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

May 6, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L069 - Mon 6 May 1996 / Lun 6 Mai 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NURSES WEEK

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HUNTINGTON DISEASE

TAX REDUCTION

EMPLOYMENT FAIR

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

CONNIE NASON

BOB BALLANTYNE

NURSES WEEK

VISITORS

KENNETH BOLTON

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

POLICE SERVICES

RACCOON RABIES

OVERTIME PAYMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

HEALTH SERVICES

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

TAX REDUCTION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

TAX REDUCTION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

GREATER TORONTO AREA

FOREST MANAGEMENT

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

RENT REGULATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

TRANSITION HOUSE

RENT REGULATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RENT REGULATION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NURSES WEEK

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is Nurses Week and I rise to acknowledge the valuable contribution of Ontario's nurses. Unfortunately, as a result of the Harris government's health agenda, there are now very serious problems facing health care in Ontario. Nurses are not immune to these problems.

Last week, the Ontario Nurses' Association released a study of 20,000 staff registered nurses in Ontario. Some 81% of Ontario's unionized registered nurses say that understaffing in the province's health care facilities has led to unsafe conditions for patients, and 94% of unionized nurses, our front-line workers in health services, believe that reform is needed. However, nurses believe that changes in health care must be made in a managed, coordinated way to address the problems of vast waste and inefficiency existing in the current system.

Ontario's nurses are proposing solutions, but is the government listening? The answer is no. As a result of the $1.3-billion cut to hospitals, services for people who need nursing care will suffer as an estimated 15,000 more nurses lose their jobs over the next three years. The dismantling of services and the diminishing of the role, responsibility and respect that nurses deserve must stop.

This government is turning the clock back. Research clearly demonstrates that negative clinical outcomes result from replacing the registered nurse with the less knowledgeable. Nurses are a valuable part of our health care.

On behalf of all members of this House I welcome Jane Cornelius, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, and the other nurses in the gallery today.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): In his budget in mid-March, Finance Minister Martin announced plans to "offer provinces and territorial governments the opportunity to take over the management of existing social housing resources...." I've been meeting and continue to meet with a lot of co-ops in my area because, I must tell you, they're deeply concerned for many reasons. They ask why we would want to even consider handing over the federal co-op housing portfolio to a province which has publicly stated it wants to get rid of all its social housing responsibilities. What will all of these changes mean and what will their impact be on our daily lives?

Co-op members are part of a caring community of people who own, manage and take care of their homes and those of their neighbours. Offering the administration of the existing federal social housing resources to Ontario will mean the destruction of the stable, well-maintained co-op communities that have been built over the last 25 years and the investment all Canadians have made in this unique type of solid, secure and affordable housing. This is precisely what co-op members fear: the inevitable deterioration of the quality of their homes. Some members may lose their homes, and the entire community will suffer.

The Harris government has already cancelled 400 co-ops and non-profit housing projects and is reported to be planning huge cuts to co-op funding, specifically a reduction in the subsidy allotment to co-ops.

Co-op members are urging the provincial government to think about the social, economic and political costs of their actions and to safeguard co-op funding and maintain the existing level of operations.

HUNTINGTON DISEASE

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I rise today on behalf of the Minister of Health to acknowledge that May is Huntington Disease Awareness Month. Huntington disease is an inherent brain disorder, and every child of a parent with Huntington's has a 50-50 chance of developing the disease.

Physical symptoms may initially consist of nervous activity, fidgeting or excessive restlessness. The individual may notice a certain clumsiness, alterations in handwriting or difficulty with normal daily physical skills such as driving. These initial motor symptoms will gradually develop into more marked involuntary movements such as jerking and twitching of the head, neck, arms and legs, which may interfere with walking, speaking or swallowing.

Symptoms usually begin to appear in the prime of life, between 30 and 45 years of age, and over the 10- to 25-year course the disease leads to total incapacitation and eventual death. There is not yet a cure and there is no effective treatment. However, scientists have found the gene that causes this disease. It allows researchers to work on developing improved treatment techniques as well as continuing to search for the cure.

The Huntington Society of Canada was founded in 1973 to fight the disease through research, service and education, and I'd like to thank them for providing this information to me. More importantly, I would like to thank them for the support they provide to people and families living with this disease.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Both the Premier and the finance minister have repeatedly told the people of this province that the 30% tax cut is the foundation on which the government plans to create over 725,000 jobs. In fact, the 30% tax cut is the only plan the government has in place to create the promised figure of 725,000 jobs.

However, if people and businesses choose, as surveys suggest, to use their tax savings to pay down personal and corporate debts, your job creation plan will fail. If you fail, then the province fails as well.

The government has to face up to the fact that this tax cut may not have the desired effect the government is counting on. Numerous surveys now indicate that consumers would prefer to pay down personal debt, while corporations would opt to buy new equipment and pay down corporate debt with their tax savings.

The government, should this initiative fail, has the responsibility to live up to its promise to create the much-talked-about 725,000 jobs. Failure to do so represents a fundamental breach of a campaign promise.

EMPLOYMENT FAIR

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Last weekend, I had the wonderful opportunity of attending an employment information fair at Gerrard Square in my riding of Riverdale. The fair was organized by GREAT, which stands for Greater Riverdale Economic Action Together, and featured job readiness workshops and seminars, business and employment networking, discussions of community economic development and much, much more. Those in attendance were also fortunate to enjoy the works of wonderfully talented local artists and musicians.

The fair was made possible partially because of funding from Jobs Ontario Community Action, which, as members will be well aware, has been axed by this government for no other reason than it was a program of the previous government. That's a real shame, because this event was exemplary of the spirit of community and volunteerism this government is constantly crowing about as an alternative to much-needed services. The fact is that months and months of planning went into this event and hundreds of volunteers spent countless hours preparing for it. They all deserve our thanks and gratitude.

Mr Harris likes to speak fondly about the spirit of volunteering, as if it were a new idea he himself invented. The fact is that people across Ontario are involved in their communities in the fashion demonstrated in Riverdale over this weekend. It's truly an insult to have the generous community spirit in our province used as a smokescreen for cutting the services we all pay for and deserve.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I rise to inform the House that today is the first day of Education and Training Week in Ontario. Education and Training Week continues until May 10, and I encourage all of my colleagues to spend as much time as possible speaking with students, parents and educators in their communities, helping to celebrate their achievements.

There is a wide range of activities that takes place throughout the province during Education and Training Week. Some schools organize literary festivals or hold open classrooms, while other schools conduct environmental activities or science and math demonstrations.

Personally, I will be attending committee hearings on Bill 34,

an act that I know enjoys broad support among the members of this House.

Education Week has been observed annually in Ontario schools since 1936, and in 1993 it became Education and Training Week, a title that better reflects all the types of learning that take place in our schools.

This year's theme, "A World of Opportunities," is appropriate, given the changing and challenging times we're facing. It's more important now than ever to support our students. They need to be encouraged in their accomplishments and dreams. They need to know there is a vast exciting world of opportunities out there. Education is not just for the young; it continues for all of us.

One of the most notable aspects of education is that all of us benefit. We profit as individuals because education enhances our personal lives, and we profit as a province as our students become leaders of tomorrow.

CONNIE NASON

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the extraordinary impact of government cuts on the real people of this province. I'd like to tell you about Connie Nason. Connie is a full-time student in my riding, studying to be a developmental services worker at Confederation College.

The fact is that Connie is trying to build a better life for herself and her two young daughters, Candace and Deanna. Raising two children as a full-time student, she is working very hard to get her family off social assistance but realizes that she needs the help today so she won't need it tomorrow. Her hard work had been paying off, until this government and its shortsighted policies put yet another roadblock in her way. By taking away her benefits, this government is taking away her ability to build that better life away from social assistance. This certainly is not the hand up promised by this government.

Like so many other full-time students, Connie is already carrying a student loan. She has no one else to support her. As a diabetic, Connie needs access to our health care system, access that will be denied if she loses her Ontario drug benefit card. If she's forced to reduce her studies to part-time as a result of the cuts, she'll also lose her secured child care spots that put her children in a safe, nurturing environment as she works to give them a better future.

Far from helping her to help herself, this government's policy will prevent her from gaining the independence she wants for herself and her children. What will this government tell Connie Nason when it takes away the short-term support she needs to gain long-term independence? What happened to the hand up they promised?

BOB BALLANTYNE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Ballantyne, who is the director of public affairs for Stelco in my home-town of Hamilton. Bob is retiring from this position after 40 years with the company, 40 years in which, in my opinion, Bob has served not only Stelco well, but our entire community. As the president and chief operating officer of Stelco said, and I quote, "Bob has always been dedicated, very professional and acted with the utmost integrity in all the jobs he has performed."

Bob is known as someone who cares about the community, who cares about the company in terms of its role in our community, and he was always the first to ensure that elected people understood what was going on with the company, understood the role of the company's activities in our community and the context of the importance and the needs of our community.

I think Bob Ballantyne has done a great service, not only to his own reputation but to Stelco and to the entire community of Hamilton, and it's with great pleasure that I rise today to wish him and his wife, Doreen, the very best in the future for a happy and safe retirement, one he has so richly earned.

NURSES WEEK

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I am pleased to inform the House that today marks the beginning of Nurses Week in Ontario and across the country.

Starting in 1971, the International Council of Nurses has commemorated International Nurses Day on May 12, the birthday of history's most celebrated nurse, Florence Nightingale. Since 1986, Canada has expanded the celebration to a whole week, to boost awareness of the nursing profession among the public. Over the years, it has evolved into a marvellous opportunity to educate Canadians about health issues, and appropriately enough, this week's theme happens to be "Ask a Nurse."

I am certain that all MPPs would agree that Ontario's registered nurses are the bedrock upon which our health care system rests. That was certainly the message delivered today by Helen Johns, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, when she spoke to nurses at North York Branson Hospital. Nurses are on the front lines of health care every day. In community health centres, through information hotlines, at home and in the workplace, there are nurses offering the highest of quality care.

In closing, I wish to pay tribute to all nurses, and challenge every Ontarian to try to ask a nurse this week.

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 parliamentary delegation from the Volga region of the Russian Federation. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent regarding the death of a former member of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

KENNETH BOLTON

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I stand in the House today to honour the memory of Archdeacon Kenneth Bolton, a former New Democrat member of this Legislature from 1969 to 1971. Ken represented the riding of Middlesex and he brought his lifelong zeal for social justice to his work as a member of provincial Parliament.

Ken was born in England, and at his death at age 89, he was en route from England from what he had fully expected to be his last visit to his two sisters who continue to live in Britain. Ken told his son, also Ken, who was travelling with him, as they boarded an airplane back to Canada for his last flight: "I have seen everything I wanted to see. I have done everything I wanted to do." What a wonderful sentiment for all his friends and family to remember as we mourn his passing.

Ken Bolton came to Winnipeg from England in 1925, where he studied and was ordained an Anglican priest in 1933. Before being named Archdeacon of Bishop Cronyn Memorial Anglican Church in London, he had held charges all over Canada -- Montreal, Walkerton, Hanover, Windsor, Sarnia -- as well as serving as the chaplain of Huron College and an associate professor of pastoral theology at the University of Western Ontario. In his later years, he assisted at St Martin-in-the-Fields Anglican Church in northeast London, where the requiem eucharist will be held for him tomorrow morning.

All his life, Ken Bolton strove to achieve social justice. In his parish work, in his teaching, in his writing, in his efforts with Oxfam, Amnesty International, St Leonard's Society, Alcoholics Anonymous, the Primates World Relief and Development Fund, his enthusiastic hopefulness was a beacon for others.

For younger New Democrats like me, he was quite simply a hero, always there to encourage and exhort the party and its candidates, always at nomination meetings to remind us that New Democrats could win in southwestern Ontario.

Ken reminded us that we needed to be able to win as well as to lose. He himself ran unsuccessfully for a federal seat on two occasions and he won his seat in this place in a by-election result which took everyone by surprise. We all used to joke that we had waited too many years for a similar surprise in 1990.

Ken never stopped working for justice. I remember only a few years ago he and his wife, Lucy, who predeceased him in 1992, worked to create a tenants' association in their retirement community because they believed that tenants in retirement communities deserve the same rights as other tenants under the laws of this province.

When Ken decided to move to British Columbia last year to be nearer his children, we felt a great loss in our community and we were glad that we could use the nomination meetings for the 1995 election as a forum to thank and honour Ken.

Ken will be fondly and sadly remembered by his children, Ken, Robin, David, Margaret and Patricia. They can be very proud of the many accomplishments of their father and I hope they know his intelligence, his faith, his humour and his willingness to take risks on behalf of those requiring advocacy and assistance continue to inspire a whole generation of us who learned from his example.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I knew the Reverend Kenneth Bolton for over 30 years, and while we did not see eye to eye politically, we always had very good discussions and very good relations. He was a parish priest, a professor and a politician. In all these roles his efforts always were oriented towards helping others.

During his time in this place, he was the correctional services critic for his party and I think his views, while the government did not always agree with them, were always carefully considered and were always respected. The example of service that he gave throughout all of his life is one that can inspire all of us in this House and all citizens of Ontario.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to join with the two members from London who have already spoken in conveying our sympathy to the Bolton family on the passing of Archdeacon Kenneth Bolton, who for two years in the late 1960s and early 1970s represented the electoral district of Middlesex South in this assembly. I didn't know Archdeacon Bolton, but people I knew who did know Reverend Bolton certainly found him to be a man of extraordinary talent.

I want to say something about the famous by-election because my friend from Nickel Belt -- it was a long time ago. It was 26 1/2 years ago and the distinguished member of the press gallery Mr Dowd is probably the only person around who would remember that day in September 1969 when the incredible happened. A New Democrat -- more than just a New Democrat; an Anglican priest running for the New Democrats -- won an electoral contest in Middlesex, in the backyard of the then Premier of the province, Mr John Robarts.

It is hard today, when we have New Democrats from places like London, to imagine just how Reverend Bolton's victory on that occasion shook the political establishment of this province to its core.

I don't want to be mischievous, but Reverend Bolton's by-election victory also stimulated what I shall call the Stephen Lewis insurgency that was then well under way in the NDP. Stephen, I think, played a very active

part in securing Archdeacon Bolton's victory in that by-election. While there are no records left of -- well, I should say I brought Don MacDonald's book; I won't go into that. But the Bolton by-election win in Middlesex on that occasion 26 years ago was a very, very significant event. I should say, for the record, that the Tories took it back two years later when Bob Eaton won the seat.

Ken Bolton came to this place. Don MacDonald says in his book it was a sensational victory. That it was. He served this assembly well and we commemorate today his distinguished public service, not just in politics but in church work, in volunteer work and, I might add, he was quite an accomplished theatrical personality as well.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I want to thank the honourable members for their kind comments. I will see that a copy of Hansard is sent to the Bolton family on behalf of all the members here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the budget tomorrow. We fully expect that what was in the paper today will be what's there tomorrow; that is, that we should expect to see what was in the Common Sense Revolution.

The Common Sense Revolution, Premier, you will know, indicates that you plan to add about $20 billion to the debt of the province over the next four years, and we expect those are roughly the numbers that we'll see tomorrow. That, by the way, is about $8,000 per family.

The Common Sense Revolution also indicates what you call the direct fiscal impact of the Common Sense Revolution, and your tax cuts are spelled out in there -- the 30% tax cut that you've committed to implementing over the next three years. That's roughly about $15 billion in tax cuts -- $15 billion. Those are your numbers, Premier. I hope it doesn't come as a surprise. This would be very shocking if that comes as a surprise to the Premier because you campaigned on this, if you remember, the direct fiscal impact. That adds up to $15 billion over the four years that I mentioned. Believe me, I hope that you understand these numbers, Premier.

If the debt and deficit is such a huge problem, and if all of us have to fight the debt and the deficit, and you are going to add $20 billion to the debt and deficit over the next four years, explain to the people of Ontario how we can afford a tax cut that you indicate in your Common Sense Revolution will represent $15 billion in lost revenue to the province.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The member raises a figure of the total debt of the province going up by $20 billion over the next five years until we get the budget balanced, and he's quite right; the total debt will go up by about $20 billion. Quite frankly, if we were to maintain the pace of the debt and deficit that we had of about $12 billion a year, without our actions it would go up, over five years, 12 times five years or $60 billion. We have reduced the growth in the total debt going from $100 billion to $160 billion to go from $100 billion to $120 billion.

Quite frankly, we're not happy that the total debt of the province of Ontario will go up $20 billion over this period of time, but the reason it will do so is, as we indicated in our campaign commitment, it will take us five years to get the yearly deficits from $12 billion down to zero. If you look at the numbers of approximately eight and six and four and two, that will add up to $20 billion. All of that will be achieved by reducing the amount of overspending and by the stimulative effects of our tax cuts.

Mr Phillips: Those who listened carefully to the question and answer will know that the answer you gave had nothing to do with the question. I will ask the question again, Premier. You plan to add $20 billion to the debt of the province over the next four years. By your own admission -- this is straight out of your document, the Common Sense Revolution -- your tax cuts, and you call them the direct fiscal impact of the Common Sense Revolution, represent $15 billion of lost revenue. That is the question people in Ontario want an answer to.

If the debt and deficit are so absolutely crucial to fight -- and I might add that I think the people of Ontario are quite prepared to fight the debt and deficit -- if it is such a huge problem, explain to the people of Ontario how the province can afford a $15-billion loss of revenue because of the tax cuts over the next four years. Explain that to the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Harris: In the

preamble, which I think it is important that I talk about, the member repeated that the total debt of the province of Ontario will go up by $20 billion. Clearly, I must repeat that without the actions we are taking, the total debt, had we carried on the way the NDP were heading -- $12-billion deficits a year -- would have gone up over a five-year period by $60 billion. So I'm quite pleased that we have cut that into one third by responsibly dealing with the spending and massive overspending that we inherited over the last 10 years from the Liberals and the NDP.

The second part of the question dealt with if you could get as many people working, paying as many taxes without stimulating the economy and tax cuts, a theoretical number of difference that is there, the $15 billion. Quite frankly, we'll get more than that back over the next five years with more people working, more jobs, more profits, more companies making profits, paying more there, more sales taxes being paid. I understand, I clearly understand that the Liberals believe high taxes are good for Ontario. We fundamentally disagree. That was the fundamental disagreement in the campaign and it is the fundamental disagreement that we have with you today. You like high taxes; we don't.

Mr Phillips: Frankly, the fundamental problem, Premier, is we have no confidence in your ability to manage the finances of the province. When you were last in government the largest single increase in personal income tax occurred under you. There's the last time a Conservative government balanced the budget: 1969. It is a joke to think you can manage the finances of the province.

I'll ask the question again because it's one of fairness. Tomorrow you're going to announce a tax cut. Fully implemented, Premier, people making $150,000 in this province will get a $5,000 tax break. This is a question of fairness.

On Friday, I had a couple in to me: lost their jobs, lost their businesses, broke. You cut $200 a month from them. We have to help them find a basement apartment. I said, "Why is that happening?" Because you have to fight the deficit. Again, Premier, I ask you this question, of fairness. If the deficit and the debt are such big problems that everyone has to fight them -- that couple, that support was cut from $1,000 a month to $800 a month. They've got to move out of their apartment into a basement apartment to fight the deficit.

It's a question of fairness, Premier. If it's that big a problem, how can we afford, with your fully implemented 30% tax cut, to give someone earning $150,000 a year a $5,000 tax break while we are asking people on $1,000-a-month support to move into basement apartments? Can you explain the fundamental issue of fairness to those people?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me deal with the

preamble and then repeat it again by way of

summary in asking the question. What I cannot explain is how you have the facts so misrepresented, so off-base. If you'll just wait till the budget comes out tomorrow you'll find out what the reductions will be for a $150,000 income earner, a $30,000 income earner and a $50,000 income earner. I can tell you this much without infringing on any budget secrecy: Your numbers are all wet. You are wrong.

Secondly, for the member to say that they don't have confidence in this government -- we understand; you are a government that likes high taxes. You are now campaigning, I guess, in a by-election in York South: "Vote for us for higher taxes. We'll fight the government that wants to bring tax rates down to a level where we can have more jobs, where we can have more people working."

Finally, the member mentioned something about talking to businesses that went bankrupt. Yes, until we get tax rates down, until we get more people working -- and we're confident that this change of direction from the disastrous Liberal and NDP policies will do that -- unfortunately, there are people hurting and there will be more people hurting unless we change direction and bring responsible, accountable government to the people of Ontario. That's what we campaigned on and that's what we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is also for the Premier. I suggest that we know this Premier understands about income taxes, because he was, as my colleague says, part of the government that brought in the highest increase in personal income tax in Ontario's history. We know he understands income tax.

The Speaker: Is that who your question is to?

Mrs McLeod: My question to him is about the real and the very immediate impact of tomorrow's budget. We saw the Premier trooping around the province last week trying to sell his budget in advance as good news and having a rather rough job of it, because the fact is that this budget is not good news if you happen to be, for example, a middle-income family and if you're going to be paying higher property taxes, more user fees and higher tuition fees for your children's education.

This budget is nothing but a shell game. The Premier is going to give a tax cut that mostly benefits the well-to-do, and he's taking away that money from middle-income families with higher property taxes and user fees and tuition-fee increases that will be as high as $490 per student this fall alone. Premier, how much of your tax cut do you think a middle-income family with a child in college or university is actually going to end up with after they pay their higher property taxes and user fees and $490 more in tuition?

Hon Mr Harris: Again the member indicates that some 12 or 13 or 14 years ago there was a government in this province that hiked income taxes and that it was a Progressive Conservative government, and I would acknowledge that was the case. At the time, we weren't among the highest-taxed in North America.

But I want to point out this: That hike in taxes at that point in time, that increase, was not enough for you. That wasn't enough for you or the NDP. You wanted that plus -- you, your own government -- 32 more tax increases on top of it. You didn't come in and cut that tax back; you took that plus every other tax increase you could. And then that wasn't enough for the NDP; they brought in another 32 tax increases on top of that.

Also, the member, by way of

preamble, talked about my tour last week to the peninsula and to the London area. I want to assure the member that I have never been better received as I travelled the province of Ontario. I want to tell you there was overwhelming support for the tax cuts; I would say about the same as the survey the NDP did, about 90% in favour and 10% opposed.

Mrs McLeod: I have no quarrel with the fact that this Premier understands about taxes. Not only was he part of the government that brought in the largest increase in income tax in our history, he was also part of the government that raised OHIP fees, part of the government that brought in increases in sales tax and even put a tax on personal hygiene products. He was in fact the individual who rammed these tax bills through committee. We know he understands about taxes -- no quarrel there.

My concern is whether this Premier understands that his so-called tax break is not a break for anybody but the wealthy. Premier, take an example of seniors in this province. Take as a specific example a pair of senior citizens who are on a fixed income of $40,000 a year. They are going to receive a few hundred dollars from your tax cut, but they are facing all kinds of new costs. On June 1, they're going to have to pay a prescription fee for all their prescription drugs. If they live in the greater Toronto area, they're going to face a huge increase in transit costs. They're going to potentially be facing higher rents for non-profit housing.

Premier, I wonder if you've done the calculations here. I wonder if you can tell us how much more those seniors are going to have to pay to cover the hundreds of dollars in new health care user fees and higher rents and transit fees because of your government's policies. Do you realize they're going to have less in their pockets when you're done, not more?

Hon Mr Harris: Again, by way of

preamble, the member mentioned my party. When it left office in 1985, the total tax revenue coming in to the province of Ontario was about $15 billion. Five years later, when your big-taxing -- and still talking big-taxing -- Liberal government left office, the province of Ontario was taking in close to $34 billion in tax revenue; not total revenue, just tax revenue. You more than doubled it, and clearly that's not enough for you. The NDP hiked tax rates, and now you're supporting those tax hikes as well.

If the member wants to talk about a record of living within one's means or who has consistently fought for tax rates that would be competitive, the tax rates when we left office, even with the increases that were there, were chicken feed compared to the taxes you took away from Ontarians through that period of time.

As to the specific question, individuals, families, those with children, those who are out there working at minimum wage, middle-income earners, working-class Ontarians and seniors will all be much better off on Tuesday than they are today.

Mrs McLeod: It's actually the Premier who likes to talk about records. I want to stretch his memory back a little further. I want to talk about the budget he is going to bring in tomorrow, the first budget his government has actually produced, because I believe this budget is going to do what every single action of your government has done from the day you took office, and that is divide the people of this province into winners and losers.

If you're rich you are a winner, because the tax cut is big enough that you're still going to come out ahead even after the new health tax and all the new user fees your government has imposed. But if you're an average working person or a senior or a student, you are going to lose because your tax cut will be snatched back by user fee after user fee, tuition hike by tuition hike, and health care cut by health care cut.

Will you not acknowledge that this tax cut is nothing but a shell game? Will you acknowledge that your tax cut will benefit the most wealthy and leave middle-income families paying higher property taxes, new user fees and more tuition for college and university?

Hon Mr Harris: The member says she wishes to talk about the budget to be tabled on Tuesday. Let me assure the member she, or somebody on behalf of her party, will be given all the time on Wednesday to talk about the budget that comes on Tuesday.

Secondly, you're going to have to rewrite your speech for Wednesday, because everything you have talked about today is absolute and utter nonsense. Every single Ontarian will be better off Tuesday than they are today.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is to the Premier, and it follows through with the questions he's just been dealing with and his commitment that everyone will be better off on Wednesday. We're dealing tomorrow, Tuesday, with the second instalment of the budget, the first instalment coming on the expenditure side with cuts on April 11. Tomorrow is dealing with changes on the revenue side.

I'm looking at the Common Sense Revolution document appendix, the fifth printing, in which it deals with the revenue, among other things, and on revenue it says in the years 1996-97 through 2000-01, those five years, as the Premier has indicated, there will be a decline in revenues of $20 billion, approximately. The Common Sense Revolution also states that this will produce an economic drag on the economy of about 0.5%; that is, about $200 million to $300 million in additional revenue lost. Will the Premier agree that the cuts in revenue proposed in the CSR, which I anticipate will come forward in the budget tomorrow -- or at least part of that -- will produce a drag on the economy?

Hon Mr Harris: Tomorrow the Minister of Finance will detail the spending estimates for the province of Ontario. The figure the member uses of 0.5% drag on the economy would be an annual impact of all the reductions when they are fully implemented over a two- or three-year period. We have been quite upfront in this. We are downsizing the public sector, and that will have a very minimal but a noticeable and identifiable drag on the economy, as, by the way, will the reduction of the public sector on public sector spending.

I might add, though, that if you just want to deal on the spending and deficit side, the tremendous impact of reducing that spending so we can balance the budget will have a far greater economic impact than any drag of the reductions in spending.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate that the Premier finally, it appears, has agreed that the cuts in expenditures are related to the cuts in revenue on the tax side, that they are part of the same package, that there is only one bottom line. In the past he's tried to argue that the two are not related.

But dealing with the revenue side, in the document the CSR, first it was stated that the tax cut would cost the province lost revenues of $20 billion over five years, then later the Premier said that the tax cut would not cost anything. On March 25, he said in the House: "The tax cut, over the five-year term -- and it is a five-year program that we laid out and a five-year program we plan to implement -- the tax cut over five years will finance itself. We stand by that: We campaigned on that and we are repeating that today."

Now today in the House you're saying that the tax cut, at least in the short term, will cost money, but you're saying that's required as part of the overall cuts and that the spending cuts will help to balance the books.

First the tax cut will cost money, then it's revenue-neutral, and I guess the Premier is now arguing it's a money-maker in that he feels it will stimulate the economy. Which is it? Does it cost money, is it revenue-neutral, or will it actually make money for the provincial treasury?

Hon Mr Harris: The tax cuts are what we call a job creator, and job creators will put more people to work. It will help those who are unemployed, it will help those who are on welfare, it will put more dollars into the hands of businesses, and in the long run, with increased sales taxes from increased spending, with increased revenue, with more people making more money, with more businesses making more money, it ultimately will return more dollars to the province of Ontario. I stand by that. I want you to write that down, I want you to etch it in stone, and I want you to bring it back to me in 1999 or in 2000 when we look at the total revenues of the province versus today.

The member says that today I acknowledge that tax cuts will have an impact on the income of the province. When you asked me in your first question, I acknowledged that the spending reductions do produce a drag on the economy, not near as big a drag as the deficit does, but you have to put it all into perspective. As you reduce the deficit to zero, this will have a far greater impact on the economy than will the modest drag of reducing the spending too so you can balance the books. That's what we are doing.

Mr Wildman: If I listen carefully to the comments of the Premier, he says he believes the deficit is a bigger drag on the economy. It would mean, I would think, if that's what the Premier and his government believe, that the government should be getting rid of the deficit before it gets rid of revenues.

But let's deal with the question of the economic stimulus the Premier alluded to. He said we should etch it in stone. The economic assumptions of the Common Sense Revolution rely on revenue growth because of economic growth in the province projected at 4.5%. We now have projections for the next few years of economic growth in the province at much less than 4.5%. As a matter of fact, for next year it's projected to be about half of that. That means your spending cuts, I suspect, will have a larger impact on the economy than even you are prepared to accept.

Before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on February 2, the Minister of Finance said that he did not have any revenue growth projections from the tax cut in his numbers. Can the Premier give us assurance today, since he wants us to etch things in stone, that tomorrow's budget will disclose the revenue projections in the medium-term fiscal plan and that he'll be able to clearly show that the revenue growth that you count on coming as a result of economic stimulus you're projecting will in fact happen, and that we won't face a much slower growth rate than you are now prepared to admit?

Hon Mr Harris: I can absolutely, positively guarantee you this: Our projections will be far sounder and far more accurate than any one of yours over the five years that you brought in budgets in the province of Ontario. I can absolutely guarantee you that.

Secondly, let me say to the member that tomorrow you will get the budget, you will get the information, you will get the projections that are there.

Let me acknowledge again, by way of

preamble, that the member indicated that there are some advocating, "Balance the books first before you cut taxes." I want to say to you that those who advocate that already have taxes far lower than us and are benefiting from investment in jobs that are going to their jurisdictions. I understand why they don't want a big, powerful, competitive Ontario like we had for 42 years; I understand that. But that is their problem, because big and powerful and the jurisdiction of choice for investment in jobs is the goal of this government whether they like it or not.

Secondly, I want to say to the member that there are others who are advocating, like the Liberals and yourselves, that we should balance the books first before tax cuts. They are people, your party and the Liberal Party, who are prepared to accept 8% and 9% unemployment, 1.2 million on welfare. My colleagues are not prepared to accept that. We are going to create more jobs; we're going to put more people back to work.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question of the Solicitor General. I've got a copy of a letter dated February 7, 1996, sent to the Solicitor General from his colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock concerning the Niagara Regional Police Force.

In his letter, Mr Froese writes, "As a result of the reduction in the transfer funds by the province to the Niagara regional government, the region has asked the Niagara Regional Police Force to cut $2 million from their 1996 budget." Mr Froese goes on, of course, to refer to the Common Sense Revolution, which said that funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed. The member for St Catharines-Brock notes that the association is simply asking the government to guarantee that no funds be cut and that funding continue at the 1995 level.

To the Solicitor General, I say that your own government colleague is seriously concerned that the election commitment you and he made to the people of Ontario isn't being kept. Minister, please, how can you keep your election promise regarding policing and law enforcement when cuts to municipalities imposed by this government to pay for this mindless tax break for the rich are filtering down and affecting front-line policing?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): There's no evidence that any of the transfer payment reductions have impacted on front-line policing. I know the Niagara region situation. There is a discussion occurring with the council and the police services board, but no final decisions have been taken with respect to the budget, how it is eventually structured.

I indicated last week in a question along the same lines that there is the protection built in through the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. If there is a difference of opinion with respect to the ability to provide adequate and effective policing in any given community, we have the fallback where they have to pass that test, if you will, through a review by the civilian commission. So I remain confident that there will be no impact on front-line policing in this province.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that the Solicitor General replied to that letter on April 16, 1996. In his response to the exhortation from Mr Froese, the Solicitor General wrote, "No sector is exempt from the need to cut costs," referring specifically to the Niagara Regional Police Force, and I assume other police forces across Ontario.

The Solicitor General has as much as admitted that policing will not be exempt from the irrational cutting and axing and slashing by this government. The Niagara Regional Police Force budget is going to be cut by literally millions of dollars, and the Niagara Regional Police Services Board has already cut all the administrative costs that it can. You promised that policing would not be cut. You admit in the Common Sense Revolution that funding restrictions "have direct effects on the ability of police to meet the needs of their communities."

You, Solicitor General, and your government are responsible for the cuts the region of Niagara is imposing on the Niagara regional police. You're breaking your promise; you're betraying the police of this province. What do you say to the police of the Niagara Regional Police Force and the people they're committed to protecting?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not hearing from police that we're betraying our commitment with respect to the promises we made during the election campaign. We have committed to a very significant review of the financing and structure of police in this province, the first such review undertaken in almost a quarter of a century.

We're going to take a look at the responsibilities and roles of police officers right across this province. We believe there are efficiencies that still can be achieved. We believe we can remove police officers from some of the responsibilities they currently undertake and free up those individuals for front-line duty.

Police officers across this province realize we have a spending problem in this province. They want to play a role in achieving the solution. I'm finding very strong support, as I travel across the province, among rank-and-file police service officers.

Mr Kormos: The Solicitor General has to understand that the Niagara regional police and their police services board have already been through the process of trimming any fat. Look at what the Niagara Region Police Association reported recently: A sexual assault victim was required to wait 40 minutes before a police officer could respond; a hit-and-run call was not responded to for three hours and then it was put off, deferred to the next day; an older victim, a senior who was a victim of a break-and-enter, had to wait four hours at a neighbour's house until police could arrive to respond to the emergency call.

Solicitor General, last Thursday you said, "When we make a promise, if you will, with respect to the front lines, that is not a blank cheque." The Common Sense Revolution says that funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed. We've got you backing down now. The Niagara regional police know it. They're under attack. They've trimmed the fat; they've eliminated the inefficiencies. When are you going to admit that you simply can't keep your promise to policing because your government is forcing you to comply with its mindless tax breaks for the richest in this province?

Hon Mr Runciman: I believe we will be able to keep our commitment. We're not simply throwing money at problems as the NDP did in the past. We believe there are solutions to this through restructuring, administrative efficiencies, looking at the whole question of financing of police.

If you look at the feelings of the rank-and-file police officer in this province versus when those folks over there were in government, I think they feel very much more positive about the relationship. The police officers -- just recall the blue ribbon day out here when we had 5,000 or 6,000 or 10,000 police officers on the lawn -- could not gain access to the minister, let alone the Premier of this province. They have my ear. We sit down and talk on a regular basis. I'm listening to their problems.

We're trying to solve their problems, unlike the NDP, who were in a constant battle with police officers across this province. They have a much better relationship with this government and they're looking forward to a positive future.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, you're embarking upon an exercise with this budget, and previous to this budget, which involves some unprecedented cuts in services to people of all ages and from all backgrounds in the province.

At a time when you are making these unprecedented cuts, the people of this province want to know something. They want to know whether you are prepared to assure this House, members of the news media and the public at large that you will not embark upon an advertising blitz the like of which you embarked upon recently after your tax cuts, which cost the taxpayers $350,000. This afternoon, will you give this House and the people of this province an assurance that you will not embark upon an advertising blitz subsequent to this budget?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would like to say, by way of commenting on the member's

preamble, that dealing with unprecedented cuts in services we are reducing budgets, but I believe the services we are and will be providing --

Mr Bradley: Are you or are you not going to start off on an advertising blitz?

Hon Mr Harris: If you just wanted an answer to the question, you shouldn't have had the misinformation in your

preamble. I must respond then to the misinformation that was in your

preamble.

The people of this province of Ontario will see unprecedented gains in programs and services from this government through doing more with less, through making sure the dollars we spend get right into those programs that help people. I think this will be self-evident when the budget is released tomorrow.

With respect to the second part of the question that had to do with advertising, I have not talked to the Minister of Finance and don't know the final details but, sight unseen, without talking to him, I assure the member we'll spend less in advertising than his government did, just as we spend less in staff, less in spending, less in advertising. There may be some very modest ads, far less than you or others spent, as to where people can get their own copies of the budget, but I assure you that not one single person in this House, other than you or the New Democrats, including every member of the media, will call it a blitz.

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. It's been reported that you are planning to charge rural municipalities per household for provincial police services and that the suggestion by officials in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was that the charge could be up to $220 per household. This was reported to the Peterborough county council last week and has not been denied by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

In your blueprint for social justice and community safety it states, "Police should be given greater priority and support, including the allocation of existing resources." Over and over again, you and your government say there's only one taxpayer. In the Common Sense Revolution, it states, "There may be numerous levels of government, but in this province there is only one level of taxpayer."

It's my understanding that if you go ahead with this charge, which frankly from our point of view is the head tax you allowed under Bill 26, it would affect almost 600 municipalities which currently receive free OPP policing. Is your government proposing that municipalities collect a head tax so that you can keep your campaign promise to maintain front-line policing and cut provincial income taxes?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The question of equitable financing for police has been around for some time, certainly faced by your government and the predecessor Liberal government. We have a situation in the province where we have some municipalities paying for OPP policing, and others are not paying in a direct sense.

We have not made any decisions with respect to this matter. We're now in a consultation phase with the policing community, stakeholders and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. We sent out the discussion papers last week across the province asking for feedback on a whole range of issues, and this is one of them. Certainly it's an issue that requires a review, and we're in the process of doing that.

Mrs Boyd: Quite clearly the answer is yes, this is something that's intended by your government. What you're doing is forcing municipalities to do your dirty work, to raise the kind of dollars that you're purporting to the population of Ontario to cut in our taxes.

User fees and taxes come out of the same pocket, Minister, and it's quite clear that as you go along with this whole issue of taking credit for pending tax cuts, you're taking out of our other pocket in ways that were never contemplated by our government. Yes, we talked about disentanglement; yes, we talked about ways to even out the cost of policing, but what you don't say, Minister, is that no government has ever suggested this kind of a head tax to pay for policing, and certainly not a government that said, "We will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in increases to property tax."

Which side of your mouth are you talking out of when you say that you're not raising taxes, that you're lowering taxes, when at the same time what you are doing is taking the same kind of dollars out of people's pockets that you promised would be theirs to spend on your economy?

Hon Mr Runciman: I guess the member is trying to get a quick and dirty headline with respect to this head tax wording that she's utilizing. We're getting complaints, as her government did, as the previous government did, from municipalities that are paying for policing while others aren't. I'll mention several municipalities we're hearing from. How about Cochrane North and Kapuskasing? How about Lake Nipigon and Marathon? How about Windsor-Riverside with Tecumseh?

The member talks about speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Runciman: They don't want to hear this answer, apparently. She's talking about speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.

There was a memo of understanding signed as part of the social contract stating that all municipalities regardless of size should pay for their police coverage. Also, and this is a quote, "There will be in place a system of fairness where all communities will pay their fair share for policing," Orillia Packet, David Christopherson, Solicitor General.

Another quote: "It is our intention to implement equitable police financing, which means all Ontarians pay their fair share of policing," Ottawa Citizen, David Christopherson.

I'll let the public judge who is speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. Minister, it has come to my attention, due to the increase in the raccoon population and an increase in the rabies spreading from New York state, that there is a growing concern in residents of eastern Ontario and in speaking with trappers in my area. Is there any possibility, Minister, that you could extend the trapping season for the raccoons till May 15, thus allowing control of the spread and population of the raccoons?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Quinte. This is an important issue that many members of the public are concerned about.

I'd like to let the public know, though, and the member, that there are no known cases of raccoon rabies in Ontario at this point, and this is a priority of the MNR. We've dropped over 1.8 million vaccine baits in southern Ontario as a preliminary step to try to curb the spread.

Trapping in the past has never proved to be a measure that's worked on a large geographic area. In fact, raccoon rabies, like other rabies, is dependent on density of the species.

But I would like to assure the member that if there are specific cases, isolated cases, that we'd look at that as an option along with the vaccines for a localized solution.

Mr Rollins: Minister, I know that all over the whole province, the rabies have been a large population increase, but particularly in eastern Ontario where the borders are extremely close, that's where a strain of rabies has been completely different from what we've ever had before, and it is very, very hard to control. We're going to continue to make sure that there is no stopping trying to prevent these rabies from going on into the rest of Ontario.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'd again like to thank the member. It's true that MNR does take this threat very seriously. As I mentioned, we dropped 1.8 million vaccine baits last fall around eastern Ontario and the southern border areas.

I would like to clear up one thing, though, that has been reported. Raccoon rabies are no more harmful to the public than fox rabies. The only difference is that one is spread by raccoons, the other by foxes. Sometimes it's reported that it's a more serious health concern.

All governments in the past, all parties that have represented the Ontario government, have recognized the control of rabies as a priority. We've gotten one of the best reputations in the world for control of rabies. In fact, we're called upon by other jurisdictions to lead their efforts for information and baiting. The results speaks for themselves. Last year there were only 328 reported cases of rabies in the whole province of Ontario. That's the lowest number since 1960. In eastern Ontario, which the member speaks of, there wasn't one single case of fox-strain rabies reported since March 1994. I think that record speaks for itself.

OVERTIME PAYMENTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. On Friday, the Midland Free Press reported that during the recent five-week OPSEU strike, 53 managers at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre were paid a total of $725,000 worth of overtime and that the overtime payments for those 53 managers averaged $13,700 per manager, ranging from a low of $3,500 for one manager to $50,500 for another manager.

Minister, can you confirm that in fact 53 managers were paid $725,000 worth of overtime during a five-week provincial civil service strike just a few weeks ago?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): What I can confirm, not having been notified of the question in advance, is that during the course of the strike, the management personnel were required to put in extremely long hours, many of the management personnel working right around the clock. Indeed, on some occasions management personnel spent a full 24 hours on staff. It was the policy to pay for overtime.

In addition, the member will know that during the course of the strike, the reduction in the cost to the government was some $10 million a day, but there were offsetting costs. The costs went down by about $10 million a day because of the strike, but those people who were required and compelled to work overtime were paid overtime on the basis of straight time -- not double time but straight time -- and were compensated accordingly. And still the savings to the taxpayer were in the vicinity of $8 million a day.

Mr Conway: The local member of the Legislature, a certain Allan K. McLean, Simcoe East, was quoted in the Midland Free Press on Friday as saying the following about the situation: "I find it totally unacceptable and I just can't believe that this would be possible." Mr McLean is absolutely right.

I want to put the question again to the Chair of Management Board. How is it possible that in Mike Harris's tax-cutting, program-slashing Ontario, a provincial public servant managing public affairs could receive as much as $50,500 worth of overtime in a five-week period, claiming, as he does in the article, that he was paid for every waking and sleeping hour he spent at this particular Penetang psych facility? How is it possible that anybody could claim $50,500 worth of overtime in a five-week strike, the purpose of the strike, from your point of view, being efficiency and budget cutting?

Hon David Johnson: Again I will assure the taxpayers of Ontario that the costs associated with the strike were very minimal by comparison to the cost reductions. The spending reductions during the period of the strike of about $10 million a day greatly outweighed the additional costs, costs which, I might say, are legitimate in terms of paying people overtime. I will reiterate that some people literally were required to work 24 hours a day around the clock. But I will say to the member that I will be happy to look into this particular circumstance.

I don't have the precise data on this particular circumstance, and I assure the member that I will look into it. Notwithstanding that, the net result of the strike was a considerable reduction in spending to the taxpayers of Ontario.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who was working overtime with some of his colleagues in Thunder Bay last Friday when he met with the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association representatives in Thunder Bay.

Last November your government announced a cut of 43% in municipal transfers. On Friday you said: "I've heard politicians say they're planning for no money from the province. I think there are benefits to that approach, setting your sights on zero subsidies. That's not a bad thing to have in the back of your mind as you get down to business."

Are you planning, as a result of the tax cuts your government is committed to, to eliminate municipal transfers from the province? Are you going to give zero subsidies to the municipalities?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): No. What I suggested to the municipalities was that it would be prudent planning to try to be as self-reliant as you possibly can. Being totally self-reliant would be being able to manage your business without having to rely on subsidies from anyone. I think that's a very prudent way to do business.

Mr Wildman: The minister went far further than that in his comments. He's quoted in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, on the front page, that he told northwestern Ontario municipal leaders that "if they don't restructure their way of governing to deal with funding cuts to come, the province will do it for them, at their expense."

You said that if the municipalities don't restructure as proposed -- as required, I guess, under Bill 26 -- the government, your ministry, will cut their subsidies to zero. This was a threat, wasn't it, Minister? Aren't you telling the municipal leaders, "You'd better buckle under and do exactly what this government wants or you're not going to get one red cent from the provincial treasury"?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think anything could be further from the truth. What I told the municipalities in Thunder Bay on Friday in a speech was that it would be in their best interests to restructure because funding is going to be reduced.

Mr Wildman: To zero you said.

Hon Mr Leach: I did not say to zero. However, they were advised that there are two methods under which they can restructure. One is a triple majority, by the municipalities involved agreeing with the greatest number of taxpayers and the upper tier agreeing; if they do that, the decision is theirs, they are masters of their own destiny.

If they choose not to do that and one of the municipalities requests it, if it's requested by the municipalities, the province would assign a commission to review it, and whatever decisions the commission found to be in the best interests of the taxpayers of that community would be implemented. I told the members present that if I were a municipal councillor I would prefer the first method.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I rise on a matter of concern to my riding, as it contains the Pickering nuclear generating station. While the community appreciates that Hydro has shut down the plant to repair the faulty valve in the cooling system, questions are growing because the startup of the station has been delayed. Can the minister please inform the House about the status of the repairs and when the station might be expected to restart?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm pleased to answer the question from my colleague the member for Durham West. I am pleased to report that the valve has been repaired; that is, the backup valve that was discovered during our routine testing. Ontario Hydro has determined that since power needs are less at this time of year, it will use this opportunity to do some additional repairs and improvements at the plant. In talking with the president -- and certainly my staff continues to talk to the Atomic Energy Control Board to make sure procedures are being followed properly -- we expect that the plant will begin to start up, possibly, at the end of this week.

Mrs Ecker: Last summer the AECB had raised some concerns about the plant. Could you please inform me as to the status of that, in terms of the work they have done, and also if you are prepared to come to the community to meet with them and answer their concerns and questions about what is happening at the station?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Yes. Last fall the Atomic Energy Control Board did indicate that it had some concerns about the plant. It was after that report that Ontario Hydro began a project called the quality of work initiative program, and it was during that time, while those repairs and work were ongoing, that the faulty valve was discovered. The Atomic Energy Control Board, at its meeting in March, indicated that it was pleased with the progress to date and that it was encouraged as Ontario Hydro continued to work at that plant.

I would be more than happy to meet with the constituents in my colleague's riding at any time to discuss issues that would be of concern to them with regard to Ontario Hydro or the Pickering plant.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Health and it's regarding the Americanization of Ontario health care as a result of his $1.3-billion cut to Ontario hospitals. I'm going to give him an example and ask him to comment on this because it's a very serious erosion of Ontario medicare.

The Credit Valley Hospital had a chiropody foot care clinic. Because of your cuts to the hospital, the hospital has closed the clinic. People who went to that clinic, who had their foot care covered by Ontario's health plan as part of the hospital's global budget, are now forced to go to a private clinic where they are paying between $20 and $25 for a first visit and between $20 and $22 for a second visit. These are the very same people who were going to Credit Valley Hospital's foot care clinic and receiving their services under the Ontario health plan. It was and is an insured service.

There are hospitals that still have foot care clinics and provide chiropody services, and now what we're seeing is those hospitals are cutting those services and people are being forced to pay. Is this not Americanization of Ontario health care and is this acceptable to you?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I must have not caught the whole thing here, unless the honourable member is accusing them of going to an American clinic. Chiropody, for example, is not an insured service. Some of the hospitals that were able to do it were providing it in clinics as part of their global budgets, but it is not an insured service. It is provided in clinics, as are physiotherapy and chiropractic services. About 22 of our 23 health professions actually provide non-insured services in the provinces.

Doctors and insured medically necessary services in hospitals are the only ones covered under the Canada Health Act. It's one of the reasons the premiers, the first ministers in Canada, have been asking for a better definition of the Canada Health Act -- what's covered and what isn't covered.

Mrs Caplan: It was in the 1960s that a former Conservative government introduced chiropody. It was and has been an insured service provided in hospitals and clinics across the province. Patients have not had to pay for that service. What I'm hearing from the minister today is another example of Americanization, delisting and forcing people to pay for services in private clinics which they received until very recently in the hospitals of this province.

Will you admit that the reason the people in Brampton and other parts of Ontario are now paying for chiropody services in private clinics, services they received just a few months ago in their local hospital, is because of your $1.3 billion in cuts and your Americanization of Ontario health care?

Hon Mr Wilson: I think if the honourable member checks the facts throughout Ontario, a number of these services that are moving out of the hospital are available through home care and homemaking, and $170 million in new dollars we put into that sector are allowing 80,000 more people in Ontario over the next two years access to some of those services that would have been provided in hospitals.

I will say to the honourable member that one thing I know for sure is that about 34 days ago, we took a $2.2-billion hit from your federal Liberal cousins in Ottawa. It is a miracle in this province that we're able to fully keep the health care budget at $17.4 billion. That will be confirmed in the budget tomorrow. If you've got a problem with cuts in certain services in the province, go look in the mirror and talk to your cousins in Ottawa: $2.2 billion out of our budget.

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I've affixed my signature.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Picking up on the same theme of petitions coming in from members of various congregations, particularly in the core of Toronto, I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as quickly as possible 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'm proud to affix my name thereto.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I have signed my name, as I agree with it.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I present a petition from my constituents in Halton Centre.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as quickly as possible 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 proudly affix my signature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition 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."

I affix my signature to this.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from 375 people from the Riverdale area. It reads:

"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."

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise in the House today to join in the initiative of Oshawa Councillor Pauline Beal, who, along with Councillor Dina Dykstra, approached the residents of the city of Oshawa, and 10,244 stated:

"As residents and taxpayers of the city of Oshawa in the region of Durham, we are not in favour of being a part of the greater Toronto area."

I affix my signature.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition signed by 350 residents of the city of Hamilton which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is less than 1% of old-growth red and white pine remaining in the province of Ontario and the policy for the protection of Ontario old-growth forest that was recommended by the Old Growth Ecosystem Policy Advisory Committee has not been adopted in light of this government's announced cutbacks to the Ministry of Natural Resources in its plan to privatize timber land management;

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

"To govern and protect Ontario's remaining old-growth forests by implementing the government's campaign promise to establish a province-wide network of protected areas, including the Algoma highlands and Temagami."

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This is to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario's forest resources are vital to our economic future; and

"Whereas our forests in remote communities deserve adequate protection from the threat of fire; and

"Whereas in order to protect forests and communities and ensure the safety of fire crews, fire bases must be located strategically for rapid response; and

"Whereas the decision to close the Gogama fire base threatens not only Gogama's economic future but our citizens' property and our lives;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Parliament of Ontario require the Minister of Natural Resources to keep the Gogama fire base open."

This is an eminently sensible request, to which I have attached my signature.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have another petition from residents of 35 Shoreham Drive. I'll read it to the House.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster eviction by landlords,

"We, the undersigned tenants of 35 Shoreham Drive in North York, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I agree with the contents of this petition and I will affix my signature to it.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion, or 18%, in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225-million cut from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see a prediction of only 253,000 jobs created over the next three years and an unemployment rate of 8.6% in two years, which is the same as it is today; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to create significant jobs in the province; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

I will gladly affix my name to this petition.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000 they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals; and

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; and....

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and a regimented environment at Transition House have combined with counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services has a definite impact on statistics of children and youth in crisis; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and placed the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham."

This is signed by a number of residents from Kent county and I affix my signature to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I bring here a petition from a number of residents at Moss Park who are quite concerned about the government's move to scrap rent control. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party 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 very high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting current rent control systems; 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 this province; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province and keep our present system of rent control."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition from Eugene Lefrancois, a trustee with the Injured Workers Resource Centre in Thunder Bay. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, wish to advise the Ontario Legislature that we are opposed to the government's plan to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. The government has a responsibility to consider and balance the concerns of all workplace parties, not just those of employer representatives, many of whom are not covered under the Workers' Compensation Act.

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call upon all those who sit in the Legislature to rise up and denounce any plan to amend the current Workers' Compensation Act without the express approval of the Ontario Injured Workers Support Group.

"Be it further resolved that we, the undersigned, call upon the government to cease and desist its current course of action, the reduction of benefits and services, and meet with injured worker representatives across the province. We call upon the government to review those injured worker representatives' suggestions, and if they do not agree with the suggestions of injured workers we expect nothing less than the government explaining why it will not follow the suggestions of injured workers and to prove that their suggestions are not workable."

I am proud to sign my signature to that.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition from the riding of Oakwood to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to remove rent controls; and

"Whereas the removal of rent control legislation breaks the campaign promise made by the Conservatives during the election; and

"Whereas a great number of tenants are seniors and people on fixed incomes and many have had their income cut by 22% due to social assistance cuts and cannot afford increases in their rent; and

"Whereas growing unemployment and the scarcity of affordable housing in Metro make the removal of rent control an even greater disaster for tenants and for people who cannot afford to buy homes;

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

"That the government of Ontario keep their pre-election promise and not remove rent controls and continue with the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rental Housing Protection Act."

I affix my name to this petition.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here yet another petition, this time people from Regent Park, in regard to rent control. It reads:

"Whereas security of tenure or the right to remain in our homes is a basic need of all people; and

"Whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons; and

"As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that the current rent control system remains in effect."

I affix my name to that petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition 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."

It's signed by a number of residents from Kent county, and I affix my signature.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

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

"To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirits sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in its stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wine and thereby contributes immensely to the grape-growing and wine production industry;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn the sale of liquor and spirits over to private liquor stores and retain the LCBO for this purpose."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in agreement with its contents.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

Mr Carr moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the Lions Foundation of Canada.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 36,

An Act to amend certain acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources / Projet de loi 36, Loi modifiant certaines lois appliquées par le ministère des Richesses naturelles.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Mr Speaker, I wonder if the right time can show on the clock for the time I have remaining. I believe it was an hour.

Let me recap for the benefit of members who weren't here and who are here today some of the comments I was making on Thursday. They are as follows.

We have the Minister of Natural Resources who brought forward a bill on Thursday last to make some minor amendments to a number of bills under his jurisdiction as Minister of Natural Resources. He does so at a time when the fact of the matter is, his ministry is being gutted both in terms of the money they have available for management of natural resources and in terms of staff they have available to do the same. I find it passing strange that he would consider as a priority a bill that deals with some minor changes to several bills when at the same time he has on his hands in essence the gutting of a very important ministry, particularly in our special part of the province.

On Thursday, I talked about some of the changes that were occurring. First of all, with respect to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the single most significant change the minister brings forward in this bill is a change that now adds new fees for those people who operate as independent loggers or jobbers in Ontario's forests, something that the minister, when he sat on committee, when he was critic of the Ministry of Natural Resources and was on this side, was very much opposed to.

But the only significant, single change he brings forward with respect to that bill is a new set of fees for people who, as a matter of fact, are already operating on the edge in terms of the work they're trying to do in the forests and the work they're trying to do to feed their families.

I contrasted that with the comments he made when he was in opposition about the importance of sustainability, particularly with respect to the ability of Ontario to be able to sell wood products in the international market. The minister, when he sat on this side and was commenting on the then Bill 171, was very fierce in his determination that the bill be strong enough to uphold those principles of sustainability, that we could always be certain Ontario had sound and good forest management practice so that our companies and our businesses could compete in a global market in terms of selling wood products.

I would have thought the minister would have used this opportunity with this bill to reinforce those principles, to put forward some of those things he saw as weaknesses in order to strengthen the act he criticized when he was on this side, but he did not do that. I regret that.

I was going through, on Thursday, some of the things he is doing which directly contradict all of the fine speeches he made when he was on this side with respect to his supporting the principle of sustainability.

We have two problems. First of all, with the gutting of the MNR staff it is very clear to all of us on this side that the staff who remain in the ministry two years from now are not going to be capable of managing the forests. They're not going to be capable of monitoring reforestation, regeneration and cutting practices of the major pulp and paper and forestry companies that have access to timber limits.

Secondly, and far more importantly and more serious for us, is the fact that the direction the minister takes now to give away the timber resources on the crown management units in essence very much puts at risk sustainability of our forests, and we are very concerned about that.

There are three points I want to make in this regard. The first I made Thursday, which is that the turning over or the transferring of the crown management units into the hands of the big pulp and paper and forestry companies really puts the independent loggers of this province at risk, because they will have to go cap in hand to try and get allocations of wood. They may even have to get their licences from the big operators, and I think that puts them in a very precarious situation. I listed a number of comments from a number of people who agreed with me in that regard.

The second problem we have is that we have this transfer taking place in the province behind closed doors, secret negotiations with the big pulp and paper companies to turn over some 8.2 million hectares of crown land to them. There is no consultation going on with other groups and other interests that really have a right, and frankly have a responsibility as well, to be involved in any change with respect to the future of the crown management units.

We know that native organizations, aboriginal communities are not involved. We know northern Ontario communities are not involved, even though they might be adjacent to the crown management units and might like at some point to have access as well to those timber resources.

We know that a number of environmental groups that have a stake in protecting all of the values of the forests are not involved either. That is why as early as January of this year we called on the minister to stop the negotiations that were going on and to set in place a framework which would allow other users of the forests, other organizations and individuals who have an interest, to participate fully in determining what the future of the crown management units is going to be.

We are now at the beginning of May and we are no further ahead in terms of trying to open up this process and ensure that other Ontarians who have a right to use the forest as well can participate in that process.

One of the senior forestry officers at the Ministry of Natural Resources confirmed that it's hard to involve the public when you're dealing with private business discussions. That is the point. The fact is, other people, other forest users have a right to participate in this process. The timber limits are not the minister's to give away. They belong to all of the people in this province, and all of the people in this province have a right to participate in how those timber resources will be used and how they will be maintained for future use by people in this province.

We also know that in Sioux Lookout, for example, one reporter who is following the issue that we raised here in the House last December tried to get into one of the negotiating sessions that were going on in Sioux Lookout between the MNR and McKenzie Forest Products. Reporter Glynn Robinson was barred from attending one of these negotiating sessions.

District MNR manager Al Mathews explained to the Sioux Lookout Bulletin that there would be no role for the people of Sioux Lookout until after the deal was in place. That is going to be too late, because after the deal is done the other people who want to have a say in this important issue aren't going to be able to have that say. They aren't going to be able to make the important changes to ensure that other people have access to forests and natural resources in this province.

Clearly, to me and to our caucus it is unacceptable that the minister would continue with these negotiations and would bar other members of the public, other groups that have a right to participate, from participating. We think that's wrong and that in the end the negative effect will be that the sustainability which we are all concerned about, the ability of Ontario to sell its goods abroad, will be put at risk and that we'll lose by that kind of process.

The third fact is that the move to give away crown management units and the timber on them puts the whole principle of sustainability at risk. It puts at risk all the minister's fine words when he was on this side of the House. It puts Ontario's interests and Ontario's credibility at risk because we are not going to be able to prove to the international community, particularly the environmental community, that we do have sound practices here, that we are practising sustainability when it comes to regeneration, reforestation and cutting.

I really think the government has to think about the risk it is putting people at who depend, in terms of their livelihood, on the forest industry in this province.

Let me talk about some comments that other people had to make about this. I referenced Robin MacIntyre, who is on the citizens' advisory board in Sault Ste Marie, last Thursday and I want to reference him again: "You hear a lot of words like `sustainability' being used but it really doesn't mean anything. It's just a trade word. The forest industry hasn't proven that they are able to monitor their own sites and take responsibility for selective cutting."

Probably the most important example of that comes from the work the MNR itself had done via consulting with respect to management of the Lac Seul forest. McKenzie Forest Products right now is the licensee in the Lac Seul forest, and MNR had some work done to determine what the practices were of that company and how they would affect sustainability. That report said: "The large discrepancy between harvest and regeneration activities reflects poor planning and poor implementation of regeneration strategies. The committee interprets this as a pursuit of short-term profits at the expense of long-term sustainability."

That comes directly from work the MNR had done on a management unit in northwestern Ontario. It was a serious and very important look at what the policies were by this particular company in terms of that forest. That company has a failing grade when it comes to the consultant's review of what is happening around reforestation, regeneration and harvesting on that unit.

If that is the case, if we know that is the fact now, while we have the resources that we do at MNR, before we have the 2,100 people laid off, why are we moving to a system where we will hand over even more crown resources to the big pulp and paper companies with no mechanism whatsoever to monitor what they do, control what they do, ensure that what they do is sound so Ontario will still be in a position to sell its products overseas?

That a government would do that in light of the evidence that is before us just boggles the mind. I have to ask this government, and the minister in particular, to step back from the negotiations going on now, give his head a shake and ask himself how we stand to lose in this province if we have repeat consultants' reports on other management units about other unsustainable forestry practices, and how that will put not only the companies at risk but all the thousands and thousands of people who work in that industry, especially in northern Ontario, at risk as well.

There's one other individual whom I want to quote, and it's interesting that this same individual made his comments after the minister tried to pitch his case several weeks ago at the convention for the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association. I want to quote David Milton, who is with that association. I should point out that the association has 48 corporate members, 800 associate members, and it represents about 70% of the province's sawmill industry. A very significant portion of the sawmill industry is represented by this association.

Mr Milton had this to say about the minister's speech wherein he made the pitch for the turnover of the crown resources, the pitch that the ministry was going to set some new and wonderful standards and we were going to ensure that sustainability would be protected in that way:

"Continued cuts to the Ministry of Natural Resources could eventually cripple the government's ability to manage the province's forests, said the head of the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association.

"Association president David Milton said last week that the Conservative government's plan to speed up the long-standing trend towards transferring more forest management duties to the private sector could go too far. `They shouldn't give it all away. They should maintain some core competency within the Ministry of Natural Resources.'

"The government could effectively fail to achieve these goals" -- the goals were forest management and making sure Ontario forests remain competitive -- "if the minister chops too many of the natural resources forestry experts, Milton said later. `The ministry needs to keep some of those people or its policies will lose touch with reality,' he added."

It's not only people on our side, in this caucus, who are very concerned about the changes in the direction the minister is going in now. People in the industry, people whose livelihood will be affected by decisions being made by this government, are also very concerned, and they are speaking out with respect to that concern.

David Milton heads a very important organization in this province, an organization which employs literally thousands of people, particularly in our special part of the province in northern Ontario, and David Milton has made it clear that the government's direction in terms of laying off 2,100 staff and handing over protection and management of the forest more and more to the private sector is a wrongheaded approach. It could only lead to jeopardizing Ontario's position in the global economy.

When someone like that, of his calibre, representing the number of businesses that he does, over 800 associate members in this province -- surely that should give cause to the government to step back and listen and review what it's doing, to think again about the consequences of an action it's taking which has to this point in time been behind closed doors and in secret.

In view of the debate we have before us, in view of the bill the minister has put before us, I would have thought that surely he would have recognized the importance of reinforcing the principles of sustainability and would have done everything he could in this bill to make sure the bill reflected those principles and to make any of those changes he talked about while in opposition to make sure the bill was strengthened and reflected those changes.

But he has not, and instead we find ourselves in this House today debating a bill that, as a matter of fact, provides for only minor changes but which, when you look at the cuts along with the government direction, will have very substantial negative impact across the forestry industry in this province.

My second concern around sustainability -- actually my third, because I have a concern about how we can sustain our forests when we have the massive cuts we're experiencing, a concern about how we can sustain our forests when we are giving away our timber resources.

But I have a third concern with respect to sustainability; that is, in the context of all the cuts now occurring at the Ministry of Natural Resources, this government will be completely incapable of adhering to the provisions outlined in the class environmental timber assessment, an order which, I point out, has the force of law. A number of those recommendations were released some two years ago, a number of very important changes that need to take place in Ontario to ensure that we continue to have access to markets, to ensure that in fact our forests are sustainable and our resources are sustainable.

While those recommendations have the force of law, in the face of the massive cuts that the minister is intent on implementing in his own ministry, neither this Ministry of Natural Resources nor the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, which is supposed to be the ministry that oversees the work MNR does, will be capable of adhering to the order and the recommendations in it. That again will severely put at risk the sustainability of our forests and the people who work in those forests.

I want to talk a little bit about some of those recommendations and contrast what the ministry was told it should do in the order against the position it now finds itself in with 2,100 people going out the door over the next two years.

I might just begin by referring to the

summary at the beginning of the decision, which says as follows: "Simply, our decision speaks to sustaining a healthy forest. We had to be persuaded that the planning process we would approve would be able to manage our forests as a perpetual renewal resource, carefully balancing the need for timber with the protection of equally important assets such as old-growth white and red pine, wildlife, water and recreation."

The board members said as follows in the decision

summary: "Our approval is given only if MNR complies with a long and detailed set of conditions, many of which were negotiated by the parties to the hearing. Some of these conditions of approval come into effect immediately. Others impose deadlines for the MNR to complete research and investigations over the nine years our approval is in effect. When our approval lapses in the year 2003, the Minister of Environment and Energy will face the decision to extend or change it. Its temporary term means our approval will be tested in the forest.

The successes and failures of the timber management planning process will be demonstrated. The results of monitoring will prove if MNR is protecting non-timber values. The results of research into biodiversity, conservation and landscape management will show if these are more than good ideas and can actually be implemented and produce the benefits that we expect."

The fact of the matter is, as I go through some of the conditions in the order, it is very clear to me, it is very clear to members on this side, that with the massive cuts of the MNR staff, the MNR will not be in a position to comply, nor will the Ministry of Environment and Energy be in a position to ensure that its sister ministry complies, because they too will not have enough staff to enforce any of the recommendations of the order or to ensure that MNR staff are in a position to respond to the order.

Let me just talk first about the planning process itself, because the order made it clear that there had to be a change around planning, and made it very clear that a large number of MNR staff had to be involved in the planning process that went on around timber management. The board recommended: "Each timber management plan, any amendment to a timber management plan and each contingency plan shall be prepared by a regional professional forester assisted by an interdisciplinary planning team and a local citizens' committee.

The planning teams shall include representatives of the various programs of the Ministry of Natural Resources, including persons with expertise in the area of timber management, fish and wildlife biology, land administration, parks management, fire management and enforcement. The district manager may assign additional responsibilities to specific planning teams with regard to concerns or interests not represented."

Clearly, the recommendation is for a large number of MNR staff with very important and very specific expertise to be involved in the planning process. The fact is, most of those people whom I have just named are people whose positions are going to be lost over the next two years at the MNR. You can't take 2,100 people, 2,100 full-time equivalents, out of a ministry that only has 4,700 full-time equivalents and expect that the people who have this particular expertise are going to be able to participate in the planning processes outlined in the order. They can't do it.

As much as those staff want to participate, as much as they should be participating, as much as they are supposed to participate by law, because the order has the force of law, the minister's gutting of his own staff effectively ensures that the planning teams as outlined in the order cannot be composed in the way they should be. There just won't be the staff with that expertise to participate in the important planning processes.

The board also made it clear that there had to be advisory committees and local citizens' committees established to work with the MNR planning team in the development of the timber management plans in each of the 90 areas across the province. They said, and I quote: "A number of local citizens representing a range and balance of interests shall be afforded expanded opportunities to participate in the timber management planning process through membership in a local citizens' committee.

MNR shall establish at least one local citizens' committee for each district, and where needed, one for every management unit in the area of undertaking." There are 90 management units represented in the area of undertaking that was under review by the Environmental Assessment Board -- 90. So not only are we to be looking at 90 teams that are supposed to be leading the exercise on behalf of MNR; those same MNR staff also have an additional responsibility to bring those citizens' committees together and to support them in terms of providing research and other data.

There is no way, on a five-year rotation -- because that is what is expected in each of the management units -- that you are ever going to be able to ask the MNR staff who remain after two years to try to put those committees together, to try to support them, to try to help staff them up, to try to provide them with the expertise they need in terms of human resources, financial resources or the data they should have at their disposal to make good and rational decisions about planning in the management units. It will be impossible for the MNR staff to do that.

Over and above the citizens' committee, the timber EA board also made it clear that other people had interests in the forests. They might not be represented on the citizens' committee or the local advisory committees, but other people such as tourist operators, aboriginal people etc would also have an interest or specific concerns with individual timber management plans. Those members of the public also have to be afforded an opportunity to participate in the planning process, and they have to be afforded that opportunity under the order.

Many MNR districts do that now, but the timber EA group made it clear that that was to be part of the recommendations and also to have the force of law. They said: "The timber management planning team" -- the MNR staff -- "shall make diligent efforts to ensure ongoing public participation throughout the timber management planning process. As affected members of the public are identified, the planning team shall make reasonable efforts to communicate with those persons to solicit their input into the timber management planning process and to facilitate contact between them and the local citizens' committee.

In addition, members of the public shall be afforded the opportunity to arrange for meetings with representatives of the planning team and the local citizens' committee at any time during the timber management planning process. Reasonable opportunities to meet planning team members during non-business hours shall be afforded."

Again, a tremendous responsibility for MNR staff, and with the lack of staff there will be at that ministry over the next two years, those staff who remain will not be in any way, shape or form capable of carrying out these important duties -- they just won't. Not only will they lose, because I suspect the majority of them, the vast majority of them, do want to comply with the order, but the public's going to lose as well, because the mechanisms that the EA board set out for them to participate will not be able to be maintained.

They will have no effective voice, no effective vehicle to participate in what is for the province of Ontario a very important process to ensure that our forests are sustainable.

I talked about human resources, but a whole number of information resources have to be provided to the teams as well. The MNR, for example, has to provide a forest resource inventory for each management unit -- there are 90 of those. Fisheries and wildlife inventory information shall be made available for each forest management unit for use in the timber management process. A values map representing all the values outside of timber has to be provided in each management unit. And the list goes on and on.

So not only do you have the staff who are there to support the process, but you have other staff in behind supporting the effort because they have to provide the data that people need to make informed decisions on. Again, the staff who are left are just going to be in no position to do that. They will not even be able to manage what's going on in the forest.

They will have difficulty dealing with, for example, conservation offices, how to deal with the black bear hunt and other things that I want to talk about, but those staff won't be in a position to provide the information people need to make informed decisions. That will be contrary to all of the recommendations that were outlined in the order.

The panel also made some very specific recommendations around aboriginal people and I want to spend just a moment on those. They had a number of aboriginal groups and first nations that came before them over the course of the time the hearings sat to talk about how they have been for a number of years very specifically shut out of realizing any of the benefits that come from being able to participate either in cutting or in working in a mill. They have been effectively shut out from benefiting from the use of natural resources in our province.

The EA board said the following: "The evidence we received on employment, poverty and access to off-reserve timber convinced us of the historical and present-day exclusion of native communities from sharing in the social and economic benefits enjoyed by non-native communities from timber operations on crown land."

Because of that exclusion and because of the concern that was raised by many aboriginal organizations and communities that came before the board, the panel made the following recommendation:

"During the term of this approval, MNR district managers shall conduct negotiations at the local level with aboriginal peoples whose communities are situated in a management unit, in order to identify and implement ways of achieving a more equal participation by aboriginal peoples in the benefits provided through timber management planning.

These negotiations will include but are not limited to the following matters:" provisions around job opportunities, supplying wood to sawmills, facilitating aboriginal third-party licences, providing timber licences to aboriginal people, the development of programs to train aboriginal people, and a number of other conditions that are outlined in the report.

The fact is that the district managers, those who are left -- and there won't be a whole lot of them by the time the downsizing occurs at MNR -- will be completely incapable of carrying on any kind of consultation with aboriginal communities. That's a real shame, because clearly, after the representations that were made by aboriginal communities a number of times before it, the EA panel became very convinced that aboriginal people had to have a share in the benefits that we in the non-aboriginal communities take for granted.

They made it very clear that MNR had to undertake negotiations, had to make some very serious efforts to ensure that aboriginal people could participate in the same way that other people participate in the benefits from forest resources.

The situation we will find ourselves in is that despite the best efforts of those MNR district managers who remain in the ministry after the cuts occur, they will be incapable as well of doing any solid negotiations, any meaningful or long-term negotiations with aboriginal people to ensure that they also have a role and a place in our economy.

We will continue to see, as we do in many places in northern Ontario, large pulp and paper and forestry companies cutting directly adjacent to first nation communities and no first nation peoples involved in either the cutting or the sawmill or the forestry operations; none, no benefits being accrued to those first nation communities at all. You'll continue to see 85% unemployment in those communities, large social problems in terms of drug and alcohol abuse, many violence problems in those communities, and no opportunity whatsoever for people who want to participate to have the vehicle or the mechanism to do so.

The government will wear that, because they have an opportunity through this order, through the recommendations that were made, to change that, and they will be unable to do that because of the cut in staff that they are carrying out at this important ministry. That's a shame, and I think this government will have a lot to answer for when we look four years down the road and see that the order has not been implemented and that native people have not benefited one iota from gaining access to important timber resources that they have a right to share in as well in this province.

On the enforcement side and in terms of the ability of MNR staff to conduct audits, the ministry will find itself in a position of not being able to comply with the order. The order says very clearly:

"MNR shall monitor the timber management activities of access, harvest, renewal and maintenance for effects, effectiveness and compliance with approved timber management plans and any other conditions imposed on operations by legislation or policy....

"MNR shall undertake long-term scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of provincial guidelines for fish and moose habitat and tourism values....

"MNR shall develop and implement a provincial wildlife population monitoring program within the area of undertaking" -- within the 90 management units.

Time and again, with respect to the responsibilities they have around providing information, the responsibilities they have around monitoring, the responsibility they have around audits -- which in the case of the order is, "Each forest management agreement in the province shall be audited every five years" -- the staff who are left, despite all their best intentions, will not be able to carry out all of the recommendations in the order.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy, which is supposed to ensure that MNR staff comply, will also be unable to even determine what's happening at the MNR, because with the cut in staff that's going on at that ministry, they won't have a clue what's happening in the forests of Ontario and they won't have a clue what the large forestry and pulp and paper companies are doing when it comes to regeneration, reforestation and harvesting practices.

All this government does by those cuts and by that kind of consequence is to put at risk our ability to prove that we are sustainable in terms of our forest management practices and that our products that we sell should be sold in that light as well. That's not going to happen, and we will end up in this province with a serious credibility problem in terms of our position in the international community, be it environmental, be it in the market that we sell into, and we will put at risk as well all of those people in our special part of the province, in northern Ontario in particular, who depend for their livelihood on the sale of forestry products in the province.

The point I want to make in terms of sustainability is that we have a minister who has come forward and made some changes. The most significant change he has made around the Crown Forest Sustainability Act is to impose new fees on independent loggers. When he had an opportunity to reinforce the principles of sustainability, when he had an opportunity to identify the weaknesses he identified in the act when he was over here, when he had that opportunity to make some changes, he went the other way.

We find ourselves in a position today where we will not have the staff who are capable of ensuring sustainability and we have a government that is moving forward to transfer, to give up, to abandon, to give away resources that belong to all of the people of the province and hand