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

April 29, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L065 - Mon 29 Apr 1996 / Lun 29 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FOREST INDUSTRY

GASOLINE PRICES

AIDS TREATMENT

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

EID-UL-ADHA

DUNAI UKRAINIAN FOLK ENSEMBLE

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUDGET

VISITORS

DAY OF MOURNING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITOR

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

INQUESTS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

JOB CREATION

PESTICIDES

PUBLIC HOUSING

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

2001 CANADA SUMMER GAMES

PETITIONS

INQUESTS

RENT REGULATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

INJURED WORKERS

TAX REDUCTION

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

ONTARIO HYDRO

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

RENT REGULATION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

LIBRARY GRANTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

TAX REDUCTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION REPEAL ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 ABROGEANT LA

LOI SUR L'INSTITUT D'ÉTUDES PÉDAGOGIQUES DE L'ONTARIO

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, you've stated publicly from the beginning that you were going to create a crisis in education. Since that statement, you have systematically pitted school boards against teachers throughout the province, no matter what the cost to students.

As a result of your vague and irresponsible instructions found in the toolkit, we are witnessing unprecedented cuts to the classroom, thousands of teachers receiving layoff notices and essential programs being cut from school curriculums. Clearly, the only result your education policy is having is the destruction of small school boards throughout the province.

Over the last few days I have met with school board officials in my riding who did not make your list for assistance through the general legislative grant program. Boards such as the Kenora District Roman Catholic Separate School Board are at a loss to understand how you came up with your list.

Because of your cuts in funding, this board has issued layoff notices to 55 of 78 teachers. This represents 68% of the teaching staff of this board. Does the Minister of Education have any idea what an announcement such as this has on a small community such as Kenora?

The education of our children is vital. Ontario residents have had enough of the minister's lack of understanding and concern for their education. Parents, teachers, school board officials and even students are aware that changes need to be made in the system, but not at any cost; certainly not at the cost of our children's education.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've had the opportunity over the past couple of weeks to meet with representatives of the forestry industry, and the tale they tell of this government in regard to its response to the latest countervail on behalf of the United States when it comes to lumber and the action taken by this government not to represent that industry speaks volumes about this government.

Imagine if you will Ontario, a jurisdiction that sees forestry as one of the largest and most important sectors of its economy. You would think the Ontario Mike Harris government would be there at the table, sitting down with the federal government and saying, "We are speaking on behalf of the Ontario Forestry Association and the industry."

No, quite to the contrary. The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism and the Minister of Natural Resources are nowhere to be seen, and neither is the Premier.

We are finding out now that the federal government itself is going to be making decisions in regard to how much lumber will be allowed to be sold by way of quota and deciding which mills are going to get how much wood, and the Ontario government, which supposedly represents the industry, is nowhere to be found.

I say to this government directly, you have a responsibility as the government of Ontario to speak out on behalf of the forestry industry of this province, and if you are not going to do it, step aside and allow those who will, the New Democratic Party, to do it for you.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to inform all members about the concerns that a number of my constituents have regarding the recent escalation in the price of gasoline.

Recently a local Petro-Canada gas station allowed a number of local people to conduct a rally at its facility to protest against gasoline companies gouging consumers at the pumps.

The average price of a barrel of oil is presently at a four-year low when averaged over the entire year. Investment experts in the price of crude oil have indicated that a moderate increase in the price of one barrel of oil should not affect consumers at all. They've also indicated that a small increase should not affect consumers for at least six months.

People are increasingly concerned about 10- and 15-cent-per-litre price hikes. Ask anyone travelling on long weekends about price gouging. Tourism is too important to Ontario to have visitors travelling to other regions simply because of high gas prices. They are asking for a fair price based on the realistic price of gasoline as determined by the marketplace. Let the market dictate the price of gasoline and stop gouging the consumers of Ontario.

AIDS TREATMENT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As you are aware, last year Health Canada approved the drug 3TC in combination with AZT for the treatment of HIV-AIDS. It is yet to be added, however, to the Ontario drug benefit schedule.

For people living with HIV-AIDS, this drug can offer them hope of extending and improving their lives. The reported cost of this drug is $4.20 per pill, translating into a yearly cost of over $3,000. As you're also aware, HIV-AIDS is often a disease of poverty. The AIDS Committee of Thunder Bay reports that many of its clients are on social assistance, which puts them on a very limited and fixed income. Unless it is added to the schedule, there is no possible way that people who need the benefits of 3TC will have access to it.

Please note that 3TC was approved in combination with AZT, which, by the way, is on the schedule. Put yourself in the position of a doctor forced to tell a patient that there is a new drug on the market that has been approved for use in the fight against HIV-AIDS but that the cost must be borne by the patient. Put yourself in the position of the patient receiving this news.

The battle against HIV-AIDS is one that we cannot afford to lose. The more than 15,000 people across this province who have contracted this virus deserve more than that. The people in my riding living with AIDS deserve more than that.

I'd like to finish by commending the AIDS Committee of Thunder Bay and all such organizations across the province for their dedicated and compassionate work in our communities and to ask this government to hear their appeals for the addition of this drug to the Ontario drug benefit schedule.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): In a short while we will all, from all parties, take a moment to recognize yesterday, April 28, as the day of mourning for workers injured or killed on the job, and we know at that time that the minister will say, as she does, all the right things about health and safety and about accident prevention in the workplace, but we also know the reality, that this government has an agenda which means to take away rights and benefits workers have and protection they're entitled to in the workplace.

When the minister comments today I would ask her to recognize the fact that in the gallery with us is Karl Crevar, from my home town of Hamilton, who also happens to be the president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups.

When I travel the province and talk to those various groups about the killing of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, the cutting of funding to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, the attack on the WCB the minister responsible for gutting the WCB has undertaken, and when we talk about cuts in funding for mandatory training of health and safety officers inside the plant, people like Karl Crevar and others know that this government is no friend of workers and does not take seriously the issue of workplace health and safety, and their agenda proves it.

EID-UL-ADHA

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim, in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful. I rise to call to the attention of all members of this House that this past weekend marked an event of religious and ceremonial importance to the Muslim community of Ontario.

Eid-ul-Adha, the feast of sacrifice, recalls Abraham's -- in Arabic, Ibrahim's -- test of obedience when God ordered him to sacrifice his son, through an angel telling Abraham that his son's life be spared and then allowing a lamb to be sacrificed in his place.

In imitation of Abraham's submission to the will of God, millions of Muslims around the globe journeyed this weekend as pilgrims to El-Kaaba in Mecca. They walked seven times around the holy site in prayer, then travelled to the mountain where the prophet delivered one of his final messages to the followers.

Ontarians of all religions, cultures and backgrounds can learn a great deal from the sense of spiritual and personal renewal, and renewal in the commitment to community and family, which are the proud hallmark of the religious holiday of followers of Islam.

On this very special week in the Muslim month, I would like to extend our government's best wishes to the Muslim community of Ontario. Eid-Mubarak.

DUNAI UKRAINIAN FOLK ENSEMBLE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On the weekend of Saturday, April 27, and Sunday, April 28, the Dunai Ukrainian Folk Ensemble celebrated its 30th anniversary in St Catharines with a gala dinner-dance and concert.

I was pleased to be in attendance at the Sean O'Sullivan Theatre at Brock University as a spectacular performance was presented to a sold-out auditorium. Outstanding dancers, from beginners to the Dunai alumni, thrilled the enthusiastic audience with a breathtaking performance of agility, skill and stamina under the direction of some of the best choreographers in the country.

Beautiful voices in solo, trio and chorus entertained the appreciative crowd that filled every seat in the theatre. The Sunday afternoon concert brought back fond memories for performers and spectators alike, including choreographer Orest Samitz.

Thirty years ago, as Canada prepared for its centennial celebrations, the Ukrainian community of St Catharines set about to organize a dance group. Their goal was to teach Ukrainian dance to their children, to share their culture with fellow Canadians and to celebrate Canada's 100th birthday. The group formed was the Dunai Ukrainian Folk Ensemble. Since that time they have performed throughout Canada and the United States, the most memorable performances being for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Over the years, hundreds of young people have danced with Dunai. This weekend we, our entire community, celebrated our special contribution to St Catharines.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It was my privilege yesterday to participate in the day of mourning ceremony in Sudbury. This ceremony, organized by our labour council, allows our community to honour those working men and women who have been injured, died or who have suffered industrial diseases in Ontario's workplaces.

This year's event was marked by tragedy and outrage. Our community is mourning the death of 49-year-old Raymond Courchesne of Alban, who was killed last Wednesday at Inco's Copper Cliff South mine. He was found pinned under a rockbolting machine. He had worked over 30 years for Inco and had never lost time due to a workplace injury. His death followed on the heels of the recent court case in which Inco was fined $525,000 in connection with the deaths of three miners in three different accidents.

Our community is also outraged that at this time the Solicitor General is proposing to amend the Coroners Act so that inquests are no longer mandatory for mining and construction deaths. The trade union movement fought long and hard to change laws to force mandatory inquests. They allow us to identify how a tragedy occurred and to make recommendations for change so no one else dies under similar circumstances, and they bring closure to the tragedy for the families who sit and suffer and wonder what went wrong and why.

Our community is calling upon the Solicitor General to immediately signal that mandatory inquests for death in the mining and construction industries will continue. On behalf of USWA Local 6500, Mine Mill-CAW Local 598 and regional council, I urge the minister to do the right thing today.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): In mid-December this government announced that some 76 patients with acquired brain injuries would be repatriated to Ontario. At that time, due to decisions by the previous government, these patients were being treated in the United States.

On Thursday, April 11, 1996, the honourable member for Perth asked the Minister of Health for an update on the repatriation of acquired brain injury patients. The minister at that time reported that nine patients had already returned home from the United States. I am pleased to report today that one of those patients who has been repatriated is a constituent of mine.

I have learned from the family of this patient how unsatisfactory it was to have their husband and father in the United States for treatment and how pleased they are to have him home. The patient's wife began a long process of advocating for the services her husband needed in February 1994. When it appeared that no residential program in Ontario could meet her husband's needs, he was transferred to the US.

His special needs have placed many strains on his family, and being separated from him by such a distance has been especially difficult. Gratefully, he arrived back in Ontario last week, and his wife and three young children will once again be able to re-establish their relationships.

I would like to thank the minister and his staff for the hard work they have done to provide this patient and other ABI patients with the best possible care and to reunite them with their families. Clearly, this government is reinvesting its health care dollars where the needs are clear --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr U.N.B. Rão, deputy commissioner of police from New Delhi, India. Welcome to our guest.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUDGET

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I am pleased to announce that I will be presenting our government's first budget, for the fiscal year 1996-97, on Tuesday, May 7 at 4 pm.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate that lengthy statement.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We haven't had time to analyse it yet.

Mr Phillips: That's right. I'll just deal with the highlights of the statement and leave the detail for later.

Obviously, we're looking forward to the budget. Forgive me for saying I'm sorry you didn't present one last year, for the first time in the history of the province, but we are looking forward to it.

For our caucus, probably the primary litmus test, the thing we'll be looking for most in the budget, is the impact on jobs. We were very disappointed in your fiscal statement, in that that document -- this is the government's own document -- actually shows that the number of people out of work in the province of Ontario in 1996 goes up from 1995, and then in 1997 it increases over 1996. Of all the things in the fiscal statement, that was probably the thing we were most concerned and most disappointed about, the fact that we continue to see the number of people out of work in the province of Ontario growing.

Frankly, we're convinced this budget will not show that, and we will be looking first and foremost at the impact on jobs.

Clearly the second thing is, and there's absolutely no question, the budget will contain the tax cut. We have no doubt of that. We have no doubt that when the minister announces it here, you'll all be on your feet. This will be well cued, a standing ovation. We have no doubt you're all scheduled for your service club speeches and the chamber of commerce speeches and what not.

The questions, however, we'll ask about the tax cut are the following.

The first, Minister, as you point out in this document, is that the debt of the province will go up over the next three years by $20 billion. Those are your numbers. The debt of the province of Ontario will increase by $20 billion. For every family of Ontario out there watching this now, your debt, the amount that you owe, will go up by $8,000, and as the government is anxious to and loves to point out, we're spending $1 million an hour to pay the interest on the debt. We all know that. Young people in the province wake up with nightmares about it. You've done a great job of convincing people.

Hon Mr Eves: Why?

Mr Phillips: I love this. The minister says, "Why?" It's because none of the caucus realized that the Minister of Finance, when he was in the government before, approved the single largest increase in the personal income tax rate in the history of the province. That's when he was there before.

I carry this around with me. I've been provoked. For everybody out there, this is the last time a Conservative government balanced the budget in the province of Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In 1969.

Mr Phillips: That's 1969, as my colleague points out. So I have very little respect for your ability to manage the finances of the province.

If things are so difficult -- and they are -- that you are going to have to increase the debt of the province by $20 billion, how in the world can the people of Ontario afford a tax cut that will cost you, in lost revenue, $10 billion? You're going to add $20 billion to the debt of the province and you're going to provide a $10-billion tax cut, all of it borrowed money. Every penny of that tax cut is borrowed money.

The people of Ontario will be applauding you, saying, "Thank you very much for the tax cut," and now they'll realize that it's a bit of a fairy tale. We're getting the tax cut, the people of Ontario, all with borrowed money. You'll be out there saying, "Why, we've done a great job giving you a tax cut," and the people of Ontario will realize that you are increasing the debt of this province by $20 billion over the next three years. Those are your numbers. They might be slightly different in the budget, but those are those numbers that you provided a mere few months ago. You are going to provide a $10-billion tax break and you're going to borrow every penny of that, every penny of it.

I will say further that if you're making $150,000 in this province, when this tax cut is implemented you are going to get a $6,000 tax break. So all the people out there who are seeing their hospital beds closing, who are seeing their classroom teachers being laid off, who are seeing fewer and fewer police should recognize why that is happening: to fund a $6,000 tax cut for people making $150,000 in this province. There's an issue of fairness that we will be looking for in the budget too.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On behalf of my party, let me say to the finance minister that we are delighted to hear that he is finally coming forward with the budget, although it probably confuses a lot of people in the province to hear that there hasn't been a budget since 1994, that this government has made the most severe spending cuts, the most severe program cuts ever in the history of the province without ever coming up with a budget that shows the cumulative effect of those cuts and without balancing those cuts off.

This government is very fond of talking about the fact that this province has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That's why they blithely forgo revenue from a number of different areas, because they are trying to fool the people of Ontario into believing that the tax cut, which is the cornerstone of their entire platform, will not cost them money.

To that end, they have gone through a series of exercises, three different announcements around spending cuts. The first was on July 21, which cut $1.9 billion from the expenditures, and the biggest one of that of course was the 22% cut in welfare payments. Then on November 29, the 1995 Fiscal and Economic Statement cut another $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion out of the existing budget of the province, and we believe and our figures show that those cuts will annualize to approximately $8 billion when all that was announced in November is finally implemented.

And then, included in that November statement was the $1.6-billion place-holder the government had, which rolled out in the so-called business plans that were present in this Legislature a couple of weeks ago.

Those business plans were supposed to tell the people of Ontario exactly where cuts were happening and what the effect of those cuts would be on services and on jobs. Yet in this House we heard the finance minister say, first of all, there had been no impact statements done around those business plans, and then when pressed he said in fact in some cases there was no business plan, that the details were not there, that he couldn't present the details because the details were not complete.

To date, this government has shown itself to be so concerned with getting to the tax cut they promised as part of their platform that they have tried a series of smoke-and-mirror statements to try and convince the people of Ontario that somehow when they do come down with the budget it will be a good-news budget.

There's no other reason for this rollout of cuts well ahead of a budget except for the very strong effort that this finance minister is making to try and tell the people of Ontario that when he presents a budget, it will be a good-news budget.

The government needs to be aware that the people of Ontario are a bit more sophisticated than that, that the people of Ontario understand that this government has cut and cut and cut so that in the long run they can announce, as if it were good news, the fact that they will be borrowing an additional $20 billion on top of the existing deficit to pay for a tax cut.

People in this province are not so stupid that they do not understand that when a government cuts the revenues coming into the province by up to $8 billion a year they need to cut spending, they need to cut jobs to try and make this look like good news.

We will be reminding the people of the province that if this finance minister attempts in his budget to present it as good news and to separate the budget from the bad news, from the severe cuts that have happened to services and to jobs in this province, he is not going to get away with it. He is underestimating the intelligence and the integrity of the people of Ontario, and he is underestimating the response that they will have to a shell game such as he's trying to present.

When he announces the date of the budget, as though this is a big fanfare, he needs to be aware that it is good news that we're going to finally have a budget, but most of the cuts and most of the problems have been hidden by this finance minister in a series of statements away from a budget, and we will not be fooled.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation from Italy headed by the Honourable Domenico Maroscia, Premier of the Basilicata region of Italy. Welcome to our guests.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for statements with regard --

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): -- to members' statements on the day of mourning for injured workers.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Yesterday and today working people around Ontario have paused and will pause and observe a day of mourning for our fellow citizens who have been injured or killed on the job.

More than 2,200 people have been killed at work or died as the result of an occupational disease over the last eight years. Over that same period, more than three million claims have been registered with the Workers' Compensation Board. In 1995, there were 250 job-related deaths registered with the board. More than 375,000 claims were filed in that year.

The cost to our economy of this human tragedy amounts to literally billions of dollars. More important, the cost to our friends and neighbours who are the victims, and to their families, is immeasurable.

Over the last 10 years, much progress has been made in reducing lost-time accidents, injuries and deaths. We in Ontario must continue to pursue a policy which will contribute to a reduction in the incidence of workplace injuries and fatalities. We must also ensure that our fellow citizens who suffer the misfortune of a workplace injury continue to be fairly and adequately compensated.

Each of us knows someone who has been injured or killed in the workplace. Just last week, Raymond Courchesne, with more than 30 years' mining experience, was killed in Sudbury.

All of us in our party join with our colleagues in the Legislature as we observe a moment and pay tribute to those who have died, and we vow to continue the fight for the living.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Today we commemorate one of the most important days on the calendar for working people in Ontario. This day is set aside to honour the memory of workers who have died from occupational disease or from accidents on the job, and to rededicate ourselves to eliminating injuries and fatalities from Ontario's workplaces.

Workers gathered yesterday in my home town of Hamilton and in communities all across Ontario to share a moment of silence, grief and commitment.

The choice of April 28 for this commemoration is full of meaning itself. This date marks the anniversary of passage of Ontario's first Workers' Compensation Act in 1914. This historic compromise has served both workers and employers well, but it has never been possible to take this achievement for granted. So much remains to be done to make sure that workplace health and safety has the top priority it deserves with workers, employers and the government.

The day of mourning has been observed in Ontario since 1988, when a resolution introduced by former Premier Bob Rae, then Leader of the Opposition, passed this House unanimously. The federal Parliament in 1991 declared April 28 as a national day of mourning. The idea has also spread to the United States and Australia, where unions are urging official observance in those countries.

In 1995, according to the Workers' Compensation Board, there were 218 deaths recorded from workplace accidents and occupational disease, a slight increase from 207 deaths in 1994. A total of 376,186 claims were recorded at the WCB last year, of which 117,790 were serious enough to cause lost time from work. In fact, each year about six billion working days are lost by injured workers in Ontario. This is an unacceptable toll for our province and its economy, but even more for the families and loved ones of the workers who needlessly put their bodies and lives on the line.

When we think of more than 200 workplace deaths or hundreds of thousands of injuries, we begin to live more in the realm of statistics than of human tragedy. That's why it's fitting to reflect for a moment on a particular example of this plague of death and injury such as what happened recently in my home town of Hamilton.

William Allan Morden, a garbage collector who had worked for the city for 20 years, died in hospital after being hit by a pickup truck and pinned against the rear of his garbage truck. Our thoughts are with his two sons and with all his colleagues and loved ones who have suffered this loss.

The Ministry of Labour has recommended alternative methods of collection or modification to the trucks that could make sure no one in the future is injured or killed as a result of this type of accident.

The least we owe to workers like William Morden or Ray Courchesne, who was killed last week in Sudbury, or Sean Kells, and to their friends and families is our fullest commitment to the best possible workplace health and safety training and to the elimination of workplace hazards. My colleagues and I in the NDP caucus are pleased to join all members of the House in a minute of silence to honour the memory of those fallen workers.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Yesterday and today across Ontario and across Canada, workers have joined together in remembrance of those who have lost their lives or suffered injury or illness in the workplace. This is a day of mourning. It is a day to reflect on the terrible human costs of all workplace illnesses, injuries and fatalities and the tragic impact they have on the families who are impacted.

As well, it is a day for the government, for labour and for management to reaffirm our shared commitment to the prevention of illness and injury, for health and safety is not a partisan issue; it is a human issue. We must acknowledge that partnerships are the key to success in developing and delivering the health and safety programs and training that will prevent future illness and injury.

It's for this reason that I want to congratulate Paul Kells who vowed to honour his 19-year-old son's death by trying to ensure that another death would not occur and for establishing the Safe Communities Foundation. This unique public and private sector partnership has as its goal the reduction of injuries and illness in the workplace, in the home and in the community. Certainly this supports the government's objective of setting performance standards to make sure that we do achieve progressive reductions in injuries and illness in Ontario each year.

However, much more remains to be done and will be done as we strive to improve our legislation and our programs. I would like to commend the labour movement for its initiative in establishing this annual day of mourning and I would encourage everyone in this House and outside of this House to continue to work cooperatively in order that we can achieve our common goal of preventing injuries and illness.

At this moment, I would ask everyone to stand for a moment of silence in order that we can remember those who were injured or lost their lives, and let us again commit ourselves to continue the pursuit of workplace health and safety.

The House observed one minute's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with his announcement today on the budget. I think people in Ontario appreciate that we have a debt and a deficit problem and probably would agree it's our number one fiscal problem. Jobs are our number one economic problem, but this is our number one fiscal problem.

I think that's the reason the government has had some support for its expenditure cuts, not necessarily universal support but support for it. But people are starting to ask this question: If the deficit and debt is such a huge problem, and it is, how can we afford the tax cut? As you point out in this document, you plan to add about $20 billion to our debt over the next three years. That's your fiscal plan. That's the most recent plan we have from you. That's the plan you have outlined for us. In the budget, I gather, it will be somewhat less than that, but that's the number you have given us. That's about $8,000 a family in brand-new debt in this province.

At the same time, it is the government's plan to proceed with a very substantial tax cut. We realize the government may very well be popular on that, but you are going to add $10 billion of that $20-billion debt as a result of the tax cut. Those are your own numbers. The Premier shakes his head, but they are their own numbers that he ran on during the campaign, the direct fiscal impact of the Common Sense Revolution; not my numbers, your numbers, the numbers we assume we have to use.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: If the debt and deficit are such huge problems, how can we afford a $10-billion tax cut, all with borrowed money, when we have this enormous debt and deficit problem?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): First of all, the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes it sound as if we are going to go out and borrow an extra $20 billion because we're doing this and this. He knows full well that the reason for the increase in the debt is because there is an accumulated debt now in the province of Ontario of $100 billion. Quite frankly, if we had continued with the same spending habits and methods of the two previous administrations, by the year 2000 the figure for interest on the debt alone would be $20 billion a year.

Out of a budget of some $42 billion for program spending, how many hospital beds would be open then? How many senior citizens would we be helping? How many children and disadvantaged people could we afford to help if we continued along the lines of the two previous administrations?

Any actions we have taken are to deal with that expenditure appetite of the two previous administrations, to get our expenditures under control in the province of Ontario, to balance the budget by the year 2000-2001, which, by the way, we will be doing, and then we can start to turn this ship around for the betterment of future generations of Ontarians.

Mr Phillips: Eventually you're going to have to answer this argument, this question, and to an extent you confirmed my worst suspicions. You never answered the question and you pointed out that the interest on the debt is a huge problem for all of us.

My question is quite simple, though. If in fact it is -- and it is, and the numbers you quoted are your numbers. You're going to borrow an extra $20 billion. You're going to add $20 billion to the debt over the next three years, and over half of that is a result of your tax cut. These are your own numbers. You say your tax cut is going to cost $10 billion, and I would appreciate -- and the people of Ontario would appreciate -- an answer to the question, because you refused to answer it.

If the debt is such a huge problem and the interest on the debt is such a huge problem, tell the people of Ontario how we can afford a $10-billion tax cut, using all borrowed money. This is all borrowed money. You are going to go and borrow the $20 billion, bring it in and put $10 billion out in the form of a tax cut. Tell us how we can afford a $10-billion tax cut.

Hon Mr Eves: There is one thing that apparently the honourable member and his party don't seem to understand and that is that 8.8% of Ontarians are unemployed today. Why are they unemployed? They are unemployed because of the policies of the two previous administrations, in large part.

We not only have to get our own house in order, we have to also allow hard-working, honest, taxpaying Ontarians to keep more of the money they have earned -- not us here in this place -- so they can spend it as they see fit, which in turn --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I know they find this hard to believe -- will stimulate the economy, create more employment. There'll be more people working, more people paying taxes, revenues will go up and people will feel as if they've been treated in a fair and equitable fashion and that there's some hope and opportunity in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: We'll be very interested to debate. Talk about fairness -- I will just say that hospitals are closing in this province, classrooms teachers are being laid off, we're having fewer police in this province, you are cutting the agricultural budget. And why? Because with this tax cut, if you're making $150,000 in this province, you are going to get a $6,000 tax break after the fair share health levy. Not before the fair share health levy; after the fair share health levy. So it is fairness.

I think the people of Ontario realize that the government is going to have to go out and borrow every penny of this. You are going to borrow the money to give people making $150,000 a year a $6,000 tax break. That's what fairness is all about. And why? You are cutting expenditures, by your own admission, far deeper than you promised in the campaign, in fact over a third deeper than you promised in the campaign, but you have decided that you're not going to touch the tax break. You're going to cut far deeper in health care, education, policing, law enforcement and agriculture to fund this tax break.

How is it that you have planned to cut expenditures at least a third deeper than you said during the campaign, but you can still afford a tax cut that will give someone making $150,000 a year $6,000 more in take-home pay?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well that the reason there is $2 billion approximately more in expenditure reductions is because of the fact that the previous administration had miscalculated revenues and expenditures and we had to address that and we did, after being in office for three and a half weeks, on July 21.

Second, we can't afford not to allow Ontarians to keep some of their hard-earned money.

I will tell you about the approach of previous administrations. Under the Rae government, for example, which increased taxation by $4 billion overall, in the year 1990-91 their tax revenues were $33.6 billion. Then they raised taxes $4 billion, and in the fiscal year 1993-94 they got $31.8 billion, almost $2 billion less in revenue by increasing taxes by $4 billion. We obviously know that theory doesn't work.

Let me also tell you about the state of Michigan. The state of Michigan, in the last four years, has decreased taxes 21 times. In 1991 their unemployment rate was 8.8% and today it is 4.4%, and their tax revenues went from $3.8 billion to $5 billion. Wouldn't that be terrible if the same thing happened here in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I can only assume that the Conservative collective memory only begins in 1985, so the minister can't remember the largest tax increases --

The Speaker: Who's your question to?

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Premier.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, while you were out of town last week, your Minister of Education and Training gave some rather unsatisfactory responses on questions that we raised in the House. I wanted to ask you about these responses.

One of the issues that we raised was an agreement that your minister forced on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. The agreement allowed your government to raid the property tax base of Metro Toronto for some $65 million to help to pay for that income tax cut that will be in your budget.

I'm sure you're aware that when we raised this issue with the minister on Wednesday he denied the existence of any agreement at all. When we produced a copy of the signed agreement on Thursday, he switched gears faster than Jacques Villeneuve could. He said that

whereas on Wednesday there had not been an agreement, on Thursday there was an agreement, but since he hasn't been able to deliver on his part of the deal he considered that agreement to be null and void and now he needs a new one.

He also said, or tried to say, that the deal was only about making social contract cuts permanent. Well, clearly that was part of another deal and this was another $65 million that he was taking from Metro Toronto taxpayers.

Clearly the minister was trying to hide the fact that your government is planning to raid the local tax base in both Metro Toronto and Ottawa, and the minister was trying to hide the fact that this was already happening.

I ask you today, does this type of behaviour meet your standard of conduct for ministers?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm not sure why the answers weren't satisfactory to the member on Thursday, but I'm sure they will be from the Minister of Education and Training today.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I would be delighted once again today to inform the Leader of the Opposition that this government intends to reduce the costs of education outside of the classroom, and we intend to do that in partnership with the boards of education across the province. It may startle the Leader of the Opposition to believe that people would work together to find a more affordable system for the taxpayers of Ontario while still looking for high levels of student achievement, because that's what students and parents and educators expect in this province.

It may startle the Leader of the Opposition that that's possible, but that is what this government is doing and that is what we expect of our education partners across the province.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition has already said that, yes, this government fully acknowledges that it wishes to enter into an agreement with Metropolitan Toronto -- we have said that on many occasions -- and when we get the permission in Bill 34, we intend to have open negotiations, honest negotiations, with our partners in education and arrive at an agreement. As I said last week, when that agreement is arrived at, I'll be proud and pleased to lay it on the table here in the Legislature.

Mrs McLeod: I am more than a little surprised that the Premier was not prepared to defend his minister. Maybe that's because there is no way this Premier could have any consistency in his own statements and still defend what this minister is doing.

I would remind the Premier, and perhaps the Minister of Education should be aware, that on June 14, 1993, when the now Premier was in opposition, he raised exactly this same issue with the former Minister of Education. When the NDP announced in the social contract that it was raiding the property tax base in Metro Toronto, this Premier, then an opposition leader, spoke out very forcibly against it, and I have his words right here in Hansard.

What the words in Hansard say is that the Premier, at that time, was very concerned that the New Democratic Party government would do exactly what his Minister of Education has now done: threaten the board that if they don't pay up, he would find other ways to take money from local property taxpayers.

I guess I have to ask the Minister of Education, since the Premier has referred the question, do you have any idea, Minister, why your Premier has changed since he spoke out against raiding local property taxes when the NDP did it? And can you tell us why he as well as you now seems to be in favour of taking some $75 million from local taxpayers in Toronto and Ottawa?

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

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can clear the dilemma up for the Leader of the Opposition, because now I understand why there is a dilemma for her. This government has not threatened anyone, nor does it intend to.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I understand, because you have repeatedly said in this House that there was nothing forceable about the deal you would make with Metro Toronto or Ottawa, that the legislation you were bringing in would simply allow the boards of Toronto and Ottawa to voluntarily make a contribution towards your government's income tax cut.

But I have to tell you that back in 1993, Mike Harris was very sceptical about why any board would voluntarily write a cheque to the government to help it out of its financial dilemma. In fact, the Premier, who was then an opposition leader, asked the government very specifically what other means the government would use "to extract" -- those were the Premier's, then opposition leader's, words -- money from the boards.

I want the Premier to know that his minister has found the answer to the question he asked almost three years ago. He has found the means of extracting -- and here it is, and the word is exactly the same -- first, $75 million from Metro Toronto and then $65 million. Minister, are you expecting, given what he has said in the past, that your Premier will now instruct you to stop trying to take property tax dollars from Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa to pay for your income tax cut?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the honourable member opposite that what the Premier expects and what every member of our caucus expects, what all my colleagues expect, is for this ministry and this minister to take on the horrible funding mess that has been left to us by the previous government and the $100 billion in debt that's been left on top of this province by the previous government.

This ministry and this minister, all my colleagues, expect us to take on these issues and to find a better way, to find a more affordable, higher-quality, more accountable education system. They expect us to do that in the fiscal realities that have been left to this government, with the remnants of the social contract the member opposite brought up in her question earlier. What's expected is a better, fairer education system, a fairer funding system, better value for our taxpayers and better student achievement for the young people of Ontario. That is what my colleagues expect, that is what this Premier expects and that is what we'll deliver on. Thank you.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If I could just have a few seconds of your time, we have former Speaker Warner in the visitors' gallery today.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the minister without portfolio responsible for gutting the WCB. On this day, when we all stood in the House and recognized the day of mourning, on this day, when we all stood in this House and pledged to recognize the importance of health and safety in the workplace, we had the hypocrisy of you, on behalf of the Mike Harris government, actively putting together a plan that is meant to slash benefits to injured workers.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. That is an unacceptable word. Would the member please withdraw the word "hypocrisy."

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, with respect, I didn't accuse the minister.

The Speaker: Withdraw the word "hypocrisy," please.

Mr Christopherson: If I have said something unparliamentary, I do indeed take it back.

Minister, we have the spectacle of your ministry, on behalf of the Mike Harris government, actively putting together a plan designed solely to slash benefits of injured workers. We know your report is meant to build the case that would somehow try and justify this attack on innocent injured workers, and we also know that much of your report does not hold up to scrutiny.

For example, on page 26 you write, "In Quebec, an employer pays an injured worker's full salary for the first 14 days." I have a copy of a letter that was sent to you on March 9 from the assembly of injured workers of Quebec where they said very bluntly, "This is absolutely wrong," and explained that the WCB in Quebec pays the worker 90% of net just like here in Ontario. Minister, I'd like to know how this mistake happened and what you're planning to do about it.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Workers' Compensation Board]): I want to thank the member opposite for his question. I want to indicate it is no secret that the WCB has been in severe difficulty for a fairly long period of time. The member opposite sat in the cabinet of a government that undertook reforms that racheted down worker benefits in this province, and still the unfunded liability laid at about $14 billion. The member opposite, while his government was in power, undertook a royal commission to wander about analysing the issues around workers' compensation.

The truth is that decisive action has to be taken, that the unfunded liability is still a serious problem for this province and for the injured workers this fund is there to protect. The member opposite is very much aware that the discussion paper put out for consideration by injured workers, for labour groups in this province, for health care professionals, was an examination of a variety of options to find the best balance and the best solutions for injured workers and employers in this province.

The commitment from the Mike Harris government clearly is to get the Workers' Compensation Board back on a strong financial footing and to produce a balance between those worker benefits and employer affordability so that this province can remain competitive now and into the future.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, you notice that this is the second time I've asked the minister a question about the accuracy of his report and in both cases he's refused to answer the question.

The last question I asked him on this was about the report that claimed our Ontario rates were higher than American rates. I pointed to a report the federal government had commissioned by KPMG Peat Marwick which makes the case that our rates are competitive with the Americans and in fact are lower than, and he refused to answer that question when I pointed it out to him. I have a third example. In the same letter from the assembly of injured workers of Quebec, they point out that your statement about paying life pensions in lump sums is "absolutely wrong." Minister, that's the second one. They go on to say, "Unfortunately on these two occasions what is written about our system is false."

Minister, when you talk about the finances, we know that the unfunded liability has dropped two years in a row, by over half a billion dollars alone last year. Assets are now up over $7 billion. I've pointed out three instances where your report is factually incorrect. When will you stand up and admit that report is not an accurate reflection of the facts and it's meant to put up a phoney argument to give you an excuse to slash benefits of injured workers?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, admit the truth.

Hon Mr Jackson: The member opposite raises with conjecture concerns about the competitive rate for Ontario with its WCB. I want to apprise the member opposite. The report very carefully selected those American jurisdictions which we trade with, which are closest to our borders, which have a huge impact in auto production, like Ohio and Michigan. The member should be fully aware, and I'd be surprised if he isn't, that the Ontario WCB system is constructed and structured on 175% of the average industrial wage,

whereas in those jurisdictions we're competing with on a daily basis, for jobs and for exports, in Ohio and in Michigan, our largest trading partner outside Canada, they are calculated on 100% of the industrial wage in the United States.

It tends to lower their rates and ours are considerably higher. Our benefit levels are higher; our calculation and the formula's higher. Quite frankly, the member knows this, but he is sticking to this presumption that these suggestions of how Ontario is less than competitive are not valid. The truth is that the proposals put in this report clearly enunciate data that are shared by all WCBs across Canada and those were the data that were put into this report.

Mr Christopherson: Clearly, this minister has dropped the ball on this particular aspect of what he's been given. This report is not an accurate reflection of the facts. I've made that allegation here today; I've made it before. You refuse to respond. You dance around the issue. The fact of the matter is your report doesn't hang together. The facts are incorrect; the suppositions are incorrect; everything in there that you're trying to create a smokescreen from which you can go after injured workers is a sham.

Karl Crevar is here from the network of injured workers all across Ontario. You tell him right now why it is that you feel you've got the right, based on your report, to go after innocent injured workers. Tell that representative of injured workers right there where you get off going after injured workers.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to share two important pieces of information, not only with the member opposite but also with Karl Crevar, who's in the House today.

You have alluded to the fact that the workers' compensation system in the province of Ontario has had one good, positive performance year, the last half of 1995. The single largest impact that was felt was a $300-million growth in assessable employment revenue, a growth in payable payroll in this province, predominantly as a result of growth in the auto sector as signalled by the election of this government. The turnaround in the WCB is a growth of $300 million on employment growth.

The other point that I'll share with the member opposite is that when he was sitting on this side of the House, his government's approach to fixing the WCB was to reduce the unfunded liability of about $40 billion by $19 billion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to assure the members of this House that the Mike Harris government will approach the reform of the WCB with balance and that under no circumstances will our reduction be any greater. It'll be much less than the $19 billion that you and the NDP disfranchised injured workers from --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been answered.

New question?

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but he appears to have left, so I'll stand it down until he returns.

INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I attended the day of mourning in Sudbury. The theme of the day was, "Remember the dead but fight for the living." With that in mind, I have a question to the Solicitor General.

On Wednesday, cabinet received the Ontario Law Reform Commission's report on the law of coroners, and discussed it, I presume. On April 15, the Minister of Labour said that she would be meeting with you. Have you met with the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Attorney General to discuss the recommendations found in this report? Could you please inform the House what the recommendation of the commission is regarding mandatory coroners' inquests and do you agree with it?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member is correct with respect to the fact that the report was tabled with cabinet this past week, but we have not had an opportunity to meet to discuss its recommendations.

Mr Bartolucci: I find that answer so distasteful in the light of what we're recognizing today. Recommendation 24 --

Interjections.

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

Mr Bartolucci: If you haven't had time to read it and discuss it, let me tell you what it says: "Inquests should continue to be mandatory when a person dies while employed on a construction site or in a mine pit or quarry." It should be mandatory.

Again to the Solicitor General, do you agree with the recommendation and, if so, will you reconsider your ill-advised, ill-timed and illogical decision not to have mandatory inquests?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated earlier with respect to the changes to the Coroners Act that they will require the involvement of this Legislature. There will be public hearings through that process, and if there are legitimate concerns, they will be heard and recognized by this government.

Mr Bartolucci: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: There's nothing out of order.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On this particular day, to get a non-answer to a very serious question --

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. I'll have to name the member if he won't take his seat.

Question from the third party.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Over the past few months, we've been witnessing your cuts to post-secondary education to the tune of about $400 million, and we're seeing programs cut and faculty layoffs at the post-secondary level. You've told us that tuition fees are going to rise by 15% at the college level and about 20% at the university level next year. While you're doing this, you've said, "Well, don't worry, there's going to be an income contingency plan in place," but we are fearful that it will not be in place in time for the new tuition fees when they click in.

On April 17, your Premier said in this House, "We want to see the full income-contingent loan program, on which we now have agreement from the federal government, under way at the same time as there are any further increases" in tuition fees.

Minister, I ask you this question about that agreement with the federal government because last week, in an amazing display of dexterity and footwork, you said that you didn't have an agreement with the Metro Toronto school board, until someone waved a signed copy in front of you.

Is there an agreement, another secret agreement, with the federal government on the income-contingent loan program or not? If there is, will you table it here today? If there's not, what in the world was the Premier talking about?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): There is no secret about the fact that this government intends to work to an income-contingent loans package for students. We think that is what's needed. We said that publicly in 1992. We said it again before the election. I know this is a little strange, but we put that in a communiqué we sent to all the people of Ontario and said, "This is what we stand for and this is what we, as a party, believe in and this is what we're moving forward on." So there is no secret to that. We are working on that and we will continue to work on it. I hope one day to be able to bring that deal forward to this Legislature.

Mr Laughren: At least it's clear now that the Premier was blowing smoke when he said that we now have an agreement from the federal government. That is not correct. I assume that's what the Minister of Education is saying, that the Premier was dead wrong when he said he had an agreement with the federal government, and he said it in this House, as I recall.

He's shaking his head. How can you say no?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I said they agreed it was a good idea.

Mr Laughren: No, no. I'll read the quote again. Obviously the Premier didn't hear his own quote. He said, "We want to see the full income-contingent loan program, on which we now have agreement from the federal government...." That sounds like an agreement to me. If that's not an agreement, then I don't know what an agreement is. We must have another secret deal under way here that the Minister of Education -- that the Premier hasn't told the Minister of Education about, or vice versa. I'm not sure what it is any more.

Carrying on with the similar theme of post-secondary education in the province, the minister has been promising since the beginning of the year that there would be a white paper to discuss the future of post-secondary education in this province. We know that you're having a lot of problems with this, and we understand that, and you've gone through a number of drafts, I believe. But now students are finishing their exams and soon will be out there looking for jobs; they won't be on the university campuses across the province.

You've been telling us now since January that the release of this post-secondary discussion paper will be soon. Would you tell us: When in the world is soon?

Hon Mr Snobelen: One of the things that's become very clear from our conversations with our federal counterparts in discussing income-contingent loans is that there might very well be a package of income-contingent loans available to students in this province. We might have been able to do that much quicker had the previous administration, the previous government, not opposed it, not frustrated the attempts at arriving at an agreement with the federal government, and that has become abundantly clear.

JOB CREATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, you and the Premier have both stated several times that your government will create 725,000 jobs through your term and you will use a tax break to do it. According to your trickle-down economics theory, you say your tax break will create jobs because people will spend the money they get from the tax break, and that spending will create confidence and jobs will be created as well.

Now we find out from an Environics poll --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The members for Etobicoke West and Nepean, please come to order.

Mr Hampton: I know that this government doesn't want to hear from anyone who disagrees with it, but the fact is the Environics poll has tested people in the province and the majority of people have said they don't intend to spend any tax break. They're worried about their economic future and they're going to save the tax break. In fact, over 55% of Ontarians say they'll put any money from the tax break in the bank. So can the Minister of Finance tell us how his Conservative government will create 725,000 jobs over the next three years if the majority of people aren't going to spend the tax break and they're not going to stimulate the economy and they're not going to create new jobs?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): First of all, I don't rely upon Environics polls to tell me much of anything.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: We don't rely on polls.

Apparently the member wasn't here earlier in question period to listen to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's question and my response. I know he finds this difficult to believe, but in jurisdictions where they've actually lowered the rate of taxation, they have created jobs and increased revenue.

Mr Hampton: It's interesting. Every time the Minister of Finance comes to the House, he tries to create a different spin. A month ago this spin was he cited an economist, Patti Croft of Canada Trust, and Miss Croft said -- and she was very clear -- the tax break would create new jobs only if it boosted consumer spending and that consumer spending resulted in new jobs.

We know, consumers are telling you, they're not going to spend the tax break; they're going to bank it. And the reason they're going to bank it is because your government has cut jobs, it's cut health care, it's cut education, it's cut communities and people are scared and they're worried.

I ask you again, if the majority of people in Ontario are telling you, "Look, we're not going to spend the money from the tax break; we're going to save it because we're worried and we're scared," how do you plan to create the 725,000 jobs?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm not relying upon an Environics poll or the Toronto Star to tell me how people are going to behave. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly, Environics was the same polling firm that predicted, 48 or 72 hours before June 8, that the Liberals were going to form a majority government. How well did they do?

To the honourable member, when your government was in power, you created tax increases equalling $4 billion and you lost approximately $2 billion in revenue. Obviously, increasing tax rates doesn't create employment. Your unemployment went up, your revenue went down and your tax rate went up.

When are you going to understand there are people out there being taxed to death? They don't need 65 tax increases in 10 years. They don't need 11 personal income tax increases in 10 years. What they do need is some relief and some ability to keep their hard-earned tax dollars, and I have every confidence that they will spend it far better than any government ever dreamt of doing.

Mr Hampton: We know that the Minister of Finance has every confidence. We know that. What we want to know is, where's the evidence? We know the government didn't do any studies of its own. We know even the government's own economists told them this won't work. They government's own economists told them that since the majority of this tax cut is going to wealthy people, and wealthy people will bank it or they'll put it in a retirement savings plan, we know this isn't going to stimulate the economy.

I ask the Minister of Finance again, since he has no studies and since the people of Ontario are now telling him that they're not going to spend it, and they're not going to spend it because they're worried about all the job cuts and they're worried about the cuts to health care and they're worried about the cuts to education, since they're not going to spend it, they're not going to --

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Eves: I know it is difficult for a member of the New Democratic Party to understand that somebody other than government can create jobs, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that in other jurisdictions where they have reduced the rate of taxation, they have increased employment and they have increased --

Mr Hampton: Where, in the United States of America?

Hon Mr Eves: No. How about New Brunswick? Is that in the United States of America? How about Alberta? Is that in the United States of America? Before the honourable member wants to run for leader, I think we'd better give him a geography test to learn where New Brunswick and Alberta are.

PESTICIDES

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Each year farmers in Ontario face many challenges that for the most part are beyond their control. In my riding of Perth, many a farmer can remember when prospects of a good harvest were jeopardized due to unpredictable storms, early or late frosts and flooding. In addition to these weather phenomena that are beyond the farmer's control, there are problems such as insect infestation, plant disease, which are of great concern but are more controllable.

Interjections.

Mr Bert Johnson: I'm glad to see that the people on the other side are awake; at least, I can hear them.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mr Bert Johnson: As a relevant example, I know that potato farmers are concerned about the crop damage caused by the Colorado potato beetle. The potential financial toll resulting from destruction done by this serious pest is staggering. I wonder if the minister could tell us what is being done to give Ontario farmers the tools they need to combat this destructive beetle.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Yes, the food producers of Ontario are very much subject to elements of the weather and many other areas of concern.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'm always amazed when the opposition has difficulty respecting food producers. I'll tell you, they are very important to this province.

Regarding the insect mentioned by my colleague from Perth, yes, the Colorado potato beetle has created a problem in both potato and tomato crops, and I am pleased that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture at the federal level, has licensed a new insecticide called Admire. They will be using this insecticide to control beetles in both potatoes and tomatoes, and will indeed, I believe, help the agriculture and food producers of Ontario to produce more economically for all the consumers in Ontario.

Mr Bert Johnson: As you're aware, Mr Minister, research and development are part of the government's commitment to assist the farmers of Ontario. I raised the example of the Colorado potato beetle in my original question because it's been known to develop resistance to virtually all insecticides. In the interest of the farmers of Ontario, is there anything being done to make sure this doesn't happen with Admire?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We recognize the fact that certain insects do build up a resistance to insecticides. However, to combat the pesticide resistance, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has developed a program with research partners and indeed with farmers so that through the use of herbicide and through the use of mechanical means they can and will control this pest and indeed make the production more efficient.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, you know that in the province of Ontario, over a quarter of a million people live in public housing, including many, many seniors. Both in the Common Sense Revolution and during the election and since the election, you and the Premier have made a number of statements that the government should get out of housing. You've also received a number of unsolicited offers from the private sector to buy some of these units.

I've met on a number of occasions with a number of concerned individuals in my community, as I'm sure other members in this House have with individuals in their communities, who are concerned about their future in public housing. These tenants in public housing are scared, they're anxious, and they're afraid of whether or not they'll have a roof over their head once the privatization takes place and whether or not they can at least expect a drastic rent increase if that were to happen.

In light of the comments that the Premier made over the weekend in which he said it may be very difficult for the province to sell the units and it may not happen after all, Mr Minister, and in light of the fact that there are a quarter of a million people who are really afraid, anxious and concerned out there, will you make a commitment today to stop making statements in the media and elsewhere regarding the inevitable sale of public housing and consult with the tenants and develop a plan with them that protects these vulnerable citizens who live there and ensures that they will not lose their homes or be at least exposed to drastic rent decreases?

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

Mr Gerretsen: What definite answer can you give to these people?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Most levels of government realize they shouldn't be in the bricks and mortar business. The Liberal government in Ottawa has also stated that it wants to get out of the social housing business. They've offered their portfolio to Ontario. Quite frankly, we don't want it, because we agree with them in this instance that government shouldn't be in the bricks and mortar business.

We are working with the federal government, we are working with the non-profit operators, and we're trying to work up a proposal that will allow us to get out of bricks and mortar and provide subsidies that would be of benefit to all people who need help in accommodation.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Leach: Not quite the Flying Toad, as the member has indicated. But we are working on a proposal, and I'm quite sure that we will have something coming forward in the not too distant future. It is a very complex issue involving all three levels of government, and we're working in concert with them.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): To the same minister: Let me be a little more specific, but I also share what my colleague from Kingston and The Islands has asked and I would address the area. You and I talked on the phone about seniors who have grave worries, have grave concerns and are feeling highly insecure. I suspect it's not just in Kingston and it's not just in Ottawa; as a matter of fact, it's probably even in your own riding. I've had four special meetings over the last six weeks with senior residents inviting me to please come, that they're going to lose their apartment or their home. It's a very big tragedy to see elderly people so worried about the community they live in.

I ask you, Minister, if you would confirm to our seniors, in terms of residences being sold out from under them or increases on their rent, that this will not happen, that their future is secure. Would you accept an invitation at the earliest possible convenience to come to the Ottawa-Carleton area, share your views and please assure seniors that you really do stand by making sure their future is secure?

Hon Mr Leach: I agree with the member. We must ensure that the seniors in our community are not frightened. If the members across the way would stop fearmongering over there, it would go a long way to alleviate that. They go around issuing statements that seniors are going to be thrown out of their homes, that their houses are going to be sold from underneath them, and that's utter nonsense.

We are looking at ways and means of getting out of the bricks and mortar business, we've said we want to ensure that we provide shelter subsidies to those people who need them and we are developing those programs. We have to do this in consultation with all three levels of government, so there will be no For Sale signs put on any building until such time as we're convinced we have the proper tools to do the job, and we will have soon.

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. On the weekend, the Premier had some very interesting comments published in the Ottawa Citizen as a result, I understand, of a meeting with the editorial board regarding educational funding. It's reported that he said, "If school boards pass on education costs through larger classroom sizes, they could be abolished." This seems like another rather bullying approach to dealing with school boards.

We know there have been 10,000 layoff notices issued by boards to teachers across the province. The $1 billion taken out of education in one year will mean larger class sizes. I'm asking the minister today whether he agrees with his Premier that if a school board increases class size as a result of the changes that are being made in education this year, the school board will be abolished.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Clearly anyone who has studied this subject, who has looked at this system can tell you there is a tremendous amount of spending that can be reduced, a tremendous number of savings that can be found outside the classroom. Anyone who has looked at student-teacher ratios in Ontario versus actual class sizes realizes that if our people were more frequently deployed in a better way in the classroom, we could actually close that gap between class size and pupil-teacher ratio.

I can assure the honourable member opposite that I find no reason, and I'm sure no one in our government would find a reason, why class sizes should go up as a result of the reductions we've made. The Premier has said and I have said what I believe all my colleagues would agree on, that it is time for some fundamental changes to the way we fund education and to the governance of education in the province of Ontario. We, as a government, will take on those very thorny, very real issues, unlike your government and unlike the previous government.

Mr Wildman: I don't think the minister had the opportunity to answer the question. The Premier said, according to the newspaper report, despite everything the minister has said assuring us there will not be larger class sizes, that if a school board did increase class sizes, they could be abolished -- the board, that is, not the classes. The board could be abolished. I'd like the minister to take the opportunity to assure the boards across the province that he agrees or disagrees with the Premier that if they increase class sizes, school boards could be abolished.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Algoma is being clever, perhaps witty, with his suggestions from what's in the newspaper. He has obviously taken two things the Premier has said and that I just talked about a few moments ago in this House and put them together. I don't believe the Premier has said what the member opposite has represented.

What we have said very clearly is this: We do expect school boards to find the savings we have suggested, the less than 2% of their operating costs. We believe they can find those savings outside of the classroom. I think reasonable people across the province who've had some experience either in their own lives in the business community or at home understand that finding savings of that nature is not difficult in a system as large as we have. We fully expect that boards across the province will do that, that they will find those savings outside of the classroom.

Let me reassure the member for Algoma again that this government intends to take on those very real, very thorny issues the previous government left us, that is, a funding system that doesn't provide for equity in providing an equal opportunity for education for all students in Ontario. Surely that's required.

2001 CANADA SUMMER GAMES

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As you know, Ontario has been selected to host the 2001 Canada Summer Games. This is very exciting, positive news which will focus the national spotlight on many of the fine qualities this province has to offer.

As you would expect, many communities, including my own, Kitchener, have expressed an interest in hosting these games. Unfortunately, the process is being delayed by the federal government, which has indicated that it wishes to reduce the amount of funding it provides for staging these games. Could you please advise us what actions you have taken to secure stable federal funding for this event?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): In December 1995 I actually advised the previous federal minister that our ability to host these games would be put in serious jeopardy should the federal government unilaterally change the funding formula for the games. I also indicated to the former minister, Minister Dupuy, that any site selection process would be delayed until a resolution of this matter was achieved.

It's my pleasure today to report that the new minister responsible, Minister Copps, has agreed with our position and has assured me that the federal government will abide by the terms of the funding formula for the 2001 Canada Summer Games.

Mr Wettlaufer: That is excellent news, but could you tell us what process will be used to select the host community for the 2001 summer games?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Now that there has been a resolution with respect to the funding question, my ministry will begin the process of contacting interested communities with regard to the host bidding process this spring.

The Canada Summer Games Council and my ministry will conduct a briefing for all interested parties at the end of May, called the bidders' conference. I'm informed that 14 communities in Ontario have expressed an interest in hosting these games. The bids must be submitted by the fall, and the ministry will then select up to three potential host sites. The Canada Summer Games Council then chooses the host community.

PETITIONS

INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I am proud to present the following petition signed by several people, one being Councillor John Fera, the mover of a regional council motion that states:

"Whereas the Minister of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services will remove the requirement in the Coroners Act for mandatory inquests for construction and mining deaths; and

"Whereas the practice of mandatory inquests represents the lifeblood for the labour movement and for the mining and construction industries in the pursuit of a healthy and safe workplace; and

"Whereas the inquests held as a result of the tragic deaths have provided significant opportunities to identify why such terrible tragedies happen and provide recommendations on how to avoid these deaths in the future; and

"Whereas 90% of Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act is comprised of recommendations from the coroners' inquests; and

"Whereas such action by the ministry has the potential to increase the number of workers' compensation claims and an increased loss of life; and

"Whereas the inquest recommendations are sent Canada-wide to improve safety opportunities everywhere in the country; and

"Whereas the inquest recommendations provide the victims' families with an opportunity to understand the circumstances surrounding the death of a loved one; and

"Whereas it is irrational to attempt to cost out a person's life as a budget-saving measure,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the regional council petition the Premier of Ontario, the Treasurer of Ontario and the Minister of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to immediately reinstate the requirement for mandatory inquests for construction and mining deaths in Ontario and that we solicit the support of our members of provincial Parliament and the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities in our struggle; and

"To the Honourable Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years,

"We, the undersigned, request the Solicitor General, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, to reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

I sign it and I thank you, Mr Speaker.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition from the good people of Ontario with regard to their opposition to rent control. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 and the Common Sense Revolution document;

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

"Whereas the government has consulted with special-interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants in this province;

"We, the undersigned, therefore call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop this attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province and to preserve the present system of rent control."

I affix my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the trustees and employees of the Perth County Board of Education, have actively contributed to cost control for the Perth County Board of Education to the extent that our education costs are the second-lowest of public boards in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas to continue with your proposed grant reductions will severely limit our ability to provide an equal opportunity for our students to compete with students in other boards for employment and for positions in college or university; and

"Whereas the cost-effectiveness of the Perth County Board of Education is demonstrated in that our cost per pupil ($4,984) is about $2,000 below the provincial average and only $68 more than the lowest provincial average cost per pupil in Canada, namely, Prince Edward Island at $4,916;

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

"To reinstate our general legislative grants to the 1995 levels; and

"To provide further grants to raise the level of service to students in Perth county to that which the government desires."

I will affix my signature to this so the assembly can receive it.

INJURED WORKERS

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

"We, the undersigned, reject the Harris government's historic proposals to attack the injured workers of Ontario. We, the people of Ontario, did not intend to vote against our neighbours. We want to build a better community. Injured workers are part of that community.

"We say no to the Harris plan to cut injured workers' benefits, cut injured workers' pensions and future economic loss payments, introduce a waiting period for benefits after injury, refuse compensation for disabilities like repetitive strains and occupational diseases, shift the responsibility from the WCB and employer to the Ontario taxpayer, and privatize the WCB at the expense of the injured worker and the public.

"We call on the Harris government to solve the WCB's problems without attacking injured workers."

I'm proud to affix my signature to this petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition today from the people of Marathon, Ontario. I received it in the mail on Friday, and it is signed by 92 residents of Marathon in the riding of Lake Nipigon. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Lake Nipigon riding, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed quickly with legislation to reduce our provincial tax rates as promised during the last provincial election, and we call on all members of the Parliament of Ontario to support the government in its promise to reduce provincial income tax rates in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas during the election campaign Premier Harris promised to protect the rights of the disabled and seniors; and

"Whereas now Premier Harris is saying that the disabled must become a part of workfare and yet they will be paid less than an able-bodied employee;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the needs of the disabled, to help the disabled to find suitable employment and to pay the disabled a fair wage."

This has been signed by over 100 petitioners and I have affixed my signature.

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here from the city of St Thomas and around St Thomas. It says:

"Save Our Psych.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

I affix my signature also.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I wish to present to the Legislature a petition with respect to the possible privatization of Ontario Hydro.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition from the residents of eastern Ontario who are opposed to the government's decision forcing the social assistance recipients who attend post-secondary or retraining programs off family benefits on to general welfare assistance and on to the OSAP system. These individuals write:

"OSAP does not cover the four months of non-school. OSAP is insufficient to live on. It must be paid back, and therefore the individual debt would be great and no one is going to tackle the immense task of attending school, maintaining a house and raising a family.

"Those attending school are bettering themselves to enter the workplace. Therefore, individuals will eventually be off the system. Limit them to attending school and you have these individuals on assistance for life because there are insufficient jobs available for the skills they possess."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A petition to the Ontario Legislature, to Premier Mike Harris, Minister Al Leach and members of the Ontario Legislature:

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

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative government made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution document; and

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

"Whereas the government has consulted with special-interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario,

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

I affix my signature also.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition from the secondary teachers of Ontario to the Ontario Legislature.

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

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

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here which is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas there is a possibility that the provincial government may cancel all provincial funding to public libraries and eliminate its role in ensuring that public libraries are regulated provincially; and

"Whereas Ontario's public libraries are a rich resource for the educational and information needs of all of our citizens, regardless of income or age, and public libraries are the most widely used institution in any community (more than schools, parks and recreational facilities); and

"Whereas public libraries are needed more than ever to provide economic strength and quality of life at a time when technology is changing rapidly and job retraining and upgrading are in constant demand, and adequate provincial funding will ensure our excellent public libraries will continue to meet the needs and interests of all Ontarians no matter where they reside; and

"Whereas the provincial government should not decrease its interest in a well-informed and literate population;

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

"To maintain its dual role in sustaining the province-wide information infrastructure already linking public libraries and in ensuring that the people of Ontario will receive a basic level of library service by protecting provincial per-household grants to public libraries."

This is signed by over 600 people and I've affixed my signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Premier Harris, Minister Cam Jackson and Minister Elizabeth Witmer.

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

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

I affix my signature also.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to rise to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned residents of Durham East, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as quickly as possible with the legislation to reduce provincial tax rates as promised during the last provincial election. We call on all members of the Parliament of Ontario to support this government in its promise to reduce provincial income taxes and remember that tax cuts equal jobs."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION REPEAL ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 ABROGEANT LA

LOI SUR L'INSTITUT D'ÉTUDES PÉDAGOGIQUES DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Snobelen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to repeal the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act and transfer assets to the University of Toronto / Projet de loi 45, Loi abrogeant la

Loi sur l'Institut d'études pédagogiques de l'Ontario et transférant l'actif de l'Institut à l'Université de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): This legislation will integrate the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, or OISE, and the faculty of education at the University of Toronto. It will repeal the OISE act of 1965 and transfer OISE to the University of Toronto effective July 1, 1996.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act and the Public Vehicles Act and to make consequential changes to certain other Acts / Projet de loi 39, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission des transports routiers de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les véhicules de transport en commun et apportant des modifications corrélatives à certaines autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Hamilton Centre had the floor. Is this correct?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr Speaker, to be helpful, I believe we were in rotation for questions and comments.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He hadn't finished.

Mr Michael Brown: I thought Mr Stockwell had spoken.

The Acting Speaker: The table keeps a very good record, and I believe the last one to speak was the member for Hamilton Centre. You have six minutes and 13 seconds.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Just to be clear, it was my understanding that we had completed the time and we were into the rotation, as my colleague has mentioned earlier, in terms of the two-minute responses.

The Acting Speaker: If you have finished your debate, we'll proceed to questions and comments, if this is what you wish.

Mr Christopherson: I had concluded my comments and was prepared to enter into the two-minute responses.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Michael Brown: I want to say, first of all, that we very much appreciated the succinct and direct comments from the member for Hamilton Centre regarding this particularly important piece of legislation that's before us today. Just so people are reminded, this is a bill that deregulates bus transportation within the province.

We particularly appreciate a member from Hamilton discussing this, because the issue for many of us in rural and northern Ontario is exactly something that doesn't particularly deal with the urban centres in Ontario but deals with these rural centres. What I think we have come to understand over the period of this, so far, brief debate is that there will be a loss of bus service to the smaller communities across Ontario. There is no question in anyone's mind that the smaller communities will not have bus service.

What does that mean? What that means exactly is that the seniors who rely on that bus transportation to get to medical appointments or perhaps visit relatives will no longer be able to take advantage of that service. The students, those young people who use bus transportation to go to college or university, will no longer be able, from those small communities, to access that service.

So when I hear a member from an urban centre like Hamilton, some of whose constituents may benefit from slightly reduced fares -- I'm not sure, but it's conceivable that could happen -- I want to tell you that we all appreciate that member bringing these issues in front of the Legislature and speaking so directly to this bill of great public concern in rural and northern Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Hamilton Centre, you have two minutes.

Mr Christopherson: I very much appreciate the comments of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who has participated in a very positive way and was here all throughout the debate last week, and I very much appreciate his recognition that while this may not be a critical, burning issue for the majority of my constituents in Hamilton Centre, it is indeed an issue that deserves to be recognized by all Ontarians, because as I said in my speech last week, it's just another piece of the quality of life of Ontario that is falling by the wayside as this government institutes their radical, draconian agenda wherein the vast majority of working people and their families are the losers.

We saw today the issue of workers' compensation as it relates to the day of mourning, and we know that occupational health and safety is on the line, just as we know that transportation networks are on the line. If this government can find a way where some of their friends can benefit from deregulating or backing government away, then of course that becomes the flavour of the day. It was mentioned that this bill is not the deregulation bill, but we do recognize this is very much the tee-up.

As my colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin has mentioned, there are a lot of seniors, there are a lot of students, there are unemployed workers, there are people who choose because of the opportunity of choice in Ontario to live in more remote rural areas who will lose as a result. Quite frankly, there's nothing but a litany of lose, lose, lose for the vast majority of Ontarians when we see this Tory agenda.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to take part this afternoon in the discussion over Bill 39, which will amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act and the Public Vehicles Act, but before I begin, if I might, I'd just like to take the opportunity, since technically I guess this is my maiden speech -- we tried to get it off the ground a couple of times last fall, but Mother Time intervened.

I'd like to thank the citizens of my constituency high atop Hamilton Mountain for placing their faith and trust in me last June 8. It has been my goal during the last 10 months, and will continue to be my goal during the next four years, to represent the citizens of Hamilton Mountain to the best of my ability and to work diligently and consciously towards earning the trust that they have placed in me.

I'd also like to pay due respect to the two previous members for Hamilton Mountain, the Honourable John Smith and the Honourable Brian Charlton, both of whom served in various portfolios under two previous governments, Mr Smith with the Progressive Conservatives and Mr Charlton with the previous New Democratic Party government. I'm pleased to report that both are doing well in their current endeavours and that Mr Charlton in particular has recovered 100% from his heart attack which he suffered just prior to the election.

Back to the business at hand. What is the rationale behind this bill? I believe that Bill 39, as the Minister of Transportation has clearly indicated, is consistent with this government's promise during the last election campaign to eliminate red tape and to reduce the regulatory burden on business in this province. By reducing regulations that affect business, this government is making all regulation of business by government faster, less intrusive and less costly to both sides, and we must decrease the regulatory burden in this province in order to stimulate job creation, economic growth and investment.

That was this government's promise during the last election, and we are following through on that promise.

The immediate purpose of Bill 39 is to introduce an interim regulatory system which will govern market entry and control for intercity bus services until December 31, 1997. On January 1, 1998, full economic deregulation of this industry will take place. The intercity bus industry is the only remaining form of transportation in which market entry is regulated. It is time that we allowed this industry to be competitive so that it can provide a higher-quality service and a higher number of service options to the travelling public. As was noted in the House last week, the 1992 Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation recommended that the regulations on the bus industry be decreased.

What specifically does this bill change? In regard to the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, this bill makes some important amendments which will transform the board into a more efficient and effective body. For example, this bill will require that the board be a smaller body. Members will sit on the board on a part-time basis, as required. It will also allow for hearings to take place in the presence of one member, unlike the previous requirement that there be at least two members for a hearing to proceed.

Again, this will facilitate increased efficiency, as will the board's freedom to hire staff on the basis of its level of activity. The Ontario Highway Transport Board Act will continue to require that members not hold other duties that are inconsistent with their duties as members of the board.

This bill will also achieve administrative efficiency by having the board, instead of the ministry, carry out the licensing and sanctioning of intercity bus operators. It will be the board's responsibility to issue operating licences, grant renewal of licences, issue special authorities, transfer licences and interpret ambiguous licences. The board will therefore have the power to control operators who are not complying, including amending, suspending or cancelling operating licences according to the rules governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The interim period that will be created by this bill is necessary because it will allow existing operators to prepare their companies for increased competition. It will also set in place a formal process to encourage existing operators which are planning to downsize to transfer low-volume scheduled services to locally based service providers who may be better able to satisfy the travel needs of Ontario's small, rural and remote communities.

The opposition has charged that this bill will wipe out bus service in rural Ontario. I don't believe this will be the case. Let's take a look at an important statistic under the current regulatory scheme. The federal government estimates that over 400 communities have lost service since 1980. That's 400 communities with no intercity bus service. To quote from a column in the London Free Press last November: "The regulatory system for intercity motor coach transportation in Ontario is entirely without merit.

Most of the rural bus routes the scheme was supposed to have sustained have dropped, yet customers are stuck with inflated fares on the dwindling number of intercity routes that still have regular bus service."

Bill 39 will change this situation by encouraging a new environment for maintaining and possibly improving services to small-town Ontario. For example, the rules governing discontinuance and reduction of scheduled services will be changed. Bill 39 will require scheduled carriers to provide a 30-day notice period prior to significant service reduction, and it will require scheduled carriers to provide a 90-day notice period prior to route abandonment. Under the current legislation, only a 10-day notice period is required for service reduction or route abandonment.

These changes are intended to encourage entrepreneurs and local communities to find alternative transportation during this lengthened notice period.

The president of Grey Bruce Airbus service has said: "I for one do not assume for a moment that small-town Ontario is going to be abandoned as a result of deregulation. We see it as an opportunity rather than being detrimental."

One other very important element of Bill 39 which must be mentioned is the addition of new regulation-making powers to allow for the imposition of fees to be paid by persons who use the board. These fees will not only be payable by applicants, but also by opponents and by persons requesting hearings; in short, the direct users of the board's services. This new regulatory system will thus rely strictly on a user-pay concept. It will not rely on the taxes of the hardworking people of this province.

It should also be noted that Bill 39 will not affect the safety measures of the intercity bus industry. Safety regulation and enforcement will continue to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation.

We need to continue to ensure the safety performance of operators during the interim period and after economic deregulation is implemented, and we are very serious about doing so, as the minister pointed out last week in the House.

For example, this bill will increase the insurance requirements for bus operators, thereby making certain that only those operators who are serious about providing a safe and high-quality service will want to do business. Moreover, this government is pushing for a national review of bus safety to see if national bus safety measures should be implemented.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill 39, with its partial deregulation of the intercity bus industry, will benefit Ontarians because it will help to create a smaller provincial government that is more effective and less intrusive; that has fewer regulations, with lower compliance costs for the taxpayer; that provides more effective and efficient protection for consumers; that extends more regulation of business by business and protects consumers and workers without choking innovation or wasting the hard-earned money of Ontario taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Michael Brown: I want to applaud the member on his maiden speech to this House, but I do have some questions about what he has outlined to us today.

One interesting thing I think he said was pretty much that deregulation will be a panacea for Ontario. Some of us have been through the truck deregulation of the late 1980s and early 1990s. One concern I had at that time, and continue to have, in regard to bus deregulation was the unfair competitive advantage that often goes to provinces adjoining us, in other words, Quebec and Manitoba.

Those two provinces are continuing with a form of regulation, which means that Ontario carriers will therefore have more difficulty in getting into their markets. They, however, do not face that same difficulty in entering the Ontario market. What occurs, and we've seen that with trucks along the Quebec border and along the Manitoba border, is that Quebec and Manitoba companies can come into Ontario and take the cream, their operating expenses often being offset by what is going on in their home provinces and causing a great disadvantage to Ontario carriers in Ontario.

I've always been a proponent of knocking down trade barriers between provinces but I think we have to be realistic here. We have to understand that the other provinces have to treat us the same way we treat them, and one thing this bill does not deal with is this very difficult issue of competitiveness between provinces and unfair advantage that goes to carriers from the other provinces.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too would like to congratulate the member on making his maiden speech, but he said something right at the very beginning that I find not only confusing but somewhat out of whack: this whole notion that somehow deregulation is the same thing as cutting red tape. I think most of us in the House would agree that unnecessary red tape of whatever measure it may take, at whatever government level -- outdated regulations, outdated ways of doing things, something that prevents the proper development of things that take place -- should be scrapped.

To somehow equate that to the idea that deregulation is merely the cutting out of red tape I think is in error. I don't think that's the actual fact.

The main fear that people have about deregulation in the bus industry is something that has already been mentioned in this House a number of times, and that relates to the fact that an awful lot of smaller communities will simply no longer be served. That's a fact. We've got a whole list of communities that may not be served. It goes on through about 100 names of small communities that are presently being served that will no longer be served if this law that's being proposed is put into effect.

To somehow equate the loss of service to communities that, it may very well be, are not economic runs for bus companies right now with the notion, "Well, that's all right because we're cutting out red tape," is incorrect and improper.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Hamilton Mountain. He's not there. Further debate?

Mr Michael Brown: I have not had an opportunity to say very much about this bill, and it is a bill that will affect northern communities and rural communities far more than the government over there wants to admit.

The first thing we should say is that this bill is an interim measure. It will be in place for some 21 months and includes a downsizing of the board, but is clearly the interim step in moving to full deregulation of intercity bus services across Ontario. First of all, we should understand that this is an interim measure based directly on the idea that we will fully deregulate in Ontario.

In speaking to the member for Hamilton Mountain's speech, I pointed out what one of my great fears is. One of my great fears is the same as what happened when trucking was deregulated, and that is, we work out reasonable arrangements with our sister provinces so they cannot skim the bus routes in Ontario while our companies have no ability, or very little ability, to move into their jurisdictions. It is just not fair for Ontario companies not to be able to legitimately operate under the same rules in Quebec or in Manitoba as their companies can in Ontario. As the government moves through this, I think they should understand that there are a lot of problems.

I know, Mr Speaker, you're particularly interested in the labour situation on the Quebec border, where construction workers from Quebec may work in Ontario. They cross the border anywhere from Ottawa along through to -- I would suggest they probably even go to North Bay or places up along the northern edge of our province. They come in -- and that's fair enough; I think that's great -- but our workers do not have the same ability to move into the province of Quebec.

Governments have been wrestling with this issue for as long as I can remember, and that's eight or nine years in this place, and probably for eons before, but what I'm trying to point out to governments is that it's not as easy to solve these particular situations as one often may think. It seems to me that if we're trying to build a competitive province, a province that creates jobs, a province where our companies play on a level playing field with other companies, this issue of borders and of what can happen in Quebec and Manitoba is critically important.

I know this because I happen to have the head office of one of the major trucking firms in this province located in my constituency. They have come to me and said: "We've had difficulty getting licences to operate in Manitoba, and yet I see their companies encroaching on routes that we wish to pursue and make money on. We can't compete in these particular areas."

I know that to be a real problem, and if the government does not move to correct the injustices with our neighbouring provinces and provide Ontario companies with the same rules and standards as the other provinces, I really don't know why anybody would even consider moving in this deregulation manner. It seems to me that in Canada we need a level playing field or we cannot go forward.

I also want to talk a little about the safety issues. Again this relates almost directly to the recent truck deregulation in the province, or at least the deregulation that's occurred in the last five or six years.

It is all well and good for ministers to say, "The market will determine everything and the market will make sure communities are served and that freight goes here or freight goes there." But the reality is that in a deregulated market some of the less scrupulous operators, as they sharpen their pencils and try to find less expensive ways of doing things, one of the things they sometimes do is not to pay quite as much attention to the amount of maintenance their vehicles get. It's maybe a harsh statement, but it's true.

We have seen in Ontario great public concern about truck safety. I'm afraid, or at least I'm concerned, that if buses also are totally deregulated and safety is only inspected by the Ministry of Transportation, and bottom lines are being shaved, one of the things that may very well happen in the busing industry is the same thing that has happened in the trucking industry, that we see increasing safety difficulties.

I'm sure the Minister of Transportation would say to me, "We have all these inspectors and we're going to put the OPP special units out there" and do all those wonderful things. But at a time when we see great downsizing of the Ministry of Transportation, great downsizing within the OPP, within municipal forces that enforce highway safety, it's not likely to happen. What will happen is that we will no doubt have greater difficulty in assuring the public of safe vehicles out there providing that very same intercity transportation we want to have.

Deregulation may cause -- and I'm just cautioning the government on this -- the same kind of safety concerns in the busing industry that we have seen in trucking, and that is just because of straight economics. When you start to sharpen your pencil, some things have to go, and checking those brakes and those wheel bearings and all those other things you must check sometimes falls by the boards.

My greatest concern about this bill is that I believe there will be perhaps hundreds of Ontario communities that will no longer have service. There will be smaller centres and maybe even some medium-sized centres that will lose their service. That is the experience of the United Kingdom, that is the experience of the United States. In those situations, it wasn't just the little towns or villages of 200 or 300 people, it was some quite sizeable places. Towns of 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 people no longer had bus service.

When you start to think about transportation in the broader sense -- and I think we need to speak about transportation in the broader sense -- you realize our systems are now breaking down. It's a question not of a particular route but of a system, and now rural communities are going to be left out of some of those systems.

In this province 50 or 60 years ago passenger rail transportation was an important component of what we did, even in rural Ontario; 50 or 60 years ago you could go many places by rail that you wouldn't even think of today. Today we have good rail service just through the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Outside of that, there is really not substantial rail service that anybody would call good in this province. So people who did not own their own vehicles could only rely on bus service.

With bus service gone for many of the smaller communities -- and I assure you it will happen. It's not a guess; it's not a surmise; it will happen. Many of the smaller communities across this province will not