statement today and in the throne speech, it says a "commitment to freeze the average rates charged by Ontario Hydro." I would ask the minister exactly what this means. I think it means that there's going to be a freeze on rates for some people and not for others.

There are also implications of privatization that she did not get into today. We'd be very interested to hear from her on what she's talking about.

JOB CREATION MEASURES

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): In response to the statement by the Minister of Transportation, this is a precursor of what's about to happen. The people opposite have made the decision to gut labour legislation. The result will be that workers will be left twisting in the wind. They'll be put on the human junk pile.

And yes, there are alternatives. Invite people vis-à-vis shortline establishment to negotiate, to compromise, to establish an equilibrium -- not, with respect, your extreme position, which indeed will come back to haunt you big-time in the not too distant future. Those people who are being discarded are the producers of wealth -- they're referred to as the middle class, who pay for all this -- and you're about to turn your back on them and to toss them away. Shame on you, Minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, over the last few days you and the Minister of Health have been talking about the challenge that you face in protecting what you have called your $17.4-billion commitment to health care. You said it would be, and I quote, "a tremendous challenge to maintain health care funding at $17.4 billion." You said, however, that your party was committed to the $17.4-billion envelope for health care.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance tabled the 1994-95 public accounts. They show that health care spending last year actually totalled $17.8 billion. Premier, if the Ministry of Health's budget was $17.848 billion, why are you talking about a $17.4-billion budget, unless you are intending to cut health care by over $400 million? Will you confirm whether you are indeed intending to reduce health care funding by $484 million?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the figure of 17.4 is the one we have used, the commitment we made to the people of Ontario. If you want to get into specifics, I'll refer that to the Minister of Health.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Obviously the Premier has the opportunity to refer, but he doesn't have the opportunity to answer and then refer. I just ask you to enforce the rules.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member asks a very good question --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- and if I could hear myself think, perhaps I could answer the question for the leader of the official opposition.

I'd refer the leader of the official opposition to the 1994-95 estimates of the Ministry of Health, in which it very clearly says that the health care budget is $17,395,992,407. At the time we wrote the Common Sense Revolution, we sealed the health care budget at slightly above that, at $17.4 billion.

That commitment remains in place, and I will be happy in supplementaries to explain the well over $300 million worth of overspending that the previous government got itself into since the estimates were drawn up and during the recent campaign --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- where they went around this province committing dollars --

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please. Supplementary?

Mrs McLeod: I keep doing my best, in these first questions, to give the Premier an opportunity to take responsibility for commitments he made to the people of this province, but since he has referred the question to the Minister of Health --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mrs McLeod: Since the Premier has referred this question to the Minister of Health, I say to the Minister of Health and to the Premier that the numbers are absolutely clear: $17.848 billion was the 1994-95 budget for health care spending, according to the Provincial Auditor. Those are real numbers for real funding that went to real health care services out in the communities.

There is no reason why there should be a difference between your commitment and what was actually spent on health care when you talk about freezing, sealing an envelope, because the May 1995 version of the Revolution came out after the previous government had presented its budget plan, and that budget plan clearly showed a budget of at least $17.7 billion for this year and for last year. That is consistent with the numbers that were tabled in yesterday's public accounts prior to the change to new accounting.

I believe that the taxpayers deserve a very straight answer from this government. You said that you would not cut health care. You knew that the health care budget was $17.7 billion or better. Do you not consider a $484-million reduction in health care funding to be a cut to health care services?

Hon Mr Wilson: At the time of the writing of the Common Sense Revolution, in May 1994, the health care budget was $17.4 billion. At that time, the former Treasurer indicated to this House that the health care budget was to be flat-lined, if not reduced by 1%. What the previous government did was run into several hundred million dollars worth of overspending that they did not intentionally spend; the fundamentals of the budget are fully preserved.

Overspending, for example, with respect to the long-term-care facilities, where they undercollected on the revenues -- they brought in $150 million worth of new user fees or copayments in the long-term-care facilities and did not collect that. Therefore, the government's estimates show they should have had that money. They didn't. It was overspent. There's $40 million worth of irresponsible overspending on the drug side, which, by the way, is being carried forward year after year after year. So this is not $40 million on drugs, which they carry forward year after year after year --

The Speaker: Could the minister wrap up his answer, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: I will continue the list, particularly with respect to physicians' services, where the government did not live with the budget it set out --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary?

Mrs McLeod: I look forward to reviewing the minister's answer in Hansard and determining just who it is he's claiming has made this irresponsible spending on drugs, who it is who determines it's irresponsible. I think as we begin to examine a little bit of the minister's answer, we may get some sense of where in fact they are going to make the cuts to health care service, because it is quite clear they are making cuts to health care service. A cut is a cut. You've said that you are using the $17.4-billion envelope for health care.

That means you are going to be cutting some $484 million from the current health care budget. Little by little over the last few days we've seen some of the reductions you're prepared to make to health care services, whether it is funding for birthing centres or home care or indeed the Ontario drug benefit plan.

Minister, I ask you today to come absolutely clean with the people of this province. Since you've acknowledged you're going to be cutting health care services, will you give us some details of where those health care services are going to be cut, what is going to be affected? Do you not feel the public has a right to know?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member asks a good question. Perhaps I could be clearer. All members are aware that currently this government is charged with collecting over $200 million in overspending, in overpayments to physicians of this province. We are budgeting our health care budget to live within the fiscal envelope that we promised the people of Ontario. We have overspending out there which those line items that the member refers to in the estimates show.

I hope the honourable member isn't saying that somehow I should forgive $225 million to physicians in overspending which is now being recovered under the NDP social contract legislation. I hope you're not saying that when nurses and front-line hospital workers and teachers and everyone else in the broader public sector paid their social contract contributions -- I hope you're not telling me today to forgive the physicians the $225 million that they owe to this government as part of the previous government's social contract legislation. That shows as an overspending on the books.

We're going to recover that and we're going to stick to the $17.4 billion we committed to with the people of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if we could get a budget from this government backed by estimates, we'd know what we could suggest about what this government is doing.

CLOSURE OF HALFWAY HOUSES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question follows from that and it is a question to the Solicitor General. Last week the Chairman of Management Board announced that the government had exceeded its savings targets and had in fact found excess savings. What he failed to mention on that particular day was any detail of what the savings would be and how they would affect the people of this province. Little by little, we are finding out where those savings are being achieved.

Today we have learned from Joan Winchell, who is the executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Peel, that the Solicitor General has sent notice that he is closing Ontario's 25 halfway houses. We understand that letters have been sent today to the agencies that operate these facilities to tell them that they will be closed in 90 days.

I ask the Solicitor General, will you confirm that this is the case, that you are closing all of the 25 halfway houses and that you are sending the residents back to jail?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I will confirm what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. We are informing the operators of the CRCs in this province that at the end of their contracts we will no longer be continuing with their services.

Mrs McLeod: I believe that this minister, as a minister of the crown, has a responsibility to do more than just follow the blindfolded direction of the revolution; he also has a responsibility to the people of this province. One of the responsibilities is to tell them what it is he is doing as Solicitor General and how his actions will affect their communities and the safety of their communities.

I don't know, Minister, when you were planning to come to this House and make an announcement that would tell the public that you were taking this action. Perhaps you would be prepared to tell us at least what the impact will be of closing these halfway houses, which provide the counselling and support that people need in order to make a successful transition to the community. How many more repeat offenders are we likely to see? What will the increased jail costs be as you send the residents back to jail? What will the increased cost to police budgets be? These are questions that you have a responsibility to answer, Minister, and the public has a right to answers today.

Hon Mr Runciman: Our public announcements were going to be made following consultation and notification of the affected agencies.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Runciman: That notification is taking place today, and there will be approximately a 90-day period in terms of the closures taking place. We're talking about approximately 400, at the most, offenders who are utilizing these facilities.

We're also announcing today an alternative in respect to how we're going to deal with low-risk offenders in the province with the initiation of an electronic monitoring system to be brought in very early in the new year.

Mrs McLeod: It is totally unacceptable that the minister gives notice to the agencies providing the service only after the media discover that he has already made that decision, and he still does not come to this Legislature and make that announcement so that the public is fully aware of what he is doing.

Minister, I also want to take you back to a commitment that was made, a commitment in the Revolution document that says, on page 8, "funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed."

As I understand a guarantee, or whatever the term used to mean, I think it would mean that there would be no cuts to law enforcement and to justice. You have just cut $11 million from law enforcement and justice, and that is another broken promise. We have just the cut. We have no alternative; we have no reinvestment. Are you going to claim today that the money is somehow going to be reinvested, even though the Minister of Finance is already using that money to reduce his deficit or will you acknowledge that this is another cut and another broken promise?

Hon Mr Runciman: I won't acknowledge that at all. In fact, this is a tougher way of dealing with offenders in society. We're going to be monitoring them on a 24-hour basis. We also are implementing a very tough and rigid risk assessment with respect to people who will be allowed out on electronic monitoring. We're only going to allow individuals who pose no risk to society; very strict criteria in respect to who can qualify for the use of electronic monitoring anklets.

I feel quite comfortable with the changes we're making. Our commitment has always been to public safety, unlike the Liberals, who have come new to this issue in the last couple of years.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): To the Solicitor General: In light of how comfortable the Solicitor General feels with this decision, I wonder if the Solicitor General can please tell us, after all his time in opposition when he would complain about statements being made outside the House and everywhere else, why isn't he in the House today making a statement with respect to this cut?

Hon Mr Runciman: I appreciate the leader of the third party's comments, although certainly it's not a policy his government followed and indeed we did complain on a consistent basis about the practice adopted by the ministers of the crown during his government, who virtually always failed to make announcements in this Legislature.

I can't address the leaks that got out in terms of people being informed, but I want to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- it was certainly the intention of this government and this ministry to ensure that all of the affected agencies and individuals and employees were informed prior to me making a statement in this House. That was always the intention of this government.

Mr Rae: The minister is in government now and he has to take responsibility for the fact that his government has cut $11 million, it would appear -- we don't have any facts and figures in front of us; we only know what we've also been told -- some $11 million from his budget, which is a complete break of the promise the government made with respect to law enforcement. I think we're entitled to at least ask the minister, can he tell us whether as a result of this measure he anticipates that people who are now in halfway houses will be going back to jail?

Hon Mr Runciman: Yes, they will be going back to jail. The intent is that following the completion of the contracts, all the offenders will be reincarcerated. As I said, we have developed very strict criteria in respect to the types of individuals who can qualify for electronic monitoring. As well, they're going to be subjected to a very rigid risk assessment so we can ensure that any individuals who are allowed out into the communities on electronic monitoring as a replacement for CRCs will pose virtually no risk to society.

Mr Rae: The Solicitor General is not presenting us with any facts or with any information with respect to what's taking place. There's no review of the impacts; no review in terms of the impacts on public safety, people coming right out of prison right back on to the street without any effort at integration, any effort at education, any effort at giving people a chance to get a job, any effort at getting people back -- just keep them in jail and then put a prod on them and that'll be the answer to the problem.

I'd like to ask the Solicitor General, can he tell us today the comparative cost of keeping an individual incarcerated in prison compared to the cost of keeping them in a halfway house? Can you tell us that today?

Hon Mr Runciman: Our intent is not to keep them in jail, in terms of the individuals who qualify.

This system, in terms of electronic monitoring, has been in use in 50 states across the US. It's used by British Columbia, it's used by Nova Scotia, it's used by Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan, and we feel quite comfortable with the process.

We're talking about a pilot project. We're talking about, at the most, 400 offenders who are currently occupying the CRCs. We're not talking about a massive project here.

We believe this is going to be a tougher system in terms of 24-hour continuous monitoring of these individuals when they're in the community. We're adopting very strict criteria in terms of the individuals who will be allowed out so that they pose no risk to the community, and I feel very comfortable with it. I'm very comfortable with the fact that we're keeping our commitments in respect of public safety.

Mr Rae: The fact that the minister feels comfortable is something that gives many of us a great deal of concern.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I'd like to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services, when was the last time he bought tuna at 69 cents a tin?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I guess this is a lesson on economics.

I also apologize again. I still have a touch of laryngitis.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you for the sympathy.

To the leader of the third party, there are many places where you can buy tuna for 69 cents. In fact, even if it's not priced at 69 cents, quite often you can make a deal to get it for 69 cents.

Mr Rae: Since the minister is now on record as saying that he himself has gone and bought tuna for 69 cents a tin, I'm sure he'd like to tell everybody where that is.

I'd like to ask him by way of supplementary, in response to his answer, which I can honestly say I was not anticipating so I do not have a text for this, but I'd like to ask him, when was the last time he bartered for food?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: These are very interesting questions today and I thank the leader of the third party for them.

I think the whole object here is to look and see whether or not we're looking at the rate cuts. Obviously this is what the leader of the third party is getting at. We strongly believe that we have reduced the rates to 10% above the average in the other provinces. With all due respect, I think the leader of the third party is really asking whether or not it's possible to buy food on this type of a budget.

I would be happy to share with the leader of the third party perhaps not the entire text of this but certainly afterwards I can share this with you. I had some research done to indicate how and whether or not someone who is a sole single on benefits or a single parent with a child -- we've actually provided a budget here. Someone had asked me that before, whether or not someone can budget for this. I have it here in this binder. I'd be willing to share this with the leader of the third party.

Mr Rae: I'd love to have it. I'd love to have a copy and I'd like to share it with all the working parents of this province. I'd like to share it with the women and children who are out there now. I'd like to know what you and your ministry and the cabinet think is enough to live on. I think the people of this province would like to know what that is, and I'd like to hear from them, because I trust their judgement a whole lot more than I trust yours or the cabinet's on the basis of what it takes to live in this province. Their experience is much more eloquent than your data.

By way of final supplementary, the minister's aware that under the existing way of life for people on social assistance there are 100,000 people on social assistance who are now working in the STEP program.

I wonder if the minister can explain why those people who are now working -- not the ones that you've ordered to go out and get a job, not the ones that you've told should go out and get a job, the people who are now working -- why, for example, for a single person who's working, their rate has gone from $842.85 to $769.85 and why a single parent with one child who's working under the STEP program is going from $1,721.95 to $1,393.69. Why, even in the world of your own tellings, of your own truths, of your own pieties, would you be punishing who have already taken your advice and have gone out and gotten a job?

Why are you punishing those people as well? You're punishing everybody in the province.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, our government is committed to breaking the cycle of dependency and giving people the incentive to get back to work. With all due respect once again, our commitment was to make sure that people have the opportunity to earn back the difference between the old base rate and the new base rate. We're not taking about programs to enhance income, which obviously the leader of the third party is right now. So I don't have to explain this, because once again we strongly believe that by reducing the rates 10% above the average of the other provinces, not at the average of the other provinces but 10% above, certainly this is going to be sufficient.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Official opposition, new question.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, this is a can of tuna -- it is dented -- for $1.09. If you can tell me where you can get a dented can for 69 cents, please let me know because we'll buy it. Take a close look at it -- not 69 cents, $1.09 at every store where you can get it.

The Speaker: Was that your question?

Mr Agostino: No, it's not. Minister, in the throne speech, in the House yesterday, yourself, the Premier, stated that welfare recipients could earn back the amount of money you reduced without a penalty, a clawback or a reduction. Minister, this information is inaccurate; it is dead wrong; it is a myth.

In fact, this government by its policies is punishing people on welfare who want to work. You're penalizing people who you encourage to go out and get a job and then the clawback does not allow them to earn the amount of money that you've cut from them.

Minister, you know your statements are wrong. You do not understand the system. You do not understand your own ministry regulations. How can you make changes to the act without a common understanding of what you're doing? How can such punishing changes take place when the minister does not understand the social assistance system in Ontario?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Mr Agostino: I ask you to admit to the House today that the information in the throne speech that you gave, that the Premier gave, was wrong. Will you commit to changing the regulations for people with jobs to earn it back?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's difficult to pick a question out of all that rhetoric. But, once again, with a little bit of work the people in this province have the opportunity to earn back the difference between the old rate and the new rate. Once again, I have to say that what we have done is remove disincentives for people to get back to work. It's very important for people to get off this cycle of dependency, and this is what this is intended to do.

Mr Agostino: Again, the minister by that answer has shown us once again that he does not understand his own regulations, does not understand the comments he made yesterday. Minister, yesterday you said people can earn back the amount you cut without a penalty or a clawback clause.

The reality is, with a single person, a single parent with one child or a couple with two children, in every single case the clawback clause kicks in before the reduction so therefore they will be reduced the amount of money that they can earn before you take away from them. You allow people after the clawback to keep 25% of what they earn. Before that happens, the reduction is already greater than you have anticipated.

Minister, the information you gave is wrong. You're not addressing the question again. These misguided and uninformed decisions are causing the hardship, the pain and the chaos in Ontario today. What province do we live in? What irrational decisions is the government going to make today?

Again I ask you, Minister, can you clarify your statements of yesterday, where you stated that the clawback clause you have in your regulations to allow people to earn back what you have deducted from them -- because the facts do not bear that out. Change your regulations and make consistent what you and the Premier have said in the House.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Just say yes.

Interjection: Who's asking you the question?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, is this the second question?

I will say this to the honourable member for Hamilton East: We are prepared to ensure that there is the flexibility in the system to make sure that everybody can earn back the difference without clawback. This is an assurance I will give to the member.

Secondly, I just want to repeat the message one more --

Mrs Caplan: Repeat that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Would you like me to repeat that? Is that what you said? I will ensure that there is the flexibility there. We've had individual circumstances brought up prior to this date in the House. I've also asked that if these circumstances are brought to my attention, we will deal with them. I will give this House the assurance that everybody will be able to earn back, without clawback, the difference between the old rate and the new rate.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. We are continuing to hear reports from various sources in the media and from within his own ministry and elsewhere that there are very substantial cuts coming in transfers to hospitals. Can I ask the minister very simply and very directly, is he actively considering cuts in transfers to hospitals?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member asks a good question. I think we've made it very clear throughout the campaign and prior to the campaign, and consistently since that time, that we are looking at all efficiencies, at all duplications, at all waste in the system, at every program. For the last 13 weeks I've been going through, line by line, the health care budget to try to find efficiencies.

No one in the six years that I've been involved in health care at the political level has ever said to me that $17.4 billion isn't enough to spend on health care. It certainly is, and we compare among the highest in the world in our per capita spending.

But we made it very clear in sealing the health care budget at $17.4 billion that the status quo was not an option and that we would look for efficiencies, we would look at better ways of managing the system and we would look at ending duplication, waste and fraud, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Laughren: I think the minister knows that we're not talking about waste and inefficiency. We're not talking about that kind of magnitude.

If the minister is not considering cuts of up to 20% for transfers, I wonder if he could explain why, in a release dated September 20 from Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury, there had been a meeting of chief financial officers, according to this release, around the middle of September at which they were told by a very senior official in the Ministry of Health -- at the assistant deputy minister level, I understand -- that they were going to have very, very substantial cuts coming, up to 20% for 1996, starting next year -- and they have to be notified ahead of time, of course -- and 10% per year for a couple of years after that.

So what I'm asking the minister is not whether or not he's trying to get waste out of the system. Of course, we're all trying to get waste out of the system; that's a given. What I'm asking him is, is he actively considering reductions of up to 20% in transfers to hospitals next year, and if so, how he thinks they can deal with that?

Hon Mr Wilson: The member points out a situation in his own area -- Laurentian Hospital, Sudbury. Sudbury is a very good example of the restructuring that's being done by that local community, and I think the purpose of that restructuring is to save some dollars in the hospital system.

Where hospital administrators in Laurentian would get the idea of a magnitude of cuts that the member suggests -- I have no idea where that would come from, and it certainly would not come from an assistant deputy minister or someone of the senior management team in my ministry.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Mr Speaker, on behalf of all the residents high atop Hamilton Mountain I would like to extend our congratulations and best wishes to you upon your selection as Speaker for this 36th Parliament of Ontario, and likewise to all of my colleagues here in the House.

My question is for the honourable Minister of Transportation regarding the Red Hill Creek Expressway. There exists some confusion and misunderstanding in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth with respect to funding for the Red Hill Creek Expressway, and I'm wondering if the honourable minister would, once and for all, please clarify the government's position and intent regarding funding for this project.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to respond to our colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain. I am very much aware of his efforts, and the rest of our colleagues' from the area, about Red Hill Creek and I would like to definitely clarify once and for all how important this project is to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. This government is committed to complete it.

I would like to say that within two weeks of being appointed minister I met with the people of Hamilton-Wentworth to reaffirm the commitment that our Premier made prior to the election. This government has already kept many of its promises. We have taken on the responsibility of balancing the budget and completing this particular project. We will do both.

Mr Pettit: In the face of fiscal restraint, will the minister assure the people of Hamilton Mountain that he will give the Red Hill Creek Expressway his highest priority?

Hon Mr Palladini: Liberal and New Democratic governments left this province in a very deep spending crisis. This crisis had to be addressed immediately, so therefore we had to defer funding from 443 municipalities, including Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Is the money there, Al?

Hon Mr Palladini: I'm very happy to say --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Don't send him home with that answer.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Palladini: All municipalities, I would like to assure, that whatever funds were deferred this year, they will be brought back next year. We will complete Red Hill Creek Expressway.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Housing. This is very simple: Yes or no, will you be abolishing rent control?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member across, yes, eventually we will be eliminating rent control. But we are not going to affect rent control until such time as we have a tenants' protection act in place, something that provides protection to tenants. The present system is not working, I think everybody recognizes that it's not working and we intend to fix it.

Mr Curling: Mr Minister, having cancelled over 390 non-profit housing projects that would have brought on line some affordable housing and accommodation, and you're of course aware of the vacancy rate that now exists at a very, very low rate -- the CMHC has put that out -- our homeless population, as you know, is growing, and the preliminary response to this crisis by your government is to respond with a cutback on social assistance payments by over 21.6% across the board, which combined actually the increased rent of about 2.9% with the rent review process.

What we have seen is that all those questions of hope have now gone to despair in the struggle to achieve a decent, respectable standard of living. Mr Minister, I would ask that during this time of sharing, you might offer some advice to these people as to what they might do in order to salvage some dignity and respect in attempting to house themselves and their families in Thanksgiving time.

Hon Mr Leach: I quite frankly am a strong believer in the co-op housing program. I just don't think that it should be carried out on the backs of the hardworking taxpayers of Ontario. We have been encouraging all of the sponsors that were involved in the co-op housing program to go out and be able to get the bricks and mortar up and we'll provide the subsidies to the people of Ontario who need the help.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. During the election, the now Minister of Health said that he believed in a "seamless continuum of health care." Now, as a result of that statement, many women in my riding and across the province are very angry and very disappointed about the recent announcement to cut funding for the four birthing centres across Ontario. People feel betrayed.

We all know that at a time when we are reforming the system it is extremely important that we continue to move into -- and I believe the minister has referred to that -- providing community care. Don't tell me that it is not economic at this time. We know -- the statistics are there that show us -- that it saves money down the road, plus it gives women the choice they should have.

It's bad economics and it's bad health policy and it is sadly consistent with the actions of this government in terms of disproportionately hurting women and children in this province.

I ask the minister who is responsible for women's issues, and I know she cares, what she is saying around the cabinet table and what she is going to do about this very bad decision.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with responsibility for Women's Issues): I don't want to disappoint my colleagues in the House in response to that question, but the Minister of Health and I have both conferred and it is his portfolio, so he will answer the question.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question is referred to the Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The question of birthing centres, I think, is properly put in the context of our wanting to ensure that there isn't duplication in the system. To build a birthing centre, particularly one of those birthing centres, down the street, or, as the project suggested, on the very property where a hospital is to be vacated -- I refer to Sudbury -- seems to me to be a complete waste of taxpayers' dollars.

I said to that particular group prior to the election being called that there is no way, if we form the government, that I'm going to build bricks and mortar on the same site of an existing building that the taxpayers have already paid for. So I hope the honourable member will give this government credit for being consistent and for wanting to very much ensure that we don't have duplication of services when we have very scarce dollars to spend.

Ms Churley: Of course, I'm disappointed that the minister responsible for women's issues was not able to respond, because I do believe that she at least secretly has a different perspective on this.

I say to the minister that hospitals are most likely going to be restructured. I'd like to know if he is committing here today to free up space in those buildings to create free-standing birthing centres or not. What kind of restructuring is he looking at? But my other question here, which was to be directed at the minister responsible for women's issues, is, in general, what is happening? I wanted to hear her, and now I will ask you, Minister of Health, what you are doing as Minister of Health, along with the minister responsible for women's issues, about some of the cuts.

What are you saying at the cabinet table to help protect the women and children in this province, who are disproportionately being hurt by these cuts? Children are losing welfare. They're going to go hungry. Some of them are going to be on the street. You're hurting kids who need day care.

The Speaker: Would the member wrap up her question, please.

Ms Churley: You're hurting kids who need special help. You're hurting kids and their families. I would like to know what the Minister of Health and what the minister responsible for women's issues are saying at that cabinet table to the Premier --

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Minister.

Ms Churley: -- and the minister responsible for children in this province to make sure --

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: My colleague the minister responsible for women's issues, I can assure you, confers with me often about these issues.

With respect to birthing centres, the member should know, because it's some of the good work that her government did do when it was in office, we now have 28 hospitals that are providing less invasive, more woman-centred, less medical-modelled, birthing-centre-type services within the bricks and mortar of a building that the people of Ontario have already paid for. That is and will continue to be a priority.

As you know, upon our coming to office we've continued the midwifery program. We will have more midwives coming on stream, and I look forward to integrating and continuing to integrate those midwives and those services as part of a fully integrated, multidisciplinary team. The women of Ontario will be able to receive these services increasingly --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- as the restructuring studies consider the need for birthing centres, but within buildings that we've already paid for.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I too, on behalf of the people of Frontenac-Addington, wish to congratulate you and wish you the very best.

My question today is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Recently, the city of Kingston asked the minister to appoint a commissioner to review local government in the greater Kingston area. The minister has stated that he would like the city to meet with representatives of the other municipalities in the area to explore the issues and offer, if possible, some local direction to a solution.

My question is, why does the Minister of Municipal Affairs believe that a local solution to local municipal government problems in the greater Kingston area has a chance to succeed?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Thank you very much to the member for that question. I know that he's been very involved and very interested in that subject. This government intends to give more autonomy to municipalities throughout the province of Ontario. With that, of course, they must accept responsibility. I'm sure that the elected individuals in the communities involved have been elected by the taxpayers in their communities to make decisions, and I'm sure that they're more than capable of getting together and coming up with a solution that will be acceptable to all concerned.

Mr Vankoughnet: I appreciate that answer. I would also like to ask the minister if he would in every way possible encourage all the local stakeholders to give every consideration to all possible aspects of local government reform in Frontenac county and Lennox and Addington county, as well as the city of Kingston and the three other municipalities that are directly involved.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I can give that assurance to the member. I can also advise the member that the first meeting of all the heads of the communities will take place later this week.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, you've been in your position now for just over three and a half months, and I'm sure you've had a chance to develop a set of priorities that relate to improving the quality of education across this province. Would you share those with us today, please?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member probably knows, this government came to office having made a commitment to the people of the province of Ontario to improve and enhance the quality of education in the province because it's so important to the future of the province and important to our students. We also promised the parents and the taxpayers of this province that we would do it with a better value than they have received to date, and that, sir, is the commitment of this government.

Mr Patten: I was hoping to hear from the minister that indeed he had some priorities. It seems to me that all we've heard is by way of the throne speech, cuts and limitations, the cutting of hearings, for example, that is going to hamper the wisdom of the people of Ontario for your consideration down the line. Let me ask again: Mr Minister, if indeed you have no priorities, what might be your legislative agenda?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We will be bringing forward legislation later this year to deal with such things that are so important to the people of the province of Ontario as testing and quality in education in the province. We look forward to bringing that forward some time during this session.

I also might point out that we have asked the public of Ontario to respond to some of the reports that have come out. We've had an 800 number and a written-in response, and the public has been responding to those questions.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Natural Resources. First of all, congratulations on your re-election and your appointment to cabinet.

Recently, I had heard that the Minister of Natural Resources plans to cut another $35 million from the ministry's budget, cutting 200 jobs and putting the natural resources of northern Ontario at risk, with the possible closing of nurseries and offices in small communities and reducing fire crews. As you are aware, fire has raged throughout northern Ontario and put our natural resources in a very disastrous position. Can the minister tell me what the plans are for further cuts in funding to the ministry, which has already been streamlined and is now a mean, lean organization?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank my honourable friend in the third party. We spent five weeks together last year, and it was an enjoyable time, working on behalf of conservation issues.

In answer to his question, it's true that we have met our targets that were given, $30 million in operating, $5 million in capital. As he's well aware, there are a number of issues at play here. To make the ministry meet its objectives, we had to prioritize what we were doing, make sure that we focused in on the core of our business, and I'm proud to say that in the next couple of weeks we'll be unrolling to the public and to this chamber the specifics of those reductions.

Mr Len Wood: The Ontario Forest Research Institute in Sault Ste Marie has developed a number of products that can be sold to other forestry jurisdictions, and sales from this source could be used to have extra revenue for the Ministry of Natural Resources. Would it not make a lot more sense to develop this and market this than to continue to further reduce jobs and put communities in northern Ontario at risk?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll take that under consideration. I'm aware of the importance of that to the ministry and to northern Ontario. Everything's under review right now and we'll be getting back to you in the next couple of weeks. Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Mr Speaker, first I'd like to congratulate you also on your election to being Speaker, and thank you for last night. I appreciate that.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the last session, we had a disastrous bill called Bill 163 brought in by the former government. I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will he be bringing in amendments to that bill this session?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can inform the member, yes, we will be bringing in amendments. In fact, we're going to take a surgeon's knife to Bill 163 and try and bring back some reality to that act.

Mr Murdoch: Will some of these amendments be giving back to our municipalities the local control which that government took away from us? I want to be sure of that, that our local municipalities will get back the control they used to have before the NDP took it away from them.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I can advise the member not only that we will be giving the municipalities back the autonomy they had, but that we will be increasing the autonomy that the municipalities in this province have.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, your plan to amalgamate school boards throughout the northwest without a consultation process is not flying. You yourself will know that the Conservative Minister of Education from 1972 to 1978, the Honourable Thomas Wells, recently undertook an amalgamation study for the Windsor-Essex area and found that there were no cost savings. I refer the minister to Mr Wells's fact-finding report of August 1993.

Minister, let me tell you what I'm hearing in the north. Amalgamation will jeopardize education programs and courses that are distinct and unique to specific areas. Amalgamation will create unmanageable travel distances for staff and parents, and will strain the commitment of trustees by creating unmanageable geographic areas for trustees to represent. Amalgamation will create perceived job placement inequities within boards.

Minister, please explain to the northerners what you have done to take their concerns, such as these, into consideration.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): In answer to the honourable member's question, as the honourable member may know, the school board amalgamation or reduction task force that has been at work for some time since it was put together by the previous government has recently released an interim report. Its final report is due in December, and the public is invited to make submissions to that task force, either written submissions or oral submissions, which they have done in some number.

Mr Miclash: Minister, I've outlined a number of northern concerns, and obviously, judging by your answer, you haven't even heard of these concerns before.

Interjections.

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

Mr Miclash: The fact is, Minister, we have had no public consultation on this issue, and the consultation process that was planned has since been cut by your government. What you replaced it with is yet another 1-800 number. I don't believe it.

Minister, northerners need proof that this is a move which will put money into the classroom by cutting administrative costs. Marion Helash, the chair of the Kenora Board of Education, in a recent letter to you, states: "The prime consideration for any school board should be the quality of education that is offered to its students. Nowhere in the report of the Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force has it been proven that by amalgamating boards students will receive a higher-quality education than is already being provided."

The Wells report, again, clearly stated that amalgamation will not save money or improve the quality of education. Minister, I challenge you to show the people of the northwest studies that actually prove school board amalgamation to be an improvement to education. Where's your proof?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The honourable member should know that we have had a great deal of public input since the interim report was released. I'm told that 80% of the response that we've had from the people of Ontario has been from the people, the taxpayers and parents who are concerned about school boards here in the province, and not from the interest groups that have taken over those public hearings sometimes in the past.

I'm pleased that the public is responding and I'm sure that Mr Sweeney's report will include interests of the north.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for WCB reform. Just last week the minister was assigned a new job by his supervisor, the Minister of Labour. In a news release, she said the minister had been asked to recommend an implementation plan for a 5% reduction in employer assessments, as promised in the Common Sense Revolution.

Now the original plan was for the Minister of Labour to ask the board to do it and then she would take the credit, but the board balked at this because it does take very seriously its legislated responsibilities under the act and it was in a jam. So they threw the thing over to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for WCB reform and asked him to come up with an implementation plan.

My question to the minister is, will you commit today that you will not cut the benefits of the working women and men who are disabled in the workplace in Ontario to pay for your give-back?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio, with responsibility for Workers' Compensation Board): I'd like to thank the member opposite for his question. I don't want to participate in any speculation about what happened with the board's decision; I merely want to share with the member and the members of this House what is actually happening.

It's quite clear that the Common Sense Revolution and this government have indicated to employers that we are very concerned about getting premium costs reduced and we're also very concerned about ensuring that the reforms in the workers' compensation area are done responsibly and they're done correctly and they're done to tackle the large unfunded liability of some $11.4 billion.

I want to assure the member opposite that these reforms will be undertaken with full consultation and we have been working closely with the existing board of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think the member will be pleased that we're taking an approach which is sensitive to workers' needs as well as those of employers in the province of Ontario.

But it would be irresponsible to simply isolate a reduction without looking also at a reduction of costs associated with the administration of the Workers' Compensation Board. This government is committed to proceeding in that fashion, sensitively but also quickly, with full consultation.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege: It seems to me that in this Legislature everyone should be treated equally whether they're in cabinet or out of cabinet. I'd like to know if you would look into the whole issue of the member for Burlington South, who's in cabinet, being the only member of cabinet who did not receive applause when he answered his first question.

HEALTH BUDGET

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): A serious point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services indicated that he was prepared to make available to the leader of the third party a proposed budget. I'd like to ask that he table that, so all of us may have equal access to the information and advice that he's providing.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The minister will take notice of that.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): In the east gallery there's the Honourable John Stopp, immediate past president of the Legislative Council of the state of Tasmania, and his wife, Mrs Ardi Stopp. Welcome.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Some days ago, I think it's six days ago, I raised with you my concern about the circumstances surrounding the governor's speech last Wednesday. You indicated at that time quite helpfully that you were going to inquire into the circumstances of opening day and report back. I'm very interested to know how you're coming in that matter, since I view it as one of some urgency.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I have asked for that report and I anticipate I will have it this week. I hope to be able to report this week.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I just would like all honourable members to join with me in wishing a happy birthday to the dean of the Legislature, my friend from Nickel Belt.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that Bert Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the whole House; that Gilles Morin, member for the electoral district of Carleton East, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House; and that Marilyn Churley, member for the electoral district of Riverdale, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the Committee of the whole House.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would the member like to speak to that?

Hon Mr Eves: I just have a few brief comments. I would like it to be known that although I guess it is the privilege, if you will, of each party to nominate presiding officers after the office of Speaker is filled by election, we are proposing and have proposed to the other two House leaders that the office of Deputy Speaker be rotated on an annual basis among the three parties so that everybody can gain the experience and the insight into serving as the Deputy Speaker of the House. That is our intent.

In past parliaments the practice here in the province of Ontario has generally been that when there is a majority government the Deputy Speaker also came from the government party; when there's been a minority government the Deputy Speaker traditionally has come from one of the opposition parties. However, in 1990, on the first occasion on which we elected the position of Speaker in this Legislature, the Deputy Speaker was the only other candidate who happened to run for Speaker in that election and he became the Deputy Speaker.

We think that it would be a good practice for the province of Ontario and for the Legislative Assembly to rotate the position of Deputy Speaker on an annual basis so that all presiding officers gain some insight into that very responsible position.

The Speaker: Further debate on that?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to congratulate each of the people who have been named in the motion today and indicate that our preference in the opposition would have been to follow what had happened last time, and that was, since we have elected a Speaker in the Legislative Assembly, that the Deputy Speaker be a person who had run for the position of Speaker. It would have been understandable had the member for Mississauga South been appointed, since she had run. I guess she had run second, because there was a second ballot with her name on it and yourself.

It is our belief, I'll put on record, that while the government House leader has found an innovative way of dealing with this matter, and I commend him for his innovation, it would have been our preference that the member for Carleton East, who ran for the office, would have been the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly throughout this session.

What we have now in effect is a government-appointed Speaker. You're neutral, naturally, now that you're in that chair. A man from the government bench is a Deputy Speaker for the first term and presumably for the last part of the term -- the first year and the last year if it were a five-year term -- I presume it's going to be a four-year term in this case because we've had a three-year term and a five-year term, so we're due for a four-year term.

The member for Carleton East has distinguished himself, has served in this capacity before. It would have been our anticipation that the best way to deal with this, in keeping with a harmonious House and what would seem to have been a tradition being established, once we went to the election of a Speaker, as we did last time, it would have been our preference for that to happen.

As I say, I make no personal references. I commend each of the people who have been appointed to these positions or who are named in this motion today. I simply wanted to indicate what I felt our understanding was.

I recall that when I was reading messages from various people who were contemplating running for the office, there was one particularly germane point in one of the letters that came out that suggested it would be -- I forget the exact terminology -- almost a certainty that the Deputy Speaker would be from the official opposition.

Now, I recognize that those running for the office do not have that opportunity to make that final decision. Nevertheless, I do believe there was that kind of understanding.

So I wanted to indicate that. I don't want to rain on the parade today by any means or to prolong debate all afternoon or anything of that nature, but I did want to indicate what our view is in this matter.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Very briefly, I also want to congratulate the individuals who have been appointed today and I want to indicate that we will be supporting the motion.

I think a couple of the points that have been raised by the House leader for the official opposition are fair points to make, although I do think the compromise that the government House leader has offered today will assure that there's not only representation as provided in the standing orders for the opposition parties but also rotation of the Deputy Speaker.

However, it's an area that perhaps the House leaders should actually look at, that

section of the rules, and if in fact there's an agreement at some point that the Deputy Speaker should always be from the opposition, we should so state in the rules in order to guarantee some consistency.

I don't think there's anything that the government House leader has said today that would prevent us from -- I assume we're going to be changing the rules very soon anyway, back to the way they were before we changed them, so we might as well add this into the mix.

I also think those of us who have been around here for a few years will remember that there was a Speaker from the opposition, Jack Stokes, from our caucus, and he was much harder on our caucus than he was on the government or the Liberal Party, and some might observe that in the last Parliament the Speaker who was toughest on the government was the individual who came from the government caucus and that Mr Morin was much fairer to the government in the last Parliament than was our own representative from our caucus. So I don't think there's any particular advantage in having people from any particular caucus.

I think there's fair representation, the compromise is fair, and that the rule itself is perhaps something that the House leaders should talk about. So we will be supporting the motion.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): If I could just add one other comment, I have no problem with the proposition put forward by the government House leader, but I do have a problem just from a practical point of view.

It would seem to me that if you're going to be rotating, surely you would have in your first rotation someone who has at least been in this House and has seen how the House operates, so that the second or third person, who has never been in the House, could at least observe the protocol, observe the process, so that in fact we could have a smooth operation of what is happening in this Legislature. It would just seem to me to be a practical solution to the problems.

What we have now -- and I have no problem with the individual; I don't even know the individual, I'm just talking about the concept -- is that we are in a situation where someone who has never been in this House is going to be the Deputy Speaker and will be asked to preside over a proceeding that he has never, ever participated in before. I just think from a practical point of view it would have made more sense to change the rotation so those people who have not had the experience could at least gain some experience by observing what happens in this House.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just want to make a quick point. Although the appointments -- and I want to congratulate those who have gotten those positions, but I just want to understand the statement by the House leader for the government. He said that it is a learning process every year that someone gets an opportunity to learn the process itself, and then he turned around and appointed Gilles Morin, who has been the Deputy Speaker, to learn the process when he comes around, because I presume that's what will be done.

I'm a bit confused that at one stage we had three people running for the position, and quickly the Premier appointed one of the members to chair of caucus so it took that one out of the race itself, and then turned around and gave the other position to the other party who was running, and then explaining to us that it is a rotation in all this to learn.

I just wondered what was the rationale in doing that, but in the meantime want to congratulate those who have gotten the jobs -- it is an extremely responsible role -- and hope that fairness will reign in this Parliament from thereafter, and not manipulating or, as we say, be a creative way in interpreting the laws of fairness around here.

The Speaker: You've all heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Carried.

PETITIONS

MOOSE TAGS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the hunters of northern Ontario care for and feed -- as well as prepare trails for -- and generally are charged with the responsibility for the overall wellbeing of the moose population during the off-season; and

"Whereas the hunters of northern Ontario are not recognized for this year-long effort;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass amending legislation to allow for a percentage of yearly moose tags to be allocated solely for those hunters residing in northern Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to it.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a large number of people in the Niagara Peninsula, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, demand that Karla Homolka's plea bargain be revoked by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Honourable Charles Harnick."

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Premier, and it's signed by 48 members of the Rockview Seniors Co-op and the Steelworker retirees

chapter in Sudbury. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, seniors, families, supporting groups and people of Ontario are now petitioning you and all members of the Ontario government to stop the Common Sense Revolution, which deprives the elderly and favours the greedy, non-caring rich.

"We list some of our problems:

"Health care comes first, and hospital closures, plus cuts in services, affect seniors seriously.

"Co-op and non-profit housing should be increased and subsidized to provide for the growing number of seniors, instead of cutbacks which please greedy landlords.

"Pensions should be properly indexed to the true cost of living, with no cutbacks.

"Welfare payments should be adjusted to the needs of many unfortunate seniors. Cuts are not the answer to this serious problem.

"Finally, unemployment ranks high among seniors, disgusted at the unnecessary layoffs of their sons, daughters and grandchildren.

"Please stop your Common Sense Revolution, as it affects our Canadian seniors so adversely while favouring the rich."

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

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario which states as follows and is signed by about 150 people:

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

"We strongly urge the Parliament of Ontario to take some action to ensure that the wage subsidy grants for Ontario early childhood educators remain in place and not be cut in any way." Of course, it's happened since then.

"This wage subsidy was put in place by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to address what they recognized as an inappropriate wage structure for these individuals, given the importance and necessity of their role. Early childhood educators provide an essential service and ensure that the needs of both young children and the working parent are met in a professional and highly efficient manner.

"This wage subsidy cut would make a tremendous statement by the government to the people of Ontario."

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further petitions? The member for Elgin.

VEHICLE SAFETY

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations to you and all the other members of the House.

My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Reflect your children's future. This is a wake-up call. Transportation trailers can be made safer. We need reflective tape on all transport truck trailers. Make it mandatory; make it law.

"We, the people of Ontario, can make a change. Support the introduction of a bill. Please sign this below."

This petition has been delivered here to the Legislative Assembly and I'll affix my signature to it as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES CHEMINS DE FER D'INTÉRÊT LOCAL

Mr Palladini moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act respecting Shortline Railways / Projet de loi 5, Loi concernant les chemins de fer d'intérêt local.

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

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The purpose of this bill is to provide for the regulation and licensing of shortline railways. The minister may appoint a registrar to issue licences for shortline railways. The minister may enter into agreements with the federal government to provide for the regulation and inspection of shortline railways by the federal government in the same manner as it regulates railways under federal jurisdiction.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS EXIGÉS DES PERSONNES MORALES

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act / Projet de loi 6, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements exigés des personnes morales.

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

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It is my pleasure to introduce for first reading this bill. As I indicated earlier, changes in this bill will result in the elimination of the $50 corporate annual filing fee and allow my ministry and the Ministry of Finance to integrate the data collection processes for Ontario's corporate public record with the corporate tax program.

Further, while we are knocking away this filing fee, the taxpayer will win as well, because we will reap considerable savings within the ministry with the elimination of the need for this duplication of collecting this information within my ministry walls.

This constitutes a win-win solution for this province's business community and the taxpayer, and it is another step towards one-stop government service delivery for our business community.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I would like to call the first order, but I would like to indicate that it has been agreed, and I would seek unanimous consent, that after the leader of the third party concludes his remarks today, we will be starting into the normal rotation on the throne speech debate.

The three House leaders have agreed that the remaining time today and the time every day that the throne speech is debated hereafter, will be divided evenly among the three parties. There will be no Qs and As after each member participates in the debate.

On the day that the member for Elgin, who is an independent member, chooses to speak for up to 10 minutes, that time will be deducted from the total time of the day.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Mr Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to congratulate you, sir, on your election, and I want to wish you and all the other officers of the House the very best and of course assure you that I will obey your every command as a dutiful servant of the House.

I want to start by saying that this is of course the first speech I have had the opportunity to give in the House since the election. I want to begin by welcoming a number of new members, some of whom I see sitting in front of me; they were elected as part of the change in government which took place on June 8. I simply want to indicate to them that we will have very real differences of opinion, and I think you'll find that today. Many of you I've had the chance to meet in my political life over the last 15 years; some of you I have not. In fact, some of the members have served with me in the House of Commons indeed, which I think points to the period of time we've been together.

I would just say this to the honourable members. There are very profound disagreements that are going to be expressed in the House and in the province over the next several months and indeed during the life of this government. I think those disagreements need to be understood. One of the great difficulties that a number of us have with what the government is doing is the fact that it's being done in response to a theory and it's being done in response to a text which doesn't permit of dissent or difference of opinion and which doesn't seem to permit of change according to circumstance. I must tell you that from my political experience, that is a very serious mistake.

You've all been elected on the basis of having made promises and you've all been elected on the basis of this document called the Common Sense Revolution, but I must tell you that quite apart from whether I'm a New Democrat or a member of a different party, I would say to the members opposite and I would say to the House and indeed to the public that I do not like fundamentalism in politics. I do not like the assertion that there is a text from which everyone must read and that that text must be applied regardless of circumstance and regardless of the real world.

I would simply say to members of the Conservative Party opposite, go back and read your Burke and remind yourselves of the fundamental truth in politics: that you do not destroy political institutions and you do not destroy ways of life because of a theory, and that if you fail to take circumstances into account you are making a very profound mistake. It is a mistake for which you will pay. I don't know when you will pay, I don't know the circumstances in which you will pay, but you will pay for it.

You will pay for it because you cannot run a government out of a book, you cannot run a province of 11 million people on the basis of a theory, and you cannot ignore the circumstances of the people of this province.

Think for a moment of the conundrum of the problem which you have created for yourselves. The Premier has said if anything is not done that is in this document, or if anything is done that runs directly contrary to a promise in this document, he will resign. Well, I don't believe for a moment that he's going to resign; I don't think for a moment that the Premier is going to do that.

But the Premier has put himself in a box which is the wrong box for the first minister of this province to put himself in. What it means is that he's saying he has to do everything that's set out in this document even if it doesn't make any sense, even if on the basis of experience, on the basis of learning, on the basis of discussion, on the basis of dialogue, on the basis of give and take, he discovers that something in this document doesn't really make very much sense any more.

I know that my political career has gone through its ups and its downs, and I know that its greatest moments are yet to come. But I also know that there have been critics of mine, and indeed some members opposite who are with us in the House -- my good friend from Mississauga who's here, my good friend from Lanark county who's here, people who have known me for a long time; my very good friend from Etobicoke West, who's not here, unfortunately --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Right here, Bob.

Mr Rae: Oh, there he is. He's moved. He's got to get into that cabinet seat somehow and now he's moved over there.

They made a career -- indeed, my colleagues in the Liberal Party with whom I've had a long relationship, with many of whom I've served in the House for 15 years; the member from Renfrew has probably been one of my harshest critics. One of the things they used to say about me was that I changed my mind, that I didn't keep a promise or that I did something differently from what I said I would do -- Sunday shopping, for example, a very good example.

I'll tell you, sometimes you come up against the world of circumstance. Opinions change. The world changes. You discover that things are not as easy as they might have appeared in opposition. You discover that a promise made in the course of an election campaign sometimes doesn't make sense.

So where I

part company with members opposite is partly in ideology, partly in political values, but above all where I

part company with members opposite is in temperament. I am not a fundamentalist. I do not believe in textual truths being literally applied in the world of politics. That way lies a lot of danger, a lot of difficulty and, unfortunately and sadly, a lot of harm for real people. This is where I

part company, and it's quite fundamental.

I would say to my friends, people in my own party know that I parted company with some of them over the years because of this difference in temperament, my attitude about circumstances and what sound political management requires. Sound political management sometimes requires that one says: "That ideology is interesting. It's got a lot of emotion behind it. It's got a lot of strength behind it. It just so happens that in this circumstance it isn't going to work."

So I want to say first of all to the Premier -- who's now here, and I appreciate his being here -- I will say very directly to him that there are times and places where we are going to agree. He may be surprised to hear me say that, but in a document that has as many specific promises as this one, it would be hard for me to say there's not a single thing in here that I agree with.

As we will come to see, in fact, there are a number of areas in which I suspect there's very substantial consensus in the House about what needs to be done, not only among the three political leaders but among all members of the House, a very substantial consensus about this province and about what needs to be done in the province.

But I

part company on this question of the fundamentalism that is at work here, on a temperament which says: "There is the CSR" -- as it's called now; it's got its colloquialisms -- "and the CSR is everything. It is the Bible. It is the text. It cannot be departed from."

You had little red books in China. It's the same thing, exactly the same thing. It's the same inane repetition, the same inane reference to page and to text, the same inane reference to resolutions. Sensible people opposed it in China; sensible people will oppose it in Ontario. We don't need a revolution in this province. This is the last thing this province needs. People get hurt in revolutions. People pay a price for revolutions. For my part, I want no part of a revolution whether it comes from the left or whether it comes from the right, and I stand by those words.

The premise of the revolution, as it's been presented to us -- and we even had to go through the ritual of having the Lieutenant Governor reduced to the point of reading out a 1-800 number and then people being told at the end of the speech from the throne that everyone on the government side rededicates himself to the Common Sense Revolution, almost like a kind of fundamentalist prayer meeting in which people are being asked to come forward and bring witness and bring faith to this process.

Well, I will say to the honourable members, I don't go to a lot of prayer meetings. I went to one when I was Premier, for the simple reason that I wanted to convince people --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Yes, because I asked you to.

Mr Rae: Because you asked me to and because I wanted to convince people that I was tired of hearing from people who said the Premier didn't have a prayer. That's why I went.

Expressions of faith are those which we make individually, and we all reconcile ourselves to matters of faith. But I will say to you, Mr Speaker, and say to the government that this question of how this fundamentalism is expressed is going to get these guys into trouble. It already is, we can already see it now, because the government says, "We're not going to cut health care," and they're cutting health care.

Interjections: No, we're not.

Mr Rae: You are. They say, "No, we're not." Well, you are. I'm sorry, the facts will not bear you out. The facts will bear out the view that says that in many instances and in many places services are being reduced.

The government said, "No, there are not going to be any user fees," and then all of a sudden the Premier said: "No, when I was talking about user fees I was talking specifically about the Canada Health Act. I wasn't talking about the drug benefit plan. I was only referring to user fees under the Canada Health Act." The trouble with that is that there are no user fees permitted under the Canada Health Act, so how could he possibly have been talking about a Canada Health Act user fee when that's not permissible under the law? He must have been talking about some other user fees where they're permitted, like under the drug benefit plan.

I will say to members opposite that the approach they've taken and the number of promises that have been made and the way in which these promises are being now interpreted and reinterpreted in the name of the Common Sense Revolution is something I find disturbing. I also from time to time find it amusing, but more than anything else I find it disturbing because -- I will repeat the point for emphasis -- in a revolution real people get hurt. That's exactly what the government opposite is doing: hurting real people in the name of an ideology. I find that offensive and I also find it even more offensive because it's so unnecessary.

Like all revolutionary documents, it has to be based on a series of myths. You have in every revolutionary movement the need to demonize the opposition, to demonize the outer world, and to create a series of myths that are built up in common. You look at any revolutionary movement around the world, this is how it operates.

So you have the myth of 10 lost years, you have the myth of an Ontario that was on its knees, on its back, struggling, unable to move, only to be saved by the imposition of this revolution.

You have the myth of the several statements that have been made over the years: the myth that Ontario has the highest taxes of any jurisdiction in the western world, which I've heard the Premier say on other occasions; the myth that all was terrible and bad in the past 10 years, that there wasn't a single good thing that took place in the past 10 years, that there's nothing to be pointed to that was right; that only with the restoration of a Conservative regime after 10 years of these bogus outsiders being in power could any true prosperity be brought to the province of Ontario.

Applause.

Mr Rae: You see, they believe it, they really believe it. To me it's classic. Somebody's got to arouse you guys with eloquence. I mean, it's got to be done somehow.

I would say that these myths -- and obviously these people are true believers, and I congratulate them for the simplicity of their faith.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): They're followers.

Mr Rae: They're followers, and we'll come to the followership in a moment, because I've seen caucuses at work, both large and small, and the larger ones are not necessarily any easier than the smaller ones.

I would say that what we have is the case of true believers who have created a series of myths which they've tried to impose on the province and which provides the emotional fuel for the Common Sense Revolution.

I would simply say, very briefly, and I do not intend to dwell on this at all, but I would hope that the government and the Premier would, if only in their own private moments, reflect on some very basic facts about the province.

This province is a great and wonderful place to live in. It is a province that has benefited tremendously from the strength of its natural resources. It has benefited most emphatically and most importantly from the range of people who've made it their home; the fact that it is home to people from all over the world, and that this province truly does represent the best hope for a great many people who have come here; that many good things have been done by Conservative governments, many good things have been done by Liberal governments, and many good things have been done by New Democratic governments.

If the members opposite are not generous or wise enough, even in their private moments, to say such a thing, then I have no choice but to say it on behalf of my colleagues in my party and to say it on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party.

William Davis was a fine Premier. He served the province well. I happen to believe that when he left public office in 1984 and was replaced by Mr Miller, the people of the province made a decision in 1985 that they too wanted a change, that they were not satisfied with the status quo in 1985, and after 42 years of Tory government a minority Parliament was elected.

I am proud of many things that I've done in public life, but one of the things of which I am proudest is the fact that Mr Peterson and I decided that we would do things differently in order to create a new government. That was a wise choice; it was a sensible choice; it was a change that was necessary and healthy for the people of Ontario.

It produced very good progressive government for two years between 1985 and 1987, legislation which has made a permanent difference in the lives of millions of people, people who are better paid, people who are equally paid, people are better housed and people who are more fairly treated as a result of the accord that we signed in 1985 and as a result of the change in government which took place in that time.

Our overall --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Why don't you ask the Liberals about that?

Mr Rae: Well, people say that the Liberals benefited very substantially from that accord. I didn't benefit politically from it. In fact, we went into an election in 1987 and, yes, we became the official opposition, but it was a House in which we both had very small caucuses, Conservatives and New Democrats, and I would even say that through the period between 1987 and 1990 the Liberal government did some good things.

Some were things with which I disagreed, some were things with which I took them to task, but I will not subscribe to this eerily odd and restricted view that the only good things that can ever be brought in are brought in by Conservatives and that the things that are brought in by Liberals and New Democrats are somehow unworthy, unspeakable, unmentionable.

You have this phenomenon, now created in mythical proportions and repeated over and over ad nauseam and again in the speech from the throne, that somehow these last 10 years have been years which have been bad for the province. They have not been bad for the province. What has been bad has been a recession. What has been bad has been a tough economic circumstance which we've all had to go through. You can take your demonology and live with it all you want, and you can throw darts at the picture of the Premier of the day between 1985 and 1995 and say that it's all his fault and all his fault and all his fault.

But I'm not the Premier any more, and so now you're all going to have to find someone else to blame for your problems, and you're going to have to find someone else and something else to demonize.

What troubles me now is you've chosen them, the targets. It's no longer Bob Rae or it's no longer the NDP government; it's the poor.

Mr Stockwell: Oh.

Mr Rae: No, no, no, it is; it's us and them. It's a world of us and them, the messages that you've created. You are dividing this province in a way it has not been divided in my lifetime. You are setting one group off against another in a way that has not been practised in this province in my memory. I do not recall a Minister of Community and Social Services standing up and answering questions and indicating that he is so out of touch saying, "We gave people three months' notice to go out and find a job." There are half a million people who are unemployed in this province.

There is a 10% unemployment rate in this province. Do not insult those people by saying that each and every one of them is unemployed because it's their fault. That is an insult. That is an insult to them, it's an insult to their families, it's an insult to their situation. Show some respect. Show some respect for them and for their situation.

Surely we've learned something from the Great Depression. Surely we've learned that you cannot b