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

October 1, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L239a - Wed 1 Oct 1997 / Mer 1er Oct 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS FUNDING

MARY SILAJ

GUELPH HOSPITALS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

MS COLUMBUS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EDUCATION FINANCING

ROSH HASHANAH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMMITTE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

STEWART BRADDICK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME CARE

FERRY SERVICE

WINDSOR CASINO

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ROAD MAINTENANCE

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

CHILD CARE

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

SCHOOL PRAYERS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION FINANCING

COURT DECISION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

OPPOSITION DAY

RENT REGULATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I believe everyone in this House would have nothing but praise for the people who work for, promote and volunteer for amateur sports organizations across the province. Indeed every community in Ontario, including my home town of Thunder Bay, relies on those organizations to see that our young people have access to sports they love.

So it is disheartening to learn that the government is delaying providing the funds needed by these organizations to do their job and is asking these groups to go through extraordinary hoops before their funds for this year will be freed up. Indeed the protracted approval process created through this government's new and supposedly improved sports strategy is creating a mockery in terms of this government's call for accountability.

What we have six months into this fiscal year is a situation where only six of 55 provincial sports organizations, to our knowledge, have received their much-needed funds to support the programs our young people both need and expect.

One organization caught in the crossfire of this process is the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario, the main support agency for amateur hockey across the province, including the Thunder Bay Amateur Hockey Association. In fact, Lou Salatino, a Thunder Bay resident who serves as chairman of the HDCO, has told me that the government's demands and sheer bullheadedness are seriously hampering the ability of his umbrella organization to do the work they need to do to keep amateur hockey moving ahead in the province of Ontario.

Today I implore the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation to free up those funds so as not to further delay the implementation of so many vital programs. Minister, it's time to get out of the stands and on to the ice. Get the game under way.

MARY SILAJ

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In these very difficult times, from time to time a person or occasion challenges us in a deep and personal way. The deaths of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana were events of this nature.

In our own lives we also happen upon people who have that same disturbing yet uplifting effect. They remind us of what is important in life. They tell us to stop and smell the roses, to get in touch with our spiritual side and to know that there is indeed a creator God who loves us very much.

Mary Silaj from Elliot Lake is just such a person. Mary is not well and will soon leave us. That will be a huge loss to her family, her friends and her community. Mary loves life, loves people and loves to teach and to read. She epitomizes the best in all of us. Mary continues to nurture the world through the lives of the men and women she taught as a teacher.

Mary often waxes philosophical, has a tremendous sense of humour and reads with an appetite. Just this morning, she likened her passing on to going to that library of all libraries, where every book will be at her call, as indeed will be many of her favourite authors.

Mary, we love you and appreciate every moment we are blessed with your presence. Our world is a better place because of you.

GUELPH HOSPITALS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Last Thursday the people in the city of Guelph were celebrating because Minister Wilson came to our riding for a ground-breaking ceremony at Guelph General Hospital.

The Guelph General and St Joseph's Hospital and Home have served patients in Guelph and Wellington county for over 100 years, but in the past 20 years Guelph has been trying to streamline its hospital services. It has been a difficult task. We all knew restructuring was needed, but it was tough. To make matters worse, previous governments were unable to fund new hospital services for Guelph.

During the provincial campaign two years ago, I made a personal commitment to the citizens of Guelph to finally obtain the money that was needed to do the work. Last March, Minister Wilson announced the long-awaited funding of $67.7 million, and on Thursday construction finally began. It's going to result in the renovation of Guelph General Hospital to create a new acute care centre for our city. St Joseph's will become the rehab and long-term-care centre. Both hospitals are scheduled to open in the year 2000.

I am proud to stand today and acknowledge and commend the cooperation of the city, the county and both hospitals. In Guelph, we are going to deliver less waste, less duplication, better services and better-quality health care. Our government is spending an unprecedented $18.3 billion on health care. Guelph very much appreciates the wonderful investment made in our hospitals.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to share some excerpts of faxes and e-mails I've received over the course of the last 24 hours.

The first one is from Michèle Robichaud from Sudbury: "I don't want to" walk out. "I feel provoked into taking this action." This government wants to "meet their political promises on my back. Sorry. I've got wide shoulders but they're for my students whom I love and respect and for whose future I will be fighting...."

This one is from the teachers and staff of Pius XII elementary school. We all know, they say, that Bill 160 is about taking $1 billion plus from the educational funding and future of our children.

This one is from Brian Kirlin, a teacher with the York Catholic Teachers: "It is my hope that the opposition parties," together with all educating partners, "will succeed in backing this government off its tyrannical agenda, an agenda which will destroy the standards of education we have worked so hard to achieve."

This one is from Daniel Johnson, a teacher in the Nipissing riding: "Thank you for your efforts. Keep up the fight and remember we are with you out here as the unconsulted minority of the Nipissing riding."

This final one is from James Russell from Sydenham, Ontario. He asks at the very end a very, very important question: "Can you tell me why I can't e-mail any Conservative members of Queen's Park? All their e-mail addresses come up access denied."

This is the epitaph of this government: access denied.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): By now everyone will know that the government, faced with the united province of workers who were not about to accept Bill 136 being rammed down their throats, caved in. This is a major victory on the part of the labour movement and the people who support the labour movement in all our communities.

Unfortunately what did not play out as much in the media -- and it's understandable because it doesn't generate headlines as does the possibility of a province-wide strike -- but what played out behind the scenes was one of the most disrespectful, dishonourable, anti-democratic procedures we could ever have seen.

I want to express this through the position that Bruce Carpenter, president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters, went through. Up until Monday, shortly after noon, like everyone else in this province, he didn't know if he would be out on strike or what the situation would be. From 3:30 Monday afternoon until 5 o'clock yesterday, the committee had the only opportunity to comment on the over 200 amendments that were in front of us on Bill 136.

Yesterday afternoon he had to go through what I consider to be the indignity and the disrespect of not even being able to come to the table and comment on virtually a new labour law that affects the negotiation of his members. At 5 o'clock yesterday that discussion shut down and there was no further debate.

This is not democracy; this is tyranny.

MS COLUMBUS

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I rise this afternoon to express my sincere congratulations to all those who helped in organizing a recent reception on board the Hapag-Lloyd Tours' newest cruise ship, the MS Columbus, for its inaugural call at Tobermory. I was very honoured to have been invited to represent my riding of Bruce at their special event.

The MS Columbus cost almost $120 million to construct, and it is the first of its kind to have been specifically designed and outfitted for cruising in the Great Lakes and travelling through the Welland lock system. The ship has 205 cabins, eight suites, and can hold up to 420 passengers. A crew of 169 is required to attend to all passenger needs. Measuring 472 feet long, the MS Columbus has the engine capacity to cruise at 18.5 knots.

In 1996, there were a total of 413,000 tourism jobs in this province, and tourists spent a total of $13.6 billion that year. The growth of the thriving industry is expected to triple by the year 2010.

Ontario must strive to become a world leader in this industry. While Canada's coastal provinces are already enjoying the rewards of offering their towns and cities as ports of call for cruise ships, Ontario has just begun to see the vast potential the Ontario cruise industry will provide.

Today, through the cooperation of regional development agencies and Hapag-Lloyd Tours, Ontarians, including those in my riding of Bruce, may begin to enjoy the added revenues they much need in tourism.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise today to bring to the House the Ombudsman's report on the case of Mr S, who had to travel to Toronto from his home in Ottawa for a high-tech visual assessment. Mr S was refused travel support by the Ministry of Health and sought the assistance of the Ombudsman when all other avenues had been exhausted. The real issue here is one that goes to the heart of our health care system. Excellent quality health care should be available to all Ontarians regardless of where they live in the province.

Today in the standing committee on the Ombudsman the Conservative majority refused to support the motion of my colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands that the Ministry of Health ensure that appropriate financial assistance be provided to applicants of the assistive devices program to offset the cost of their travel to the program-approved assessment centre where such assessments are necessary for the purpose of determining their eligibility under the program for high-technology visual aids.

It is disgraceful that a government which claims that there is only one taxpayer quibbles about whether the money for travel support comes from the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The bottom line is that there is inadequate access to health facilities in the first place, and then the patient suffers. Ontarians have said loud and clear that they will not accept a two-tier health care system.

Once again, the Ombudsman, the neutral party of last resort, has had to sound the alarm about the consequences of this government's tunnel vision and slash-and-burn fiscal policies. Once again, the report of the Ombudsman proves that Mike Harris just isn't listening.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This government has deliberately provoked a confrontation with Ontario's teachers, a confrontation that now threatens the education of students right across the province. In 90 days there will be new school boards setting up all over the province with no idea of how much money they will have to spend educating our children.

Parents are uncertain. They don't know whether their children's education will be disrupted in the next few weeks. They have no idea how many tax dollars are going to be invested in education across Ontario. This government has to release the exact figures for stabilized funding for each of the new school boards and make public the funding formula so that we will know exactly how much the government intends to spend educating our children starting in September 1998.

The government has indicated that it intends to cut $1 billion from our schools. Now the government is saying that perhaps $1 billion is not the target. This government needs to guarantee spending on education, that there will not be any further cuts on the education of our children and the quality of education for our students in Ontario. This government has to make clear that they're committed to good quality education, that they're not about setting up a crisis so that teachers will be forced out on strike, disrupting education in Ontario.

ROSH HASHANAH

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Tonight marks the beginning of an important holy day for members of the Jewish community in my riding and across the province. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, marks a time for the children of Israel to reflect on their lives and the year ahead. While most Jewish holidays celebrate national events in Jewish history, Rosh Hashanah is much more personal in nature.

Rabbis have long encouraged Jews to observe Rosh Hashanah in a spirit of optimism. For example, they ordain that honey be served at all Rosh Hashanah meals and that slices of apple be dipped into it. A special prayer is then recited: "May it be thy will, O Lord, our God, to grant us a year that is good and sweet."

I would like to extend to members of the Jewish community in my riding, particularly Adas Israel, Beth Jacob and Anshe Sholom synagogues, every blessing for this holy day. May the Lord grant that the year ahead be indeed good and sweet.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week, the title of which is amended to read "An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Week."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMMITTE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on resources development and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 136,

An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 38.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 17, 1997, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House today on behalf of the government of Ontario to recognize International Day of Older Persons, which is celebrated at the beginning of Community Support Month in Ontario.

International Day of Older Persons is declared by the United Nations and is an opportunity each year to reflect on the contributions of older persons to our society. This is a day for recognition of the contributions Ontario's 1.4 million seniors have made and continue to make to the quality of life we enjoy today in Ontario. These people fought for our freedom, struggled through a depression, raised their children and families and laid the foundation of societal standards so coveted by the world today.

Seniors continue to play an integral

part in our everyday lives. Through their caring and sharing, they touch the lives of their grandchildren, they volunteer with our youth, they provide leadership and time on committees, and they support those more frail and less fortunate than themselves.

In the next few months I will be meeting with Canada's ministers responsible for seniors to discuss issues of importance to seniors, their families and those who work with seniors. Among the topics we will address are agism, continuing care and intergenerational concerns, and how Canada and the provinces will mark 1999, designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Older Persons.

The Ontario Community Support Association represents more than 300 community-based, not-for-profit health and social service organizations which work daily with older persons and the less fortunate in our society.

Community Support Month is a time to especially thank those many volunteers and staff who work for those organizations which not only look after the elderly but also the disabled and those with special needs. Present in the Legislature today are Mr Scott Forfar, Ada Wong and Elizabeth Fulford, the president of the Ontario Community Support Association.

Throughout this month, I ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to take time to participate in the many community events which mark Meals on Wheels Week from October 5 to 11, Community Care Worker Week from October 13 to 19, and Friendly Visiting/Telephone Reassurance Day on October 29.

This government is committed to our elderly population and to enhancing community support programs for them. Since 1995, this government has increased funding for community-based long-term-care services by over $75.7 million. As of today, 42 of the 43 new community care access centres have been opened to provide one-stop shopping centres for the elderly and the disabled to access home care support programs and long-term-care services. By the end of this year, all of the province's community care access centres will be fully operational.

Our seniors will finally be receiving the right care at the right time in the right place, with the right person providing those important services here in Ontario.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I am happy to rise and on behalf of the Liberal Party recognize International Day of Older Persons, and particularly glad to recognize some of the thrust to try and integrate seniors and others approaching senior age into society and the programs that do that. It's especially appropriate to recognize the community supports that are essential if seniors are to be respected in the way they absolutely deserve.

I'm sure that many of the people in this House will travel, as I have on other occasions, with the Meals on Wheels programs to see how important the contact is that the volunteers of those kinds of programs have with the seniors in society.

But I'm sure there's no one in this House who would like the remarking of this day to pass without reflecting on our responsibility and on this government's responsibility in particular in terms of how it's doing. If we are approaching a year like 1999 and the International Year of Older Persons, we really have to recognize how much greater the challenge has grown under the Harris government.

We look specifically at what has happened in terms of hospitals and health care.

Last week every member of this House heard how the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has verified that seniors, as disproportionate users of hospital services, have had $604 million worth of services taken away -- those seniors who have been subject to substandard services despite the best efforts of nurses, doctors and administrators, who have found themselves compelled in some cases to tie seniors to beds in hospitals because they simply can't provide the personal service that they want, to take away meals before seniors have had time to finish them, not because they want to, not even in some cases because they know about it, but because there simply aren't enough people to attend to seniors in the way basic, fundamental respect would require us to.

The seniors in this province are not bed-blockers sitting in chronic care beds. They are people deserving of respect, and not the characterization they received last week from the Minister of Health talking about chronic care beds.

Certainly, if there was essential respect underlying this government's efforts towards seniors, we would have seen something different happen in terms of drug copayments. Every member of this House realizes it took 81 days for this government to turn around even the aggravated injury. The idea of charging seniors once is bad enough. To have 25 years of a free drug program, one that most seniors have counted on, have planned for, have put into their retirement options, summarily taken away is bad enough.

But then, on top of that, to have this government charge those seniors twice in the same year and to take 81 days and a significant amount of pressure from seniors' organizations and this caucus to make it change its mind and to finally give seniors four months worth of credit for next year gives us an idea of how lacking the government is in that fundamental respect.

We approach another signal mark for this government. How will it treat seniors with regard to rent control? Seniors out there stand to lose under the so-called Tenant Protection Act the very security that we associate with people of older years. The very security that they depend on and have been able to depend on with other governments, this government would take away.

It would make possible the turning of apartment buildings into condominiums, into parking lots, to take away even those seniors who have no intention of moving and therefore losing, as everyone does, the rent control, and being at the mercy of the marketplace. Many, many seniors will be discombobulated by this change on the part of this government, as disproportionate users of rental accommodation in this province. This government certainly has to take note of that.

Home care has been talked about. Last year in the budget, this government spent $4 million less than the year before. It budgeted a large increase but didn't spend it. All of us have learned from our grandparents and our parents the essence of having actions match words. Unfortunately, when it comes to this government, seniors would do well to double and triple and quadruple check. We know from our own discussions in seniors' home and the active seniors who are part of our community that they are doing exactly that.

They know there are 16,000 of them -- and other people who are disabled, but principally seniors -- on a waiting list for long-term-care beds. They know that home care hours have been cut back in many communities, that they've been red-circled by departmental initiatives, actually taking away some of their ability to stay in their own homes.

I say to this House that we cannot comment on older persons' day without recommitting ourselves to do better. If this government wants to have anything close to a passing report card --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Responses, third party.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm sure all members of the Legislature would want to join with the minister in recognition of the importance of the International Day of Older Persons and also pay tribute to the work that community support organizations do. I know in my own riding of Beaches-Woodbine, Senior Link is a vital part of our community that keeps our community healthy, that brings services to our seniors in their homes, that provides affordable housing for seniors who have moved out of their homes. The work of these organizations is critical to our sense of community and our sense of neighbourhood.

I suppose if the minister had stopped at those two points, we might have been able to spend more time in paying tribute to the contribution of seniors and the organizations that serve them and what it means to our community. But the minister goes on to say that this government is committed to the elder generation. He used the example of $75 million in community-based long-term-care services since 1995. I must say that it provokes in me a response to list a litany of just some of the things this government has undertaken as public policy and its effect on the seniors of our province.

Let me begin with the cancellation of the not-for-profit housing program. There is no new affordable housing for seniors, a growing seniors population, being built in the province of Ontario because of your direct action of getting out of the business altogether of building affordable housing; and the downloading of the existing social housing stock to municipalities at a time when they are under such strain and do not have the fiscal resources to be able to deal with this threatens the existing stock.

We already see moves coming about where they are increasing the number of market rent apartments and less affordable apartments in those social housing, not-for-profit buildings exactly because of the government's action.

What about the removal of rent controls? What is that going to mean? Your policy of vacancy decontrol means that seniors on fixed incomes who are in rent-controlled apartments right now will become prisoners in those apartments, not able to move because they won't be able to afford the rents anywhere else. In those older buildings where there are only one or two seniors left in the building, there will be greater harassment to get them out of that building so that those rents can be jacked up or the building can be razed and turned into a condominium.

Let's talk about other things that come from the downloading. What about the increase in user fees for library services and for recreational programs for seniors, from a government that said no new user fees? It said a user fee is a tax; no new taxes, no new user fees.

Of course, you couldn't not then comment on the biggest user fee of all on seniors, the user fee that's been put in place for the drug benefit program. All of the experts said that would cause some seniors to make a choice between having necessary drugs or not. That is a shameful move. None of the research was in place to support the kind of drug education program that's needed. I know of seniors who are so worried about their fixed incomes that they've stopped taking needed medication because of the cost you've put in place for them.

Let's talk about the hospital cuts that have gone on before the home care and long-term-care expansions in the community. Your own hospital restructuring commission has identified the expansion that's needed and you're not putting it into place. The report that came out last week showed how $600 million of hospital services have been cut to seniors and how you have, in your own admission today, only increased home care services by $75 million over the last two years out in the community.

Let me say on that -- you crow about that number a lot -- that is less than what was budgeted for in the fiscal plan in the three years out of the last provincial government, our government, that recognized the need to put the services in the community before you made the cuts to hospitals to ensure that seniors had the supports they needed to stay healthy in the community.

Let's talk about what you're doing with the Red Cross right now. I'm amazed to hear the minister today try and blame it on the official opposition party and the third party. Minister, we used to fund the pay equity costs. You're refusing to fund the pay equity costs. We supported the not-for-profits in the delivery of services.

You've opened it up to wide-open competition and a feeding frenzy for the for-profit organizations who are going out there, who are skimming the most intensive markets and leaving the rural markets and the harder to serve and the more costly to serve to the not-for-profits who cannot then compete on a competitive for-profit basis. That is a crisis. There are communities right across northern Ontario that will be without any home care, because the Red Cross is the only one in the business, directly as a result of your government's action.

Let's talk about nursing homes and the way you did away with the minimum hours of nursing care and what that means when you've got older, sicker seniors in there who are getting assembly-line care, who are not getting the kind of attention. This is not a proud record. When you meet with your counterpart ministers about the international year, this is what will mark your government.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

It was suggested by one of the government members of the committee that captioning on the television should be turned on and that would solve the problem. It was pointed out by the clerk of the committee that budget cuts had meant that the captioning service has been cut, and I think this is a very serious issue.

Second, when the committee took its half-hour supper break at 6 o'clock -- you will know now that we have more things going on in the Legislative Assembly in the evening in terms of debate in the House and in terms of committees sitting in the evening -- a member of the public who was participating in these committees, who was monitoring the committee, Jeannie Kippay, who is in a wheelchair, went down to the back door, and you'll realize that's the only door that has wheelchair access, was unable to get out because there was not a security guard there and the system on the door that opens it automatically when someone approaches it is turned off at 6 o'clock.

She was unable to leave the building until someone came along to open the door for her. When she attempted to return after having gotten a bite to eat, to come back to monitor the rest of the hearings, because there was no guard at the door, she was unable to have any access to the building.

Mr Speaker, I would draw these issues to your attention and ask that perhaps through the Board of Internal Economy you take a look at what might be done to resolve these issues of access, particularly with respect to personning the back door with a security person to let people in.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's not a point of privilege. I will refer this to the Board of Internal Economy. If in future you have concerns such as this, if you would alert me, I'm sure we can handle it administratively by another option. But I hear what you say. It will be referred, and I'm certain we will deal with it at the Board of Internal Economy.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. You are quoted as saying that school boards and teachers are not trusted to deliver quality education in Ontario. You should understand that at the very, very best of times that kind of statement is very, very unhelpful. But understanding that, you have brought things to the brink here in Ontario when it comes to our teachers. We are on the verge of a strike throughout the province that will involve 126,000 teachers, 2.1 million students and over one million households.

In that context, when teachers and parents right now are extremely sensitive to the kinds of signals that are being sent by their government and they're wondering whether you're doing everything you possibly can to resolve this matter, how could you then, in that context, fan these flames?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you will find that both I and my cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Education, have been very low-key, not fanning any flames, acknowledging the facts. The statement you quoted is quite true. That's the reason for the bill. That's the reason for the change. You see, what's happened is this: We're not getting the quality of education that is good enough, that competes with other jurisdictions. We know it's not a money problem because we spend more money. We know it's not a problem of our teachers; we have the best teachers in the world.

So we have a problem with the system, and that is indeed what we are addressing: fewer trustees, fewer bureaucrats, more resources into the classroom. That is the purpose of the legislation and of the changes we are making to the system.

Mr McGuinty: I think it's important to note the Premier just said two things that are very important for us to understand. First of all, he effectively repeated his statement. He continues to say that trustees and teachers in Ontario cannot be trusted to deliver quality education. I can't believe it.

Interjections.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm out of order.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): And you're out of order. That goes without saying. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, where do you get off telling us that we can't trust our 126,000 teachers in Ontario and that we can't trust our trustees, duly elected locally by people who put their faith in them to address local education issues? Why can't we trust those people?

The second thing the Premier told us is that since we can't trust those groups of people -- we can't trust our teachers, dedicated to teaching, and we can't trust our trustees, dedicated to local organization of education -- we ought to trust the Premier with education in Ontario. This is the man who has already removed $533 million from our education system. Why should we trust you, Premier, given that you've already removed $533 million, you want to take another $1 billion out of the system and you want to lay off thousands of teachers?

Hon Mr Harris: The member may want to correct his record, but I will do it for him. If he wishes to apologize, that will be up to him. Never, ever have I said that we do not trust Ontario teachers. Never have I said that. I have said consistently that we have the best teachers in the world.

But I do want to tell you that what we are asking for is a legislative change. Then you don't have to trust any politician, any party, any Premier, any trustee or any union. I have commented on the unions. These are the unions that negotiated an increase in class size of 4.7% from 1991-95. Why? To comply with the social contract. How did they react to the social contract? They called for an increase in the PTR of 4.75%. That is unacceptable to us as a way to cope with the changes the NDP brought in.

The Bruce County Board of Education was faced with a 3% reduction in operating expenditures. At the same time, enrolment fell by --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. Please come to order.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier is very reluctant, obviously, to quote those many examples of other cases throughout the province where teachers and trustees have in fact negotiated bigger class sizes. But do you know what they did? They took on four or five more students so they could keep junior kindergarten; they took on a few more students so they could save the speech pathologist; they took on a few more students so they could maintain the school librarian. They did that because you were making the cuts.

You want us to trust you with our students' education. You want us to trust you with the education of our kids. I'll tell you why we can't do that. You've already taken out $533 million. You're threatening to take out another $1 billion. You're cutting junior kindergarten, you're cutting special education, you're cutting adult education. Given all of that, Premier, I'm going to ask you to put your ego aside, put the kids first and put your bill on ice.

Hon Mr Harris: Other than inflaming the rhetoric, which I don't think is helpful, I'm not sure what it is you're contributing to this debate.

You say I don't want to quote other examples. Durham separate increased maximum size of advanced secondary classes from 32 to 33. Why? So they could get a raise and get a 5% cut restored. Espanola public increased maximum size of advanced secondary classes from 27 to 28. Why? So they could get their 5% back on the grid. Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, in the riding of the former minister who made the mess we inherited there, increased the PTR by 0.16% in elementary and 0.28% in secondary in a recent agreement.

You can talk about why teachers' unions and boards have negotiated an increase in class size. We're not interested in why. We're saying it's going to stop. We're bringing in legislation to stop it. So if you were interested, as we are interested, in the quality of education, in improving the contact time of teachers with students, you would be encouraging us to proceed with this legislation as quickly as possible.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort William, withdraw that comment.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I can't withdraw it, because I believe this government is attacking teacher --

The Speaker: I name the member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

HOME CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Health. We learned today that 6,400 Red Cross homemakers could very well lose their jobs. These people serve 73,000 of our frail elderly Ontarians. They help them prepare meals, they help them with their groceries, they help them with their household chores. What they effectively do is help them continue to live in their homes.

The Red Cross has gone to you for help, and apparently there's some kind of juggling between you and the Minister of Labour as to who should assume responsibility for these 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians. I suggest to you, Minister, that those Ontarians, our seniors, the ones just referred to by your minister responsible for seniors in Ontario, are your responsibility.

I'm asking you, Minister, what are you going to do to ensure that those 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians continue to receive uninterrupted homemaker service?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would just like to go back to 1988, when your government introduced the Pay Equity Act. You indicated at that time that all employers who had 500 or more employees would be responsible for using the job-to-job method in the pay equity comparison.

At that time the Red Cross was the only homemaker service with more than 500 employees, so they were put in the position of using the job-to-job comparison. You also at that time indicated that the compliance date would be January 1, 1998. So this was established by the Peterson Liberal government at that time.

Since then the NDP had an opportunity to make changes, and unfortunately there have been none made whatsoever, so at the present time we have a situation where I understand they have written a letter, they've asked --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: On behalf of the 73,000 senior Ontarians I'm asking this question for, I will be pleased to send them your response. The fact that the Minister of Health has referred the matter of ongoing home care for 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians is very telling.

That's what this is all about. Minister, at some point you're going to have to begin to assume responsibility for health care in Ontario. He claims he's the Minister of Health, but he's not responsible for hospital closings. He claims he's the Minister of Health, but now he's not responsible for the ongoing home care of 73,000 frail and elderly Ontarians.

Nobody gives a damn about a 1988 debate. Those 73,000 Ontarians today want to know what this Minister of Health is going to do, so back to you, Minister: What are you going to do?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you that this problem was created by the 1988 legislation, but I would also --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I believe it's important to point out that there are presently 170 other homemaking services that are provided to taxpayers in this province. There is no one homemaking service that has any monopoly. Certainly we give you our assurance that services would continue to be delivered to people in this province.

Mr McGuinty: I knew a cabinet shuffle was coming, but I didn't know it had already taken place. It's going to cost, I understand, $36 million to keep these 73,000 seniors living in their homes. If you want to talk about real fiscal responsibility, guess how much it's going to cost if we stop funding that? How much is it going to cost if we instead institutionalize our seniors, people who have raised their families --

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister has something to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr McGuinty: Those 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians don't want to hear anything about pay equity. They don't want to hear anything about what happened in 1988 in terms of some parliamentary debate. All they want to know is that the Minister of Health is going to stand up and protect their interests, that the Minister of Health is going to do everything he can to ensure that they can live on in their homes for as long as they possibly can. That's all they want to know; it's as simple as that.

Once again, Minister of Health -- and stop referring this to the Minister of Labour; I don't have a question for her, I have one for you -- what are you going to do to help these seniors?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Hamilton East and Ottawa West, I'll warn you now, come to order. Next time I'll ask you to be removed. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately it was the Pay Equity Act, 1988, that created the problem today. Even if we were to provide the financial funding, it would simply make the Red Cross uncompetitive in comparison to the other home care providers.

I say to you, leader of the third party, I know there was a letter that you received --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll wait, folks. We're going to wait the whole question period.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I know that the Premier recently received a letter from the Red Cross. In that letter they state, "We are respectfully requesting that all three party leaders come together on a non-partisan basis, putting people before politics to resolve this problem."

If the two opposition parties wish to come forward and work with us to find solutions to this dilemma, which has resulted from the requirements of the Pay Equity Act of 1988, I would encourage them to do so. But I can assure you, we will continue to provide the services to people in this province.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for Premier: For the last two years your Minister of Education has provoked a senseless confrontation with Ontario's teachers. Your Minister of Education has gone across the province and he has prattled on about taking a further $1 billion from education. He has created a situation where 90 days from now new school boards have no idea what their budgets will be. He has created a situation where parents across the province are very concerned that their children's education will be disrupted in the next few weeks.

Premier, you can end this senseless confrontation of your Minister of Education. I ask you today to do two things: Withdraw Bill 160 until your Minister of Education presents his budget formula for all the new school boards; withdraw Bill 160 until the parents across this province know how much money is going to be available for the education of their children.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader of the New Democratic Party is totally mistaken when he says the changes we're talking about now have some effect 90 days from now. The changes we're talking about now have some effect in September 1998. The bill we are talking about now does facilitate the amalgamation of school boards, though, which takes place January 1. Because some were concerned with the changes about funding, the minister guaranteed stable funding right through to the end of this fiscal school year, guaranteed that funding right through this fiscal year.

What we're talking about that you are asking for is funding levels for 1998. Yes, the minister is working on those and those will be announced. But in the meantime we have a piece of legislation to facilitate fewer trustees, less pay for trustees, fewer bureaucrats and more money in the classroom, and I suggest we proceed with that.

Mr Hampton: The Premier obviously isn't listening to what's happening out there. He isn't listening to the meetings that are being attended by thousands and thousands of teachers. He isn't listening to the students who are leaving their schools even in his own home town to protest the cuts to education. No one believes your government's rhetoric. This Minister of Education said he wouldn't cut school budgets any further this year. Then he went out and took a further $300 million out of schools' budgets.

I put the question to you again, Premier. Parents want to know what the funding formula for education is in this province. School boards want to know what the funding formula for education is in this province. Will you withdraw Bill 160 until your Minister of Education presents the numbers, presents the budgets, so that parents and school boards will know how much money is available for the education of children in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Other than the misinformation and the rhetoric that has been out there, this government, this Premier, this cabinet and this minister have been very straightforward, very honest, very up front about where the money is going, how much is there and where it will be. I agree with you there are some parents who have concerns about the misleading rhetoric coming from some of the teacher unions. There are some students who are concerned about the misleading rhetoric coming from the teacher unions. I don't think it's helpful for you to repeat that misleading rhetoric that's coming from the teacher unions.

Rather, you'd be better to stick to the facts, and when you get to the facts they are this: Your government facilitated and accommodated school boards and teacher unions to increase class size so that they could have more money for other things, their own pay, restore the social contract and other things. This legislation will stop that from happening. The bill before the House --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to warn the members for Beaches-Woodbine and Sudbury East to come to order. I've warned you. Final supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Since the Premier doesn't like certain sources of information, I'll quote the Education Improvement Commission that he appointed, which called on the government to reinvest any money that is saved from restructuring or changes in the contracts or any of the changes in the powers and relations between the provincial government and teachers in the province. Even the Premier's good Conservative friend Hugh Segal has said that if you're going to restructure, you've got to keep the money in the system so it's done well. The Premier has indicated that maybe they aren't going to take $1 billion out of education but he won't give us a number.

Will the Premier guarantee today that he will not cut any more money from the education of our students in this province and that any savings he achieves will be reinvested in the schools of our province, in the education of our children? Will the Premier give us that guarantee?

Hon Mr Harris: We gave a guarantee in the campaign, post-campaign, yesterday, and I'm happy to give you the guarantee today. We will not cut a penny of education spending from the classrooms of the students of this province. I give you that commitment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Harris: Second, we expect savings from following the Education Improvement Commission recommendations on prep time for secondary school -- I think that was the recommendation of David Cooke, former NDP Minister of Education -- and we expect some savings from fewer trustees, less pay for trustees and fewer bureaucrats. We are committed to reinvest every penny required to have a superior education system to the one you left us.

STEWART BRADDICK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question again for the Premier, and I would say to the Premier it's remarkable how many "excepts" and "maybes" and weasel words he uses when he talks about education funding.

I want to ask the Premier about the new employee in his office, one Stewart Braddick, who you've hired as your director of organization. We know Mr Braddick worked for one Brian Mulroney and then was hired by the BC Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, but he was forced to resign from his job in the BC Liberal caucus because it was found by the Auditor General in British Columbia that he had misspent $1 million of taxpayers' money. He had used $1 million of taxpayers' money to fund a partisan political piece of mail for the Liberal Party in British Columbia. He was forced to resign because of this abuse. Premier, why are you hiring someone who abused the public purse to the tune of $1 million?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The third party, come to order.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader raises a question of an employee we have hired, somebody who has an outstanding record in Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario, at the national level as well. In fact, he even worked for our good friend Jean Charest in the last campaign.

However, I think the issue you raise is that while he was working for the Liberal leader in British Columbia -- and yes, Stew Braddick had disclosed to us that he was employed there when a direct mail campaign that had the approval of the caucus and of the leader, signed by the Liberal leader at the time, and a piece of literature I might say a little milder than the stuff I see you and the Liberals sending out in Ontario -- the leader acknowledged as well that he had made a political decision to send the material in its form.

There were questions raised about that mailout and Mr Braddick, to save the leader and the party from further embarrassment, resigned his position. That kind of honour is the kind we respect in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's a remarkable and valiant effort you put forward, but the Auditor General of British Columbia was asked to investigate the situation. Yes, he said that the BC Liberal Party had misused its privileges, but then the Auditor General specifically found that Stewart Braddick, the person you have now hired, had misused $1 million of taxpayers' money.

I simply ask you this: What job do you have in your office that is so important that you have to hire somebody who lost his job in British Columbia because he misused $1 million of taxpayers' money and the Auditor General of that province found it to be so? What job do you have in your office that is so important that you have to hire someone like that?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): What about this?

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, that's out of order. Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think his job description is pretty straightforward and I believe appropriate. If you quote from the Auditor General of British Columbia, it was on the content of a Liberal mailing, including material of a partisan political nature, and some of the mailings were not personally addressed. In other words, they were, "Dear Householder."

You may want to check some of your mailings recently, leader of the third party, and you may want to be very careful in consulting a lawyer before you repeat the accusations outside the House that you made in here.

Mr Hampton: I will repeat the claim. The Auditor General of British Columbia found that there was a $1-million misuse of taxpayers' money and he identified the person you have now hired in your office, Stewart Braddick, as the person principally responsible.

If the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party wants to hire someone to do the kind of partisan dirty tricks that Mr Braddick is identified with, the Ontario Conservative Party can do that. But Premier, I want to ask you: Can you tell us why the taxpayers of Ontario should be paying the salary of someone like Stewart Braddick, who has been identified with this $1-million misuse of public funds in British Columbia? Why should the taxpayers of Ontario pay this person's salary so he can work in your office?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm not sure the question is worthy of an answer. When it comes to dirty tricks, nobody takes a back seat to the NDP of Ontario: nobody, no party, no individual. The kind of accusations that you are making in this Legislature are inappropriate and inaccurate. They are wrong and I invite him to step outside and repeat them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Leader of the third party, you had a point of order?

Mr Hampton: On a point of privilege, Speaker: I put it to the Premier: You explain why taxpayers should pay this person's salary.

Interjections.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you can tell me whether it's in order that the NDP sent posters --

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, that's not in order.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I would like to address this question to the Minister of Health.

Interjections: Which one?

Mr Kennedy: Whichever minister would like to answer. It is a serious question. A lot of the back bench in this room would probably like to know about the small and rural health policy that this government put forward a number of months ago. Today we were to learn how that would work. We were to find out in Lambton county, where at the last minute, two days before the final report of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, the government stepped in and said, "Stop, we want to think this over."

Today, we hear their next report comes out and it takes away 30% of all the hospital beds, and it won't tell us what happens to Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital. You've made it a ping-pong between the DHC, the district health council -- what will you tell the people --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm again flabbergasted the honourable member is opposed to what the commission's final directives outline as a health service plan for Lambton county. To quote the commission press release, it says:

"I want to stress that there will be no reduction of services as a result of these recommendations. There will be enhanced services for all Lambton county residents. We believe that our decisions will lead to improved quality and better access to a wide range of services for the population served by Lambton county," concluded Mr Doug Lawson, the commissioner.

The reinvestments of up to $7.5 million are being recommended for community services, home care, long-term care, rehabilitation services, mental health services; $1.9 million for sub-acute; $37 million in new construction -- Lambton county hasn't seen that in its health care history; $19 million for other bells and whistles. It's a tremendous report for health care for Lambton county, and, yes, the commission has said that it's leaving it up to the DHC to implement the rural health care policy with respect to the hospital in Petrolia.

Mr Kennedy: All we know is that the health services commission has access to this minister's press release writers, because those words aren't borne out. When it comes to access to health services, what really matters here is that $18 million a year is being taken away from the people of Sarnia, Petrolia and the county of Lambton. You say you're giving them money back. They will lose more money in three years than you say you're going to reinvest at some future date.

Minister, you said there would be a rural policy that would take into account the special needs of rural Ontario. Instead, you're health restructuring commission has ignored it and they have not made a decision. Will you commit to stand by the decision of the district health council in terms of which hospital stays open? You've already allowed them to take $18 million. You've damaged the health service in that county. Will you at least allow Charlotte Englehart to stay open if the district health council says it will?

Hon Mr Wilson: That's what the policy says. If we took the Liberal and NDP benchmarks that were used and applied those across rural Ontario, it closed rural hospitals. We're not about closing rural hospitals; we're about opening those 68 emergency rooms that closed under the NDP. We've done that through a $70-an-hour on-call fee for physicians. We're about moving the hospital in Petrolia that you're talking about from 18 hours, which has been recommended over the years by the DHC, back up to 24-hour emergency care. That's what the rural health care policy calls for and that's what we're going to do in Petrolia for the people of Petrolia.

HOME CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask the Minister of Health what he is going to do about all of the people who need home care in communities like Kenora, Dryden, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Fort Frances, Blind River, Elliot Lake, Wawa, White River, Dubreuilville, Timmins, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Iroquois Falls -- I could go on. What are you going to do about providing home care in all those communities where the Red Cross will have to lay off the home care providers because your government is not providing the pay equity funding that has been ordered for all of those Red Cross home care providers?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the leader of the third party, I certainly want to assure you that services will continue to be provided for all of those individuals because I would just indicate one more time that there are many, many homemaker services available. Unfortunately, you had an opportunity in 1993 to correct the problem for the Red Cross when you made amendments to the Pay Equity Act, and you refused to take any action whatsoever. You actually made it worse.

Mr Hampton: Here is the situation. This is a government that has now been in power for two and a half years. The Ontario Court of Justice has found they violated the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by trying to deny some of the lowest-paid workers in the province pay equity. Your cuts to pay equity have created this situation and your cuts to home care have created this situation, nothing else.

Minister, I guess you're the new Minister of Health, because the Minister of Health that we have refuses to be responsible for health care.

The reality is that in the communities I've listed there are no alternative providers. These are areas where your for-profit corporations don't want to bid because the cost of delivering home care is expensive and difficult. People are spread out over a large area. So there is no provider other than the Red Cross. What are you going to do to ensure that these people who need home care are going to get the home care they deserve and require?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There are certainly many, many other homemaker service providers in this province who would be quite prepared to --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's not true.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Algoma, you can't say that. That's out of order. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Wildman: The minister is incorrect.

The Speaker: Just withdraw the comment, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw the comment, and she's still incorrect.

The Speaker: This is your last chance, or I'll have to name the member for Algoma. Simply withdraw.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: There are other homemaker services that are provided, that are prepared to provide the service.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): There are no other agencies there.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order. Members for Cochrane North and Lake Nipigon, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: However, the question I would pose to the leader of the third party is the one that has been posed to us by the Red Cross, and that is, they are suggesting that all three parties come together and find a solution. I would ask you, what solutions do you have to deal with the Pay Equity Act, 1988, that created the dilemma that the Red Cross faces today?

FERRY SERVICE

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with regards to the Chi-Cheemaun ferry service, which operates from Tobermory in my riding of Bruce to Manitoulin Island. As you know, the service provided by the Chi-Cheemaun is important to the riding of Bruce and it attracts and assists in drawing tourists to our area. What is the government doing to ensure that the ferry continues to provide efficient services to our area?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Bruce for a very important question. It's a welcome relief. As the member states and as you would know, the ferry service plays an important role in the Manitoulin-Bruce Peninsula area, and it's run by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

Currently there has been a series of meetings taking place with local people, led by the chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and some board members, to discuss how they can improve the service. I want to thank the member for Bruce for her role in this. I know that tomorrow or Thursday they're meeting with local representation from the island and I look forward to seeing the progress the board takes from these local people who want to improve the service of the ferry.

Mrs Fisher: We have been working very hard in the community to further the efforts that can be made by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission advisory board to bring further tourism to our area. I wonder if you could tell us about some of the innovative ideas that the ONTC has undertaken in the past while and what we might be able to look forward to for services in the future.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I predict that he can tell us.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As usual the member for St Catharines is clairvoyant. There have been a number of very useful suggestions that have come forward from this consultation. I again want to thank the member for Bruce for the role she has played in this.

This summer the ONTC board recommended that the ferry service launch a dinner cruise one night a week. I know that the members of the Liberal Party are particularly interested in this: It was so successful, they extended it to three nights a week. We've expanded the children's play area on the upper decks and have singers onshore and offshore. There are native tours with a local carver. These are just some of the useful ideas that have come from local participation in trying to improve service, and that's an important part of the tourism economy for Bruce and for Manitoulin Island.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under

section 37 of our standing orders, I would like to ask for a late show with the minister on this issue, as he knows the ferry was out of service on at least three occasions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You didn't ask the question. You can't have a late show unless you ask a question. New question.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. In late May of this year the Ontario Casino Corp put its own project staff on to the permanent casino site in Windsor. Last week we learned that you have called in an outside value-for-money audit to be done by Price Waterhouse at the permanent casino site. There are, as you know, a number of allegations about with respect to the escalating estimated cost to complete the permanent casino site in Windsor.

Officials at the OCC and in your department have indicated that these capital cost increases resulted from the desire of the OCC and Windsor Casino Ltd to make sure the permanent casino site in Windsor remains competitive with the new casinos coming on stream in Detroit.

Given all this, will you release the instructions you have given to the outside auditors? Will you undertake to release their final report?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Yes, we certainly will be making the results of the audit known. I think the audit makes a great deal of sense; any audit makes a great deal of sense, for that matter. We want to make sure that the taxpayers are getting good value for their dollar and that money is being spent wisely and correctly.

We have the concern you mentioned that because Michigan last year in the elections voted to have casinos, there would be three casinos built on the Michigan side of the river. Each one of those will be worth roughly $1 billion. We wanted to make sure we enhance our casino in Windsor properly so that we can compete with those new facilities. It just makes good sense to make sure we are competitive when the time comes.

Mr Duncan: We want to be sure that Casino Windsor can be competitive with the Detroit casinos. We want to ensure that the people of Windsor continue to gain the maximum benefit from this development, as do the people of Ontario. It's been alleged that the cost estimates to complete construction have risen from $240 million to $340 million. It is alleged to us that construction, which is well along, has been going on without a signed contract between the OCC and the contractor or between your ministry and the contractor.

Finally, if it is truly your desire to ensure that Casino Windsor remains competitive with Detroit, why have you not responded to the city of Windsor's June 16 resolution with respect to the Western Anchor? Why did you not call auditors in till this point in time when the casino is almost done? How is it that if we want to be competitive, we could allow a situation like this to go on without --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Just a little bit of history here: Back in 1994 there was an initial agreement made between the previous government with Windsor Casino Ltd and the Ontario Casino Corp. That agreement was on a cost-plus basis. He probably is aware of that. I'm not sure that cost-plus agreements are always the best types of agreements to make. We have certainly put a cap on any changes that will be made in the future. That's why we have assigned the audit to Price Waterhouse.

I want to say again that we are concerned, as the member is, and it's very good that he is, about protecting the people of Windsor, making sure the jobs are made permanent. There are about 11,000 new jobs from this casino. The revenue to date that has been received from the casino is well over $1 billion. We want to make sure that the taxpayers are well served and that the audit is well performed. It will report in due course and of course we will report at that time.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. We have an extensive credible and growing list of individuals and groups that are supporting our call for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton. That list includes Hamilton firefighters; local residents; environmentalists; our city council; our regional council; other municipalities such as Oshawa, Ajax, Burlington, Halton, Niagara, Toronto, Frontenac, Cambridge; and three out of four of the MPPs, one of whom happens to be one of your Tory backbenchers.

Minister, what I want to know from you is, who besides you and your officials agrees with your position that there doesn't need to be a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The government obviously believes that an inquiry into this matter is not necessary, that there hasn't been substantial evidence brought forward to us that an inquiry is needed at the provincial level. I have said to the member before, if the city wants to have an inquiry, God bless them. Have the inquiry. We will cooperate. Most of the issues are dealing with the medical officer of health and the fire department. The medical officer of health is responsible to the regional government. They can have a joint inquiry. Let them go ahead.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We want an inquiry. You heard him.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you will appreciate I think that even the most fairminded, objective individual in this province, after listening to the list of groups and the number of issues that have been raised that your government has not been able to answer, wonders exactly what it is you're hiding.

Today it's reported in the Hamilton Spectator and on TV that the International Association of Fire Fighters based in Washington, DC, are concerned about this because it may affect other communities across North America. They see the importance of holding a public inquiry, but you don't.

Minister, my question to you is this: With you being the only one who knows what's right in this issue -- in the whole world you're the only one -- I want to know what it is you're hiding. What are you covering up? Why are you afraid of a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said before -- the firefighters, a prime example: city responsibility. If the city wants to have an inquiry, have an inquiry.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Recently, the warden of Simcoe county, Mr Jack Hunter, expressed his concerns over the long-term replacement costs for roads recently transferred from provincial jurisdiction to county responsibility. Several mayors in my riding of Simcoe East also echo the concerns for future major expenditure for road replacement or bridge repairs and replacements.

Minister, what contingency plans has your ministry made to assist small municipalities when they find themselves facing prohibitive expenditures for road or bridge repairs?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for Simcoe East for the question. It certainly helps to have some clarifications.

Local governments are in the best position to deliver and respond to local transportation needs. Highway transfers of roads that serve local traffic are consistent with this approach. The member will also know that Simcoe county will be receiving in compensation the amount of $14.2 million for the highways that will be transferred as of January 1. This dollar figure is made up of three components: an amount that recognizes the present condition of the road; an amount that takes into account the impact on the municipality's particular size of road system; and one year's worth of maintenance.

On top of this, this government is proposing a permanent community reinvestment fund of $500 million to be installed on a yearly basis. This is to help the municipalities that may be affected in a disproportionate transfer of highways.

Mr McLean: In the last election, Premier Harris talked of the importance of maintaining our province's transportation system, which is vital for the movement of goods from rural Ontario to major urban markets. We all know future growth in Ontario will depend heavily on good roads. Minister, have you developed plans to assist the municipalities in planning for maintenance and expanding infrastructure to meet the demands of the economic growth?

Hon Mr Palladini: I believe we have done a lot of things over the last two years to help municipalities manage their own road systems. For example, we have simplified the funding relationship between the provincial government and the municipalities. We have done away with confusing, complicated funding formulas. We have also made room on the property tax so that those dollars that municipalities collect can go back into hard services like roads. For those municipalities receiving transfers, we are providing the five-year compensation dollar amount up front. This will allow them to plan their spending.

The province's role is to maintain the provincial highway system, highways that contribute to the general economy of the province of Ontario. We have spent more on repairing and rehabilitating our provincial highways in each of the last two years than the previous government spent in their mandate.

I believe this has made a difference in the economy. In the past two years, I believe this government has been responsible for creating at least over 200,000 jobs back into the economy.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. During your response a few minutes ago to the member for Hamilton Centre, the Premier said, "We want an inquiry." That came from your Premier; Hansard picked it up. The Premier said, "We want an inquiry" into Plastimet. So now the Premier has added his voice to those of your backbencher the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Hamilton Centre, the community groups and the firefighters.

Minister, there's a problem here: Nobody trusts you. Nobody trusts your government on this issue. Nobody trusts the answer you're giving people. It comes down to a simple question here: You are afraid to call a public inquiry. I've submitted 238 questions; you have not answered one of them yet. You are afraid. You are scared that a public inquiry is going to show very clearly that you've been negligent and your ministry has been negligent in handling the Plastimet scenario.

You don't give a damn about firefighters; you don't give a damn about the people of Hamilton. You're discriminating against Hamiltonians. If this fire had occurred in one of your 905-belt areas, had it occurred in Burlington or Oshawa, you would have called an inquiry. Why are you practising environmental discrimination against the people of Hamilton by refusing to call a public inquiry?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think the Premier was responding to my response in saying to the other member from Hamilton that if you want to have an inquiry, if the city of Hamilton, who have said they want --

Mr Agostino: It is your responsibility. You are ducking.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, I've warned you three times. I name the member for Hamilton East, Mr Agostino.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

Hon Mr Sterling: Many politicians at the provincial and municipal level, in response to a very unfortunate incident for the people of Hamilton, have turned to the fact that an inquiry is going to solve all of the problems. My ministry is on the site, cleaning up the site. They've been providing information to the people of Hamilton, information which has been accurate, information which has been good, in order to allow the fire officials and the medical officer of health to make the right decisions.

As I said before, I don't believe that an inquiry will prove anything or do anything for anybody. However, if the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth want an inquiry, they can do it under their legislation. I invite them, I implore them, to have the inquiry they're demanding.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns Bill 160 and is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down" -- won't back down, won't back down;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I've a petition from constituents of mine in downtown Hamilton. It reads as follows:

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

I gladly and proudly add my name to theirs.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 19 people.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infants and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature,

"(

a) to pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices, such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care; and

"(

b) to pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): " To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health had started to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled on July 15, 1996; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to the Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal this user fee plan because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, sensitive or accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors and, lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I affix my signature to this because I fully agree with it.

SCHOOL PRAYERS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): A petition to the province of Ontario:

"The Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, signed by Madoc Lodge 1193, being a firm supporter of the public system and the Protestant faith, does with the undersigned hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very important petition here that deals with the so-called standing orders reform --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): You may explain it or read it, one or the other.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It states:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs have to debate the important issues of today; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are, after all, accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I've signed it as well, and I'm handing it over to Lee Ann right now.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 40 people.

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to appear topless in public; and

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to present a petition in regard to Bill 160. It reads:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and with the petitioners and I gladly affix my signature to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to bring forward a petition from about 100 people from the United Brethren in Christ Church in Fort Erie on Garrison Road. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the federal government has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

I have signed my signature to it in agreement.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospitals are underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and cut desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged the additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I affix my signature along with hundreds of others from my community to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intentions of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $42 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives whiners when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care services; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives, who work most closely with their constituents;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with the petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and to be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospitals are underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and cut desperately needed services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of health care funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I join hundreds of my fellow citizens in signing this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVOntario is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVOntario continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

This is signed by a number of my constituents, mostly from the Elliot Lake and Spanish areas.

OPPOSITION DAY

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I move that:

Whereas the Mike Harris government has introduced Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act, that will gut rent controls in Ontario, raise tenants' rents and make it easier to demolish their homes; and

Whereas Bill 96 is only part of the Conservatives' attack on affordable housing that includes cancelling over 390 non-profit housing projects and dumping the massive cost of social housing on to Ontario municipalities; and

Whereas tenants across the province have denounced Bill 96 during public hearings; and

Whereas the Tory-dominated legislative committee refused to support Liberal amendments that would have maintained strong tenant protections; and

Whereas during the York South by-election in May 1996 Mike Harris promised that "rent control will continue" and that "tenant protection will be improved under the Mike Harris government"; and

Whereas Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has committed to scrapping Bill 96 and replacing it with meaningful rent controls;

Therefore, this House calls on the Mike Harris government to stop its attack on affordable housing and to immediately withdraw Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act.

We have begun to debate not just rent control through this resolution but an entire affordable housing policy. I want to begin by using part of my time to talk about Bill 96, a bill that the government has called the Tenant Protection Act but which we know is the tenant rejection act, a bill that takes away fundamental protections afforded tenants.

I want to speak first to the issues, the response we've had to that bill and why it's important to have rent controls.

In this country, in this province, we regulate everything from the price of water, the price of utilities, the price of telephones, the price of cable television, yet this government says we ought not to be regulating rent; we ought not to be prepared as a society to ensure that tenants, many of whom spend more than 30% of their income to keep a roof over their heads -- we ought not to protect them. That's what this government says. Instead, they have brought in a bill that they have tried to say or convince or camouflage as rent control. In fact what it is is vacancy decontrol.

Let me explain to the government members how that works. The government proposes that once an apartment unit becomes vacant, the landlord and the prospective tenant or the landlord alone can decide on a new rent which will then be subject to rent control. But that's where the bill fails. That's where the bill deals with what we call discounts. So what happens? A unit becomes vacant, the landlord raises the new rent to some astronomically high figure and then brings back the rent to some discounted level which will allow him or her to effectively escape the provisions of the guideline increases that the government has said will continue.

It is the position of the official opposition that rent control is appropriate in our economy, that the housing market ought to be regulated, and it is the position of the official opposition that when given the opportunity we will withdraw Bill 96 and introduce meaningful rent controls once again in Ontario.

I remind you that Bill 96 replaces six pieces of legislation: the Rent Control Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rental Housing Protection Act, the Municipal Amendment Act, the Residents' Rights Act and the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act.

This bill deals with a whole range of tenant and landlord issues. We proposed some 80 amendments, as I recall. I acknowledge that the government accepted two of those amendments, relatively minor in nature. They were amendments that we put forward to further debate, frankly, and we were quite astounded that the government took two of those minor amendments.

When we talk about housing issues, in addition to Bill 96 let's talk about some of the other things the government has done. They have cancelled all funding for new non-profit units in this province. That's half a billion dollars over four years

They've announced their intention to download responsibility for social housing to municipalities. Think about that. Think about the total cost of that and what it will do to property taxes.

This is the government that, in the view of the official opposition, is the government of increasing property taxes. It is the government that will raise taxes on homeowners from Windsor to Ottawa and throughout this entire province. Whether you live in an urban area or whether you live in a rural area, this is the government of increased property taxes.

Downloading social housing is a mistake. Social housing ought to remain a provincial responsibility. We believe the province should have responsibility for funding social housing in Ontario. We also believe and support the notion that municipalities can provide better and more effective administration, but clearly the funding of social housing ought to remain a provincial responsibility.

The government has also cut welfare allowances by 22%, directly impacting on the ability of the most vulnerable in our society to afford basic shelter. I remind members of the government that 30% of tenants are on welfare.

Finally, they've ended all rent-geared-to-income support.

To add insult to injury, they've cut the maintenance and capital budget of the Ontario Housing Corp by over $100 million. Now we see experimental projects going on in Regent Park and in the Glengarry units in Windsor that could eventually lead to a program of shelter allowance, which is contemplated in the Common Sense Revolution.

We think a government ought to have a clearer vision of providing affordable housing. The government will argue that the stock of rental housing will increase as a result of its Bill 96. We argue that the stock of available rental units will go up, but the stock of available affordable units will go down. Yet again we have a policy, we have a policy framework that penalizes the most vulnerable in our society in order to create a market condition which government members argue will create additional housing for those in a position to afford it.

It's interesting when you read what the demographers tell you. They tell you that at the turn of the century we will need more, not less, affordable housing. Demand for rental units in the affordable category will increase. We heard compelling testimony throughout hearings on this particular bill that it will in fact reduce the amount of affordable housing and leave tenants exposed unnecessarily to market variances, market problems.

We should say, as an official opposition, that there are changes needed. There were changes needed in the area of landlord-tenant relations. There were issues that we addressed completely in committee that any government ought to have addressed: the better administration, the more efficient flow of dispute resolution. Indeed we supported the government in some of those areas and proposed a number of amendments of our own that would have ensured that the government not shirk its responsibility with respect to a more efficient processing of these differences.

We've debated this in the Legislature but we want to say it again today, and we'll say it again in third reading debate, that vacancy decontrol means the slow death of rent controls. Approximately 20% of all apartment units will become vacant in any given calendar year. Over five years, you will go through a complete cycle. As I say, when you couple that with the government's desire to allow discounting of rent, you effectively and completely eliminate rent controls in the province of Ontario.

We've said and argued, and the government has acknowledged, that there will be an increase in tenant harassment by landlords. You can see it in their own bill. They've provided new mechanisms in order to try and protect tenants from this kind of harassment, mechanisms which we said will not work.

Rent control is not a draconian policy that unduly stagnates a market. Rent control is a policy that protects the most vulnerable. Changes to the system of dispute resolution in the Landlord and Tenant Act were overdue, and we proposed our own changes to that system that would make it more efficient. But the bottom line is, there's a place for meaningful rent controls in this province.

The important thing for all of us to remember is that, particularly in those large urban centres, the government must look out for the interests of tenants, tenants who spend a significant portion of their income in order to afford their units. It is incumbent on any government to stand behind tenants and ensure that rent increases are fair, to ensure that balance exists between landlords and tenants. The Davis government, the Peterson government, the Rae government all have endorsed the principles, although there have been differences in the implementation. We see this government backtracking entirely.

We say withdraw Bill 96. Withdraw it today. Let's install a system of meaningful rent control that protects the interests of tenants and will allow for the proper resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. If the government doesn't, the Liberal government in 1999 will repeal Bill 96 and reinstitute a system of meaningful rent controls in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'm absolutely delighted to be here to address the motion of the member for Windsor-Walkerville. This is a very important issue in my riding of Oriole.

With that in mind, I would like to speak to two groups in particular in this debate: certainly the residents of Oriole, but also the youth of this province, the youth who expressed their concerns, who went to the hearings and made presentations. Unfortunately, it seems that the government was not listening to the presentations they made.

In Oriole, 48% of the residents are tenants. In fact, last week I was at the annual general meeting of the Oriole community advisory committee. Not one person, not one tenant, because they all were tenants, had a good word to say about Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act. Their message was that this act should be scrapped. Their message was that the government should withdraw Bill 96 immediately. I'm very pleased to be here to send that message, to be the voice of that group and to support my good friend from Windsor-Walkerville in his efforts in this regard.

The message in the by-election was very clear: Bill 96 offered tenants no protections and they want it withdrawn in favour of real rent control and real tenant protections. Six different acts -- not solely financial, but also rights, human rights that people enjoy -- are being changed by Bill 96 and it is just utterly wrong.

The concerns were many. I heard that landlords will be able to raise rents without restriction when a unit becomes vacant. This effectively makes tenants prisoners in their own homes.

I'd like to tell you the story of a woman who lives in Oriole. She has a very modest one-bedroom apartment. She pays $600 a month for rent. She unfortunately is disabled and receives $450 for rent from family benefits. She can't face further rent increases. She can't afford to move after January 1 because rent controls are effectively removed. The government must protect all citizens in Ontario. It is an absolute tragedy waiting to happen, and I hope that all members will have the good sense to support this resolution and prevent situations like this from occurring.

There is real fear among tenants that they will be open to intimidation and harassment from their landlords to move out or to be moved into substandard apartments because they will not be able to find affordable rental accommodation elsewhere. This is particularly true in Metropolitan Toronto, where there is a very low vacancy rate.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has said that this will spur the creation of new rental housing stock. I can tell you that is a myth that is easily shattered because, as the minister and the members well know, anything built after 1974 was exempt from rent controls. The opportunity has always been there, and so you must ask yourselves again, why is Bill 96 being proposed by this government? It is clear that it is just an assault on tenants. Even the government agrees that there will be harassment. They've created this anti-harassment bureau and they've raised fines when tenants are being harassed.

I share the concerns of the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, Keith Norton, a former minister in past Tory governments, that this bill sets aside provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code that protects tenants from discrimination by landlords. Tenants in Oriole do not like the fact that under the new law, landlords will be able to enter your premises without notice to show the premises; will be able to enter your home without telling you, without prior knowledge. That is fundamentally against the commonest decency that we expect from anyone in our society.

Tenants are concerned that the bill removes almost all protections they had against their homes being turned into condominiums or being demolished at the whim of the landlord.

Finally, tenants in Oriole are concerned that their rents will skyrocket because of the new allowable increases for extraordinary operating expenses such as property tax increases, Hydro rate increases, direct results of legislation -- Bill 106 and Bill 149 of this government -- which will be felt most in Metropolitan Toronto. No tenant can be assured of what their rent will be from year to year.

I also want the chance to speak on behalf of some of the youth groups that came to the hearings and made their voices known and heard. I hope that the members of the Legislature will hear and respond to the concerns and support this resolution. The Ontario wing of the Canadian Federation of Students summed up the concerns of our university tenants quite well when they indicated at the hearings:

Students know that if you move every year, landlords raise the rents every year. This makes affordable housing less accessible every year.

What did other youth groups say during the Bill 96 hearings? The Touchstone Youth Centre brought its concerns about the amendments to the Human Rights Code to the legislative committee. They wanted to stress that this law will affect youths who are already in crisis: youths who are facing family breakdowns, youths who have been evicted and fleeing violence and abuse. They wanted to tell the government that their resources to support these youths are stretched to the limits. It is critical that youth be admitted to shelter as soon as possible. They said:

"Given how many youth have already been turned away from support services" -- as a direct result of actions of this government -- "such as emergency shelters, I'm here to put out a compassionate request that you take into consideration that...our youth, who do not have access to references, to first and last months' rent, to the use of credit cards, and who are renting for the first time, will not be excluded."

Silence, deafening silence. Unfortunately then as now, I can tell, the government and the government committee members did not listen.

Finally, let me refer the members of this House to the presentation of the Kensington Youth Theatre and Employment Skills program, or KYTES. This group serves youths 16 to 24 years old who have primarily lived on the streets or in shelters. This group has tried to help them make a transition towards full participation in our society. KYTES came to the hearing to appeal to the members of the committee because they have a concern about the central importance of stable housing in the lives of troubled young people. They had a real concern about access to affordable rental conditions. They said to the committee:

"Every young person who goes out at one point, whether to leave home or with parents' okay or whether they leave home with parents' curses, is going to be facing new apartments. They're going to be the first ones with the fewest resources on average and they're going to be, quite frankly, sons and daughters of people around this room. Whether you can supply them with cash or not, lots of other young people are going to be striding out there without a shot at a decent place."

It's absolutely mind-boggling that this government, the members of this government and the members of the committee, refused, absolutely refused to hear the words of the representatives of youth in Ontario.

For the reasons I've outlined prior, for the reasons and the voices I heard during the by-election in Oriole, I am absolutely delighted to have stood with our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and have announced that a Liberal government will scrap Bill 96 and restore real tenant protection in Ontario. Thank you very much.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the opposition day motion in the name of Mr Duncan. It makes reference to Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act. It refers to the provisions of that bill. It says that this bill is going to gut rent controls in Ontario, raise tenants' rents, make it easier to demolish their homes, and that it's only part of the Conservative government's attack on affordable housing here in Ontario. That is something I agree with. That's what this bill does.

It calls itself a Tenant Protection Act, but we know that this is another example of Tory legislation that says one thing in the title but within the body of the legislation means something completely different. It's quite obvious that this isn't a bill that is going to protect tenants; this is really a bill that is going to protect landlords. It's going to protect the big-money friends of the provincial Progressive Conservative government: landlords, developers. Those are the people who are going to be protected by this bill. This has been something that has been brought up time and time again at the committee hearings by representative after representative.

This government says they are listening -- ha. We've made the point over and over again that this is a government that is moving too far, too fast and in the wrong direction and that they are not listening. People are saying that they don't want this pace of change, they don't want this direction, and hopefully this is a government that is listening.

We've seen them take some steps after they've listened recently with respect to Bill 136. But if they were listening to tenants in this province they would withdraw Bill 96 and restore or ensure that tenants receive the protection of the rent control bill that the NDP government brought in when they were in government. That was legislation that was brought in by the then Minister of Housing, Dave Cooke I think it was, the member for Windsor-Riverside, as a matter of fact.

Part of the reason he introduced the legislation that he did was because Windsor-Riverside is an area made up of a great number of tenants. They live in places like Seaway Tower, Bayview Towers, in apartment buildings along Wyandotte Street East and also in an area known as Meadowbrook near Lauzon and Tecumseh Road.

During the by-election campaign that ended on September 4 I had an opportunity to speak to many tenants in those buildings and they expressed to me their concerns about what may happen if this Bill 96 passes. Many of them were seniors, people who were on fixed incomes, single moms, people who were having a difficult time paying the rent as it was but thought that landlords were going to try and take steps to get them to leave their homes so they could boost the rents up and rent to someone else.

We'll see an escalation of rents in areas like Windsor-Riverside so that people who are unable to afford the rent after it goes up will be faced with the choice of not having a place to live. That's basically the choice they're going to have. What is it they would be able to do?

During the by-election campaign tenants especially and electors generally make up their minds about what they felt about Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, and they voted no to that bill. It was an easy choice for them. They recognized this was a bill that was only going to help developers; it wasn't going to help tenants. They said no to Mike Harris' rent control bill, and they were faced then with the choice between supporting a Liberal candidate or an NDP candidate.

They, of course, supported the NDP because they remember back before 1990 when the Liberal rent control bill was in place. They remember the double-digit rent increases that took place then. They recall that financing costs were going to be able to be passed through to landlords who flipped their buildings over and over again. They recognized there was no prohibition on increasing rents for landlords who didn't maintain or improve their buildings. They remembered the useless luxury renovations that were done and new appliances that were purchased so that the rents would be able to be escalated artificially.

They remember that sort of rent control that was in place under the Liberal government in the past.

If I have any concern with respect to the resolution that is before us today, it's the Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty's commitment to replace Bill 96 with meaningful rent control. If Dalton McGuinty is saying meaningful rent control meaning the rent control they had in place during the Liberal government before 1990 -- and I hope that's not what they mean -- that's not something the NDP members here are going to be able to support. I really hope we can get some clarification with respect to that.

I do share the concerns of the Liberal members, and I'm sure my colleagues, with respect to Bill 96 and how this is going to hurt tenants in Ontario. I'm happy I've been given this opportunity to speak on behalf of tenants here in their opposition to Bill 96.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It's also my pleasure to participate in today's opposition day debate on rent control. Since our election in June 1995, our government has undertaken a lengthy study of this issue and our goal is twofold: It is to make the rent control system fairer for the tenants and to increase the amount of rental stock that is available in Ontario.

It's important that we look at the state of rental accommodation in Ontario today. Over 60% of existing housing stock is 25 years old or more and this proportion is expected to grow, as there have been fewer additions to the rental stock since the late 1970s.

I would like to also add that the building of new rental accommodation has almost ground to a halt, with only 37 new rental units coming on the market in Toronto last year. Across Ontario private investment in new rental housing has declined to a very low level. From an average of over 26,000 units annually in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, private rental starts have declined to fewer than 2,000 annually in the past few years.

This has led to a tightening of the vacancy rate in many Ontario rental markets. For example, the vacancy rate in Toronto is less than 1%; to be precise it is 0.8% and it's expected to decline. However, in other markets such as Ottawa an oversupply in the rental housing market has meant landlords actually offer incentives such as gifts or even as much as three free months' rent to entice tenants into their buildings.

What rental stock is available is in need of some pretty major repairs. We found this through the consultations, and it was voiced by many people who participated: the deterioration of the concrete balconies; certainly the garages were in a deplorable state. In fact, a tenants' survey done by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. concludes that 11% of the rental buildings need substantial work. An estimate by the Fair Rental Policy Organization puts the current cost of repairing major structural problems at $10 billion. It was clear that something had to be done.

In 1996 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing released a white paper on rent that formed the basis for committee hearings last summer. Our committee travelled around the province hearing many different views and certainly many different opinions. Tenants and landlords alike from across the province told us that the current rent control system needs to be fixed.

Tenants feel that the system is too confusing, that buildings are poorly maintained and that they already pay too much rent. While they like the protection provided by the current rent control system and in fact would even like an even stricter system, they know that many changes are needed to fix problems in maintenance, rental vacancies and the dispute resolution system. Landlords and developers also know the system is broken, and will not invest in new rental housing unless it is changed and the rules are loosened.

We need to find a compromise, and I believe that Bill 96 does that. Using the results of the committee hearings, the minister drafted the present tenant protection legislation, Bill 96. We believe the current system of rent control does not work for landlords or tenants and needs to be fixed. The housing stock is run down and maintenance is poor. The system is too complex for both tenants and landlords. No one is served well by the current system.

Our bill will continue to make sure that tenants are protected against unfair rent increases. The current rent control guideline formula for sitting tenants will be retained. Increases above the guideline will be capped at 4% for capital expenditures. Tenants will be able to make rent reduction applications for situations such as the withdrawal of services by a landlord, serious maintenance problems. An amendment adopted at the committee will make automatic a rent reduction due to an extraordinary decrease in operating costs as a result of the changes that could be effected by a decrease in municipal taxes, one of the problems that was clearly mentioned at many of the hearings.

Also during those hearings, we heard that tenants wanted maintenance provisions improved. We have given property standards officers more powers to have a property inspected by a qualified expert when an owner does not provide sufficient information. Our system gives landlords incentive to invest in their buildings and is tough on those who don't take care of them. If landlords don't do needed repairs, the fines will be tougher, and the enforcement of the fines will be easier to impose.

Tenants told us they wanted security of tenure and to maintain existing rights and responsibi