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

May 28, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L078 - Tue 28 May 1996 / Mar 28 Mai 1996

APOLOGY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

FOOT HEALTH MONTH

FLOODING

BARTON SECONDARY SCHOOL

ART EXHIBIT

BEACHES INTERNATIONAL JAZZ FESTIVAL

JORDANIAN NATIONAL DAY

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

GUY PAUL MORIN

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ONTARIO HYDRO

LOTTERY TICKETS

HURONIA DISTRICT HOSPITAL

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

INQUESTS

RENT REGULATION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

EDUCATION FINANCING

SOCIAL SERVICES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

USER FEES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

OPPOSITION DAY

USER FEES

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

APOLOGY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, I would like to address a few words to the assembly, and to you in particular. You know I have a great deal of respect for your office and for you personally. I also have a great deal of respect for the responsibilities that are charged to me as an MPP. I certainly don't consider getting named and escorted out of the House as a badge of honour to be worn proudly.

However, we are responsible for our actions and we are also responsible for our actions that are not appropriate. You will know before I say this that I have never been named by you before, I have never been warned by you before, and I have never been called to order by you before. Having said that, yesterday on the way out of the House there was an action that wasn't appropriate; it was the direction of the Sudbury region book towards the minister, which inadvertently and not on purpose landed on the lap of the Minister of Environment and Energy, and that is not an appropriate action.

For that action, I deserve to be made to apologize and I do so, because to own up to one's responsibility in this high office is extremely important. I would only hope that there could be communication between questions and answers that doesn't allow for that level of frustration. I guess maybe we all have to work a little bit harder. However, that action on the way out was not appropriate.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Like a giant umbilical cord, Highway 69 stretches between Sudbury and the south. It is an inescapable lifeline reaching from the heart of the Sudbury community deep into the heart of other communities which serves the economic needs and social yearnings of people at both ends.

It is this narrow strip of potholed pavement that more than anything else in the north defines how fragile Sudbury's link to the southern heartland can be. That the short

section of highway between the French River and Sudbury is dangerous cannot be disputed. That is why the "Highway 69 Worth the Investment" postcard campaign is so important.

In 1993, there were 103 accidents, with three lives lost; in 1994, there were 109 accidents, with lives lost; in 1995, 72 accidents, with death and carnage all too evident; and so far this year, three deaths, innocent lives snuffed out because this government doesn't believe Highway 69 is worth the investment.

Premier, Minister of Transportation, people are needlessly dying on Highway 69. You have made cuts which make Highway 69 more dangerous. You killed the funding for four-laning. Restore the money for the environmental assessment. Highway 69 is worth the investment.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This week we celebrate National Access Awareness Week. The purpose of National Access Awareness Week is to challenge all Canadians to raise awareness of the barriers facing people with disabilities and to create and support equal access which will ensure the full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of life in Canada.

Many have been telling us they suffer substantial disadvantages and exclusion from the mainstream of Ontario society. They face numerous barriers in fully participating in important activities such as jobs, education at all levels, public transit and the use of goods, services and facilities. Physical, systemic, communication and attitudinal barriers impact us all, and we must all commit ourselves to removing them.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize Esther Ignagni of Toronto and Andrew Evans of Unionville, both recipients of a $3,500 National Access Awareness Week student award bursary for their outstanding academic and community achievements.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise today to announce that the Stratford Festival is once again under way in the riding of Perth. Last night marked the grand opening of the festival's 44th season, and I appreciate that the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and the Minister of Community and Social Services were able to join me and a number of other dignitaries in attendance at this gala event.

As many of you know, the Stratford Festival is world- renowned for its performances of Shakespearean plays, and this year is no exception. Performances of King Lear, The Merchant of Venice and As You Like It will be thrilling thousands of people this summer. Although the festival is best known for its Shakespearean productions, performances this year will also include The Music Man, Amadeus, The Little Foxes, A Fitting Confusion, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Barrymore, Sweet Bird of Youth and Waiting for Godot.

In addition to the grand opening of the festival, last evening also marked the official launch of the Festival Theatre Renewal Campaign. The goal of this campaign is to raise $13 million, which will be used to revitalize the Festival Theatre's auditorium and its front-of-house facilities, originally built in 1957.

Once again I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members of the House to come to the riding of Perth and share in the excitement of the Stratford Shakespearean Festival.

FOOT HEALTH MONTH

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): June is Foot Health Month in Ontario. Almost 80% of Canadians will suffer from some form of foot discomfort in their lifetime. Foot problems are not confined to any age, gender or ethnic group. Children, adolescents, the elderly, diabetics, men and women all suffer from some type of foot ailment.

According to the Ontario Podiatry Association, feet average 100,000 miles in a lifetime, and that's a lot of walking. Foot Health Month is designed to bring awareness to a variety of foot problems. A painful ailment in the foot might cause discomfort in other parts of the body.

Through information campaigns, Ontario's chiropodists and podiatrists and their associations want people to know that solutions are available. Podiatrists, for example, have been very helpful to Ontarians, diagnosing and treating foot ailments through palliative, biochemical and surgical means. Chiropodists offer foot care in hospitals and in clinics. However, we are concerned that many people are unable to access needed foot health care due to recent government cuts in service.

During Foot Health Month this June, I'd like to remind all members of this House as well as the people across the province of the value of proper foot health care. We salute Ontario's podiatrists and chiropodists for their contribution to the comfort and the health of the people of this province.

FLOODING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I would like to offer congratulations to the people of Chapleau and Foleyet for the way they have dealt with the flooding emergency in the past 10 days. I am pleased to tell this House that the latest reports indicate that water levels are slowly dropping and the worst is probably behind them.

I had the opportunity to visit Chapleau late last week and I was impressed with the solidarity with which the local people tackled this emergency. Municipal leaders, business people and individuals all volunteered selflessly to do what had to be done. In particular, I think the employees of CP and CN Rail should be recognized for their help in maintaining connections to Chapleau and Foleyet when highways became impassable.

While the local people deserve congratulations, the same cannot be said of provincial agencies. This flooding has pointed out a distinct lack of coordination of provincial agencies in unorganized areas. During the emergency, the township of Chapleau had to take the lead in dealing with highway flooding outside its municipal boundaries because of a lack of action from the Ministry of Transportation. The people of Foleyet had to rely on the generosity of Wal-Mart for clean drinking water because the Ministry of Environment and Energy was nowhere to be found.

There is still much work to be done and many bills to be paid. Perhaps in the flood cleanup the province will demonstrate the same leadership and spirit that have only been shown by the local communities up to now.

BARTON SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to take the opportunity in the House today to salute Barton Secondary School, one of the great high schools in my riding high atop Hamilton Mountain. This year marks the 35th anniversary of this terrific school, which has had many great achievements over the years. On May 11, the parents' council hosted some 200 visitors to a dance and a trip down memory lane.

The Barton Barons have had tremendous success over the years on the Hamilton high school sports scene, most recently winning both the boys' and girls' 1996 public high school hockey championships. Some notable graduates include Wayne Cuncic and Doug Strong, who both starred in the CFL, with the Toronto Argonauts and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers respectively, and Kevin Pettit, who was named to the first team all-America hockey team while at Cornell University.

Then there are local business people like Grant MacLean of Safety Seal Plastics and Ralph Schmidt of ReMax Escarpment Realty, two thriving east mountain businesses. These individuals continue to devote themselves to their community.

Barton has also been blessed with some outstanding educators such as Alan Meiklejohn, Jim Russell, Jim Ruddle and current principal Paul Murphy.

Already there is excitement over the plans for Barton's 40th anniversary at the turn of this century. I encourage all former students and teachers at Barton, wherever they may be, to contact the school and be put on a mailing list to ensure they will not miss out on what promises to be an outstanding event, an event for which I will be exceedingly proud to serve as honorary chairman.

ART EXHIBIT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm most pleased to be able to bring to the attention of this House a very significant event which took place recently in Thunder Bay. Survivors: In Search of a Voice is a collection of art intended to give a voice to the thousands of women struggling with the pain, fear, challenge and triumphs of breast cancer.

Commissioned and funded by the Toronto-based Woodlawn Arts Foundation, the exhibit features works of art by 24 prominent female Canadian artists, in partnership with and inspired by 100 breast cancer survivors, and is a monument to the courage of women stricken with this devastating disease.

As so many of us are aware, breast cancer is a killer and a thief. Annually, 6,500 women in this province are diagnosed with breast cancer, and for over 2,300 this disease will prove fatal. Families are robbed of mothers, wives, grandmothers, daughters and sisters.

Currently, women in many northern areas face waiting periods of four to eight weeks from the discovery of a lump to diagnosis. This terror-filled waiting period can be dramatically reduced with early detection programs and assessment centres. Access to advanced, less invasive diagnostic technology is an essential need, and in fact I would argue a right, for women in northwestern Ontario.

Thunder Bay has had a wonderful organizing committee which brought Survivors: In Search of a Voice to our community, and I applaud their hard work and the generosity of the project partners and countless volunteers. The committee's goal in bringing the exhibit was to increase awareness and funds for breast cancer treatment in northwestern Ontario, and I believe they did just that.

BEACHES INTERNATIONAL JAZZ FESTIVAL

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today I placed in each member's legislative mailbox this year's Beaches International Jazz Festival calendar. I hope you will all enjoy this colourful reminder of some important events coming up in my home community. I'd like to extend an invitation to all members to attend the jazz festival, which runs from July 24-28.

Many well-known jazz stars have appeared at the festival. Saxophonist Tom Scott, the Dave McMurdo Jazz Orchestra, the Johnny Pacheco Latin Orchestra, Warren Hill and Brian Hughes are just a few of the featured performers in recent years, and 1995's festival included Ernie Andrews, Phil Dwyer, Doug Riley and exciting newcomer Lee Ping Ming.

This jazz festival began in 1989 and began over a two-day period. Since then it's grown phenomenally. Over that time it's also provided over $100,000 for Senior Link, a local seniors' organization in the Beaches, through sales of T-shirts and other memorabilia. In 1995 alone it was estimated that half a million people attended the five-day event and provided a tremendous boost to the local Beach economy and the economy of Metro Toronto.

Lido Chilelli, the president of the jazz festival, also donated a number of promotional items to the 1995 press gallery auction. The proceeds, as you all know, went to the United Way, and it raised over $300. I would like to thank him personally and of course Pauline Johnson, who organized it.

Please don't miss this event. It's a wonderful time in our community. It isn't just a jazz event; it's a family celebration. The jazz festival hotline is 416-698-2152.

JORDANIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I rise today to bring to the attention of all members that Saturday, May 25, was Jordanian National Day and the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

At this time, Canadians of Jordanian background, as well as all Canadians, may reflect on the great contributions to the development of that country and to the Middle East process King Hussein of Jordan continues to make. King Hussein travels the difficult road to peace in the Middle East with courage and determination. He is a leader who inspires peaceful cooperation and international understanding. He is most deserving of all our support and encouragement.

Ontario is a province that may gratefully boast a thriving Jordanian Canadian community whose hardworking members have enriched our society in so many ways. As a Canadian of Lebanese background myself, and on behalf of the government of Premier Mike Harris, I take this opportunity to wish all Jordanian Canadians our congratulations on Jordanian National Day, and much continued great success in the future. As-Salaam Alekum.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation from the Jordanian Canadian Club. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Today, as I promised in my April 11 statement to the House, the government is making public its business plans for all government ministries, and they show that we can do better for less.

By publishing these business plans, by making ministries publicly accountable for performance and by seeking the advice and involvement of our clients and the public, we are continuing to enhance the openness and accountability of the government of Ontario.

The business planning process will help ministries concentrate on core businesses and identify functions and services better left to the private sector. This will help ensure that scarce public resources are used more productively.

This is the first time ever that all Ontario ministries are publishing business plans and establishing benchmarks for performance. These business plans define the core services that ministries will deliver over the next two years. They set proposed performance standards so the public will be able to judge how effectively ministries are doing their jobs.

The tabling of the business plans is part of an ongoing effort by all ministries to refine their core businesses and develop more cost-effective ways of running their operations.

During the next few months, ministries will consult their clients on their business plans and proposed performance measures. Their advice will help us build on the measures we have and show us where we need refinements to make them more meaningful for the future.

In addition, the general public is invited to participate in the business planning process. They can provide comments by calling a toll-free telephone line already set up for this purpose, by using a tear-off response form included in the business plan document or by writing to me personally.

This process is another step in the government's commitment to do better for less and to provide the people of Ontario with the quality services they need at a price they can afford.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I truly don't know how any member of the public can respond to the gobbledegook which is all the government has offered it in this document today. These are not business plans; these are pages and pages of platitudes and empty wish lists. If any corporation on Bay Street put out this kind of a document and tried to call it a business plan, their stock value would drop by $2 by the next morning.

There is absolutely nothing here. It's pure propaganda. It's a spin document. There are all kinds of words, and the words signify nothing. There is absolutely nothing that relates to the reality of what this government is actually doing. There are fine words about what the government might like to do -- that's where the wish list comes in -- but there's nothing that says how they're going to do it, nothing that says what more they're going to cut, nothing that says where they're going to privatize.

There are no specific measures of what they actually want to achieve and, as a result, there are very few specific targets or ways of measuring what they might consider to be success, and there is certainly absolutely nothing this document offers that is going to let the government prove that anything -- anything -- that they have done or are about to do is going to provide a more effective government service.

The reality is that all we have had from this government is a full year now of slashing and burning and devastating cuts to the services that government provides and that people need.

In five minutes I can't begin to go through the whole document, even though there is nothing there, so I want to just take one of the 21 ministries and give you the example of why we say there is less than nothing here. The Ministry of Health statement says, "By integrating assessment, diagnosis, treatment, care, prevention of illness and promotion of healthy lifestyles, the ministry will ensure that health care services are focused on the patient."

That's the vision statement. What does that mean? What does that mean to people who are facing longer waiting lists for emergency care? What does it mean to the people who are phoning our offices and saying they can't get in for the surgery that they need? What does it say about the $1.3 billion that has been taken off hospitals? There's no mention of a $1.3-billion cut to front-line hospitals here. There's no place in the Ministry of Health statement that talks about the $2 prescription fee that seniors and the disabled are going to have to pay for their drugs in the future.

There is a statement here that the Ministry of Health is going to move from government operations to something called "public-private partnerships." We've seen the Minister of Health's first foray into public-private partnerships when he invited into Ontario an American for-profit dialysis company that was already under investigation for fraud and jeopardizing the health of patients with inadequate care. That's their first foray in moving from government operations to public-private partnerships.

What this really means, as the government moves out of operations, is that they are prepared to abandon all responsibility for adequate funding, that they will take no responsibility for setting standards of health care and enforcing them. They say they're no longer going to be a service provider; they're going to be a system manager. In health, surely of all areas, the government has a responsibility to provide health care services to the patients and the people of this province, and no amount of use of buzzwords from system management jargon is going to allow them to abandon that kind of responsibility.

I go on on the health care vision statement. They talk about "psychiatric hospitals that might be better managed as part of the health care system in communities." What does that mean? Does it mean we're going to have fewer psychiatric beds? Does it mean we're going to have more psychiatric patients unceremoniously dumped into our communities without adequate community support?

It goes on to say, "some public health laboratory work and administrative functions might be provided more efficiently and effectively by the private sector." We've already had the Minister of Health saying, "I am going to close down, to privatize a whole slew of government-run public health laboratories." What does that mean? Who's going to provide that service? Who's going to pay the cost of that service? Are we going to see new user fees for public health lab testing? This document says nothing about that at all.

There's a reference in here to underserviced areas, an ongoing concern. They're going to reduce the number of underserviced areas and in that same mission statement they say, "But we are not going to exceed the budget." So if there are too many underserviced areas for the government to meet the need within its budget, because physicians have fled this province, what's the government going to do to reduce underserviced areas? Just change the criteria, not recognize that they are underserviced.

I could go on to every single one of the ministries. I'd love to get into education where they talk about their sole measurement of excellence being how many dollars are spent in the classroom and not outside the classroom. We know what that means.

All I can say in two seconds left is that this is pure spin, pure propaganda. They are not doing better with less; they're just doing less.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This is just another 1-800-JOKE on the people of Ontario by this government: 1-800-LAYOFF. This is not doing better for less. This is just simply doing less.

I have a copy of the government's plan and I've had a chance to go through it. The most startling revelation of this document is what's not here. This government has not given the people of Ontario any information with the release of this so-called plan. They have simply announced the death knell of good government: government that is responsible for wellbeing of its citizens through safety and environmental regulation; government that builds an infrastructure of transportation links, education technology transfer in order to foster economic development; government that looks after the taxpayers' investment in their communities and the province's prosperity.

They have not given us anything concrete on which they will base their decision to privatize, to deregulate and to cut services. They have simply stated their beliefs, their rhetoric and their ideology once again. The government has announced its intention to go ahead with privatization, to go ahead with deregulation.

They have stated their objectives and their performance-measurement techniques, but they have not told us what they are going to do. They have not told us just exactly how they will meet their objectives. Most importantly, they have forgotten about the people of this province. It is very revealing and startling in that sense.

This document forgets about people. How will each and every one of the citizens of this province be affected by this business approach? This document is simply full of platitudes and rhetoric. It does not consider the fact that because of this business approach, sick people will be taxed with new drug user fees. Homeowners will pay higher and higher property taxes. School children will have to pay for their books, their music and their recreation.

It leaves out the job loss. There is no more information in this announcement than there was in the last, and this is supposed to be the detailed follow-up. In fact, the last release of the business plan had more information. At least that release included a measure of the job loss this government is responsible for in its own operations.

In skating over these crucial issues, the issues the government has real responsibility for, this government simply substitutes rhetoric for substance, the rhetoric that conveniently substitutes the concept of people for the concept of shareholder. Well, I have news for this government. The shareholders you talk about are people and these people have concerns. You're supposed to provide government for them, not for business.

Where the people of this province are in fact shareholders, you have not told them how you will protect their interests. For example, the people of Ontario -- shareholders, to use your newspeak -- have close to a century of equity in Ontario Hydro, equity that belongs to the people of Ontario. Will you protect their interests? I ask the minister, just who did you talk to? Do you think the people of Ontario want to lose that investment? Do they want to lose their guarantee of safety?

Do they want their province to languish in a sea of unemployment and get left behind as our competitors invest in technology and economic development? Do they want to lose their services? How are they to analyse this plan and put forward their concerns?

You have put your plan forward in terms of a cost-benefit equation but you have left out the largest part of that equation: Who really benefits and who pays?

What do I tell the people of Sault Ste Marie when I go back this weekend, as we head down the road to losing almost 1,700 jobs in our community? What do I tell the people who have lost almost a quarter of their take-home pay as they try to feed their children on the mere pittance that this government tosses to them? What do I tell the leaders of my community as they grapple with the loss of that many jobs, which equals almost three medium-sized businesses just picking up and leaving town? Where are the jobs? Where are the 725,000 jobs that you promised in your campaign? Where are the jobs?

Where are the people who will lose their jobs going to go, never mind the people who are already unemployed?

Three weeks ago they told me to send the people from the Sault down to St Thomas; there are 1,000 jobs down there. Last week in my community they were trying to peddle workfare. Jobs someplace else, workfare; what's next? 1-800-LAYOFF. That's exactly what this government is giving to the people of Ontario. That's all they have to offer. You're bankrupt of ideas. Give it up.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, I suggest to you that yet another glaring omission in this so-called business plan that your government has presented today is that there is absolutely no reference of any kind to setting standards of care in residential facilities for our seniors. It's a glaring omission, Minister, but I suspect that it is a very deliberate one when we see what you have actually done in recent months.

Minister, effective June 1, you have eliminated regulations that would have required a certain level of nursing care in nursing homes and homes for the aged. I ask you if you can explain to us today how abandoning the standard of nursing care in homes for the aged and nursing homes is going to benefit elderly residents in Ontario.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The interim provision that was put in by the previous government the honourable member is asking about was the 2.5 hours of care, which was a labour adjustment measure that was meant to be temporary. It was a concession to the unions while the homes underwent the transitions required and the funding transitions required under the previous government's Bill 101. We have ended that transition measure with the agreement of the Ontario Nursing Home Association -- in fact, urged by them.

In fact, we have agreement from all sectors in the long-term care facilities sector, and I don't think there's any particularly valid basis for the honourable member's question today.

Mrs McLeod: The minister has not only set aside that former guideline, but he has put nothing in its place at all. He has abandoned any responsibility for setting a standard for nursing care in residential care facilities for our seniors. He's done that because he wants to work within a fixed budget and manage his funding, and the fact is that he is about to shift $144 million away from homes for the aged and into nursing homes. In other words, he is going to rob Peter in order to pay Paul.

You have a given budget, so you're shifting dollars around, and, Minister, I suggest that what you are left with is inadequate funding to provide a reasonable level of care for seniors in either homes for the aged or in nursing homes.

Will you acknowledge the reality, because the bottom line here is that inadequate funding means that seniors are at risk in nursing homes and homes for the aged? Will you acknowledge the reality of what's happening, that you are not adequately funding residential care for seniors, that there's not enough money to provide a reasonable standard of care, and that you are therefore abandoning any responsibility for setting and enforcing standards?

Hon Mr Wilson: A copy of a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star recently from the Ontario Nursing Home Association reads as follows:

"The Ontario Nursing Home Association applauds the Honourable Jim Wilson's announcement as a positive first step in the long-awaited implementation of a long-term care process.... Mr Wilson deserves credit for acting to implement the equitable funding scheme according to the law. His predecessors were well aware of the inequity in funding different care institutions, but it was the current minister who had the courage to redistribute the pot of money. Moreover, it is evident that the Minister of Health has succeeded in protecting the budget allocation for long-term care despite tremendous pressure on all provincial ministries to cut spending."

Mrs McLeod: The fact is that the nursing home association has also said they never in their wildest dreams thought the minister would try and respond to the needs of nursing home residents by simply shifting the dollars around and leaving no one with adequate levels of care. What this minister has done is set rates of funding; he has not set standards of care and he is not enforcing them. As a result of that, we are already beginning to see the cutbacks in service that will put seniors at risk.

Minister, I want to bring your attention to just one of those cutbacks: Extendicare, which operates, as I'm sure you know, about 30 nursing homes in Ontario, told the news media last month that it's planning to eliminate some 60 full-time positions in its nursing homes. Again, as I think you're aware, because many of those positions are part-time, the actual number of staff who will lose their jobs is much higher. So we have a situation here, Minister, where private and profit-making companies like Extendicare are going to receive more money because of your shift, but they're also going to lay off staff because you are not setting any standard of care.

Can you explain to us why a profitable company like Extendicare is going to receive more dollars because of your shift, but it's going to lay off employees and therefore provide a lower level of service?

Hon Mr Wilson: The previous government, the NDP government, passed Bill 101, which introduced levels-of-care funding, but they didn't actually implement levels-of-care funding; and all three parties have argued in committee over the years that we have to implement levels-of-care funding. That's what will be done.

With the announcement that I made in this House on behalf of all the members here, some 360 long-term-care facilities -- some of them homes for the aged, some of them charitable homes, and many of them, yes, nursing homes owned by the private sector in the province -- will receive enhanced funding based on the actual care needs of the patients or residents of those homes, and about 150 homes will see the end of red-circling, which was another transitional measure put in by the previous NDP government, and money distributed to those homes that were traditionally underfunded.

I could not understand in my years in opposition, and no member of this House could support a system, where a particular level of care in Toronto or in part of Simcoe county was worth X number of dollars, and yet another human being needing that same level of care was somehow worth less money in another part of the province. That was unfair. It depended on whether they were lucky enough sometimes to get into a home for the aged versus a nursing home; and what we've said is, we've introduced equity across the system based on the actual care needs of the residents.

I want to tell you, it's long overdue, and we've had great applause from the people who operate long-term care facilities, including many municipalities on behalf of their homes for the aged.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question. The leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: My question is also the Minister of Health, and I preface it by saying to this minister --

The Speaker: Who's it to?

Mrs McLeod: -- to the Minister of Health, Mr Speaker -- the idea of levels-of-care funding was that you would set a reasonable standard of care that met the needs of residents in homes for the aged and nursing homes, and then you would provide adequate funding to deliver that standard of care, Minister. That is not what you've done. You've simply set a rate of funding that has nothing to do with the level of care that residents in our seniors' homes need.

I want to pursue the issue of what I think people in Sudbury would consider an inappropriate situation, in fact what I think people across this province would consider an inappropriate situation, and it relates to an Extendicare nursing home in Sudbury.

A couple of citations I want to read into the record, and I'm quoting from the ministry's own inspection records from 1994 when the following situation was reported in this particular home in Sudbury: that a number of patients were observed to have dry exudate around eyes, long dirty nails, female residents with long facial hair, dried food on residents' faces hours after meals; also in 1994 that soiled and clean linen are stored together in a shower room.

In 1995, and again I'm quoting from ministry inspection records, "Many gerry chairs and wheelchairs are soiled." Minister, there are many other quotes and I know you can obtain a record of that for yourself. In a 1996 report, I quote, "Physicians don't always document on the residents' health records each visit."

It's quite possible that the specific problems from 1994 and 1995 have been addressed, but it is clear that year after year your inspectors have found problems with this particular nursing home. You, Minister, have the power, if you are in any way concerned about standards and enforcing standards, to protect the residents of this home. You have the power to call in your enforcement unit and order immediate action to protect the health of the seniors there. I ask you why this isn't happening, why you have failed to issue an enforcement order against this facility.

Hon Mr Wilson: Perhaps if I knew the name of the facility, I would be a little wiser and be able to act on the concerns being expressed. As you know, compliance advisers, registered nurses are available to go into homes and make sure they're living up to their service agreements that they signed with residents and with the Ministry of Health. There are no exceptions to the rules.

The highest-quality service must be delivered within the guidelines provided by the government, and when there is a potential breach or an alleged breach, we want to know about it and we have inspectors and compliance advisers that will go in. They're also available during this transition period as levels-of-care funding is implemented, and I remind members that 74% of the long-term-care facilities in this province will see enhanced funding as a result of the government's action.

Mrs McLeod: I'm talking about the Extendicare home in Sudbury. I'm surprised the minister is not aware of it since he has, year after year, reports from his inspectors, including the current year, which indicate concerns with this particular home, about which he might have been looking at taking action through an enforcement order.

If the minister's prepared to look into it, I'll ask him to consider something else directly related to this situation, because I say to you that as a result of abandoning any standards for the level of care that our seniors are going to receive, Extendicare is free to reduce its staffing. They are going to lay off some 13 full-time equivalent employees in this very Sudbury home where the problems have been recurring for several years.

Minister, I suggest that thanks to your decision to abandon nursing home standards, we now have a situation where a nursing home operator is laying off employees at a home where there a recurring and significant problems with the care the residents are receiving, and I ask how you can justify that situation.

Hon Mr Wilson: I made it very clear when we made the announcement to move to levels-of-care funding that some 2,000 or over 2,000 nurses and workers in our long-term-care facilities, nursing homes, homes for the aged, charitable homes for the aged, will be experiencing a shift in employment. They will be moving to homes where traditionally levels of funding have been reduced.

We anticipate, though, with the increased levels of funding that there will be a net increase of a few hundred jobs in the overall sector. This is in addition to the 4,400 jobs we announced in long-term-care, community-based services as a result of the 170 million new dollars put into that system. So there will be a net increase in jobs.

I would be happy, on behalf of the honourable member, to look at the situation with Extendicare in Sudbury. She has already pointed out that ministry officials are obviously involved there. I'll be sure to follow up on it. It's not one that's been particularly brought to my attention in the last few days, but we do have complaints from time to time. The same system and the same standards, in fact enhanced standards, are in place today that were in place at the time the honourable member was a member of the governing side of this House.

Mrs McLeod: That's just not possible. You have abandoned the setting of standards. You no longer require the 2.25 hours of nursing care per week. You haven't set new standards that have anything to do with care; you've just set a rate of funding. As a result of that, even in a nursing home which is about to get some new dollars because you've shifted the money around, they are going to lay off employees. There will be less care, and in this case less care in a home that is already delivering care that is not adequate for the people in that residence.

Minister, surely you are already aware that there is a nursing home operated by this same company in Timmins, operated by Extendicare, that is under an enforcement order from your ministry. I have inspection reports which paint a very troubling picture of that facility, and I am glad you did take action in that case. It's our information that Extendicare was also planning to lay off employees in that home in Timmins but they have rescinded those layoffs as a result of the enforcement order.

I ask you, Minister, will you issue an enforcement order for the Extendicare nursing home in Sudbury, and will you do that before the company lays off employees at that home where there is a potential to make a bad situation even worse?

Hon Mr Wilson: I think it would be prudent to take the opportunity to look at the facts. I will do that. I will contact our ministry inspectors this afternoon and be brought up to speed with respect to that particular home. We may very well find that the inspectors are doing everything possible there, and they'll take the matter very seriously. The concern is there. The standards are in place. They have not, as the honourable member alleges, in any way been lessened.

The 2.25 hours was a union transition measure; it had nothing to do with standards in homes. I'm sorry the previous government spun it that way, because it was completely false to do so. The fact of the matter is, the standards are there and the inspectors are there.

I will look into this particular situation on behalf of the honourable member.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In your business plan, you refer to restructuring of the Ontario Housing Corp. Is the ministry intending to prepare OHC for privatization?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As we mentioned in the Common Sense Revolution, we don't believe that government should be in the housing business, and we are looking at various options on how to approach the portfolio of OHC. We know the Liberal Party in Ottawa also feels it should get out of the housing business. We don't believe we should be in the bricks and mortar business and we're reviewing a number of options that are available to us at this time.

Mr Wildman: I have a document entitled Interim Communication Strategy, the proposed restructuring plan of OHC. It's labelled "Confidential for purposes of advice to the minister." The document proposes a special corporation, and on page 4 says: "It will be responsible for restructuring and changing public housing. This will include streamlining the system and undertaking appropriate portfolio management and privatization initiatives." Yet on the very same page, page 4, under "Communications," it tries to spin this as something else when it refers to the public environment. It says, "It needs to be made clear that this initiative is the restructuring of OHC, not privatization."

Which is it? Why does your plan say you're going ahead with privatization, and then when you talk about communications you try to spin it as the exact opposite?

Hon Mr Leach: We're always trying to ensure that we operate as efficiently as we possibly can. Certainly we're looking at the restructuring of OHC. We want to make sure the residents of OHC are given the most effective and the most efficient service they can possibly have. That's our plan. OHC is looking at how they can deliver their services more effectively, and that's what that addresses.

Mr Wildman: The business plan says "restructuring," yet in the plan you have here, which is based on a background study done by Ernst and Young, you keep saying it isn't privatization, but you also say that you're paving the way for privatization.

If this report isn't about privatization, why is privatization mentioned throughout? If it's not about privatization, why does it describe tenants' groups like Low Income Families Together, Homefront and the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations as "particularly hostile" in the report? If it's not about privatization, why does it describe the initiative as "the biggest change in public housing since its creation"? Why don't you admit what you're doing, that you're trying to hoodwink the very groups that you think are hostile because they have reason to be?

This is about privatization and unloading. It's not restructuring; it's unloading housing to the private sector. You're scaring these people. Why don't you be straight with the public and say exactly what you're going to do instead of, in this document, simply saying "restructuring"? Are you going to privatize? If so, when and how, and how is it going to affect the tenants?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I want to tell the honourable member of the third party that we're looking at all the options that are available to us. Obviously, privatization is one of the options being reviewed and looked at; so is the restructuring of OHC. We just want to make sure we provide the most efficient services we possibly can, and we intend to do that.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question to the Chair of the Management Board. We've had a chance to take a look at your so-called business plans. They are plans; they're plans for business. They're plans for business to get rich and for the rich to get richer at the expense of voters and taxpayers and the public here in the province of Ontario.

In this so-called business plan it becomes clear that the Ministry of Environment and Energy plans to privatize water and sewer services and Ontario Hydro. You're not redesigning government; you're selling it off to your rich friends. When you're finished with the great Ontario selloff, how can you guarantee that public safety will be enhanced, that Ontarians will have and continue to have a safe, secure supply of drinking water and a reliable energy supply? Just how can you guarantee that when your private friends are taking over the operation?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): This is the first time in the history of the province of Ontario that we have developed business plans that the people can see, can judge the performance of this government. Are you asking me, are the business plans perfect? Are you asking me, will the business plans improve as the years go by? Are you asking me, will we have input from the people of the province, from the stakeholders, from those in the environmental community? Yes, we will. Yes, they will improve.

But we have a document, the first of its kind in the province, which sets out standards, which sets out core businesses, which sets out performance standards. We will work with the people of the province and the people of the province will hold us accountable with regard to these standards, as they should. That's good government, that's open government, that's visible government and that's the kind of government the people of Ontario want to see.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that's just not the case. This government said it was going to set up a privatization committee to examine parts of the government to be sold off and to receive input, but in the meantime the government has in fact been selling off public assets, government services. A few weeks ago was announced the privatization of the central collection agency of the government. The government says there are going to be some $2 million saved. What they don't say is that more than that is inevitably going to be spent on the commissions to the private sector doing this same work.

On page 57 of these so-called plans, for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations section, it states, "Civil servants do not need to deliver public safety programs and services for the government to be satisfied that public safety standards are met." That's balderdash.

I ask the minister, why is he privatizing services before there's been any examination by the privatization committee, before there's been any input, and indeed before there's been any determination of efficiencies as compared to the chaos and disaster that's going to be generated?

Hon David Johnson: There have been some initiatives in terms of what I would call contracting out, out-sourcing. There was a report in the daily news last week with regard to bill collection services. That's one activity that's being discussed. But I can tell you, as the Minister of Finance has indicated in the budget process, a framework structure is being developed for privatization which will guide the key issues. If Ontario Hydro, for example, and TVOntario and the LCBO and those sorts of agencies are to be considered for privatization, then the framework developed by the Minister of Finance, which I understand will be available within the next few weeks, months or thereabouts --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): What about water and sewer safety?

Hon David Johnson: I would suggest to the member opposite, with regard to water and sewer provisions, that framework will be before us. You'll be able to see that framework and there will be accountability within that framework, and I think that will be important.

What we're seeing here today are business plans governing the activities of the provincial government, putting forward performance measures to which the people of Ontario can hold this government and future governments accountable.

Mr Kormos: Look, it's clear that Ontario's being sold off, that the assets of the people of Ontario are being sold off to the rich friends of this Tory government. Foreign investors, I tell you, are drooling at the prospect of buying institutions and services that have taken years for our parents and those before them to build and pay for.

Brokerage houses like Morgan Stanley are ecstatic at the money they're going to make from the great Ontario selloff. The French government -- listen -- has already expressed great interest about purchasing parts of Ontario Hydro and taking over bill collecting and the delivery of local water services. Lyonnaise des Eaux, a French water firm, has already opened a Toronto office in an attempt to pounce on this great Ontario selloff. Other foreign investors are lining up for their share of the windfall.

Minister, how can you guarantee that the interests and the public safety of Ontario are going to come first, and not the interests of foreign investors?

Hon David Johnson: First, I would like to say that if foreign lenders are drooling, foreign investors have been drooling for past five years with regard to the debt and the deficits run up by the government represented by the third party. It was common during that period of time that about 60% of the deficit was funded through foreign lenders, lenders from the United States, from Europe, from Japan. That's when foreign lenders were drooling.

Interjections.

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

Hon David Johnson: With regard to privatization --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I can't hear, Minister.

Hon David Johnson: With regard to privatization, this government has said over and over again that we will not privatize for the sake of privatization. That part of the framework which will be coming forward will involve conflict of interest, will involve benefit to the taxpayers of the province. Before any service, whether it be Ontario Hydro, whether it be the water services, whether it be the LCBO, before anything would be considered for privatization, there must be a benefit to the people of the province of Ontario. I would assure not only the member opposite but the people of Ontario that that will be the approach taken by this government.

GUY PAUL MORIN

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. For the record, earlier today I gave the Attorney General notice that I would be asking a question on the Guy Paul Morin case.

The Guy Paul Morin case is Ontario's version of a gross miscarriage of justice on the scale of a David Milgaard or a Donald Marshall. In February 1995, then- Attorney General Marion Boyd, on behalf of the government of Ontario, announced a public inquiry into the case. At that time, she specified that the names of the judges and the inquiry's terms of reference would be announced within two weeks. That was some 15 months ago.

In May of last year, during the 1995 election campaign, Premier Harris promised the inquiry would be a priority if elected. In July 1995 you yourself immediately confirmed this promise upon your appointment as Attorney General. That was some 11 months ago. In January 1996 you said the inquiry would be up and running early in the new year. That was five months ago.

Minister, the opposition has been patient, the public has been patient and the Morin family has been patient. If I might add, given the circumstances, they've been very non-political on this matter. I ask you: Your ministry has had 15 months to set up an inquiry. It is either incompetent or it has ulterior and strategic motives for not proceeding with this inquiry. Which is it?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We are still committed to providing the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr Morin's involvement in this matter. We as well, as my friend from Ottawa West knows, have appointed Justice Alan Gold, a former justice of the Quebec superior court, who is dealing with some of these outstanding matters. We're taking direction and advice from Justice Gold and I hope we will be in a position to make announcements pertaining to the many outstanding issues very shortly.

Mr Chiarelli: Attorney General, you'll be aware of the fact that Justice Gold indicated that neither the issue of compensation nor additional police investigation should interfere with the public inquiry, that the public inquiry should be of predominant concern to the ministry and the public.

My supplementary basically has to do with a letter which you no doubt have seen. It's dated May 10, 1996, sent to your Deputy Attorney General by Ian Binnie of McCarthy Tétrault, the Morin family lawyer. The letter states: "I regretfully draw the conclusion from the continued inaction of the Ontario government on the compensation issue, after almost a year and four months after the conclusion of Mr Morin's appeal, that the Ontario government has no serious interest in making a settlement of the Morin family lawsuit. Accordingly, may we please have your statement of defense within 30 days of today's date."

My question is this, Minister: Is the Ministry of the Attorney General, by delaying this inquiry, frustrating the administration of justice in order to leverage a lower financial settlement?

Hon Mr Harnick: In response to that question, I can tell the member that we have responded to Mr Binnie's letter. One of the issues in terms of the issue of compensation as we work with Justice Gold, whose advice we are taking on this, is quite simply the fact that although a great deal of time has passed, a number of the issues that pertain to the issue of compensation were not provided to the ministry from Mr Binnie until early in the 1996 calendar year. As a result of that, there has been some delay in our ability to deal with the various items that will make up a compensation package.

We have certainly conveyed that to Mr Binnie and, as I've indicated, hope to be in a position very shortly to resolve these long outstanding matters.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the government House leader. The Minister of Labour has said the intention of Bill 49 was to deal only with minor housekeeping matters under the Employment Standards Act. Our caucus was quite pleased to hear from you at the House leaders' meeting the other day that you were prepared to take a look at sections of this legislation that were contentious to be removed so that the housekeeping matters under this legislation could move ahead.

We've identified some of the sections of the bill that other stakeholders as well consider to be contentious. Examples are flexible standards allowing employers to table terms in collective bargaining that fall below the employment standards minimum, a forced choice between a court's and employment standards' enforcement, setting a $10,000 maximum and an unspecified minimum that would prevent some workers from getting the money they are owed, cutting back the time limit to an unreasonable six months, which means many workers would be blocked from the Ministry of Labour enforcement of their rights, and there are other sections.

I ask the minister, are you prepared to agree with a number of groups which have identified these issues as contentious, pull them out of the act and put them in with the major review of the Employment Standards Act so we can get on with business in the Legislature?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): That decision will have to be made by the Minister of Labour. I refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I think it's very important to recognize the fact that the changes we're making to the Employment Standards Act are preliminary changes. Many of these are very consistent with the changes that have been made to employment standards in other provinces throughout Canada; they are no different whatsoever.

There is also a tremendous amount of misleading information that has been distributed. For example, there is a cap as far as $10,000 that can be obtained by an employee if you use the Ministry of Labour. However, if you wish to obtain more money you can go through the courts. I would indicate to you that the majority of cases that are above $10,000 are usually people in middle-management positions who usually are using the courts as well as employment standards.

I would indicate to you that we are quite prepared to have hearings here in Toronto; we've indicated we would do that. We're quite happy to receive the input and the suggestions you might have for changes to the legislation at that time.

Mr Cooke: That wasn't the question, and that's why I asked the government House leader, since he is the one who negotiates the

schedule in this place and made a commitment at a House leaders' meeting that he would take a look at items that were contentious and whether they should be pulled out of this piece of legislation.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour, since it's been referred to her, does she not understand that she can stand up and give whatever defence she wants of her legislation, but when she introduced the legislation she said it was housekeeping? Many people in organized labour, many at legal clinics across the province and other advocates do not believe that this legislation is non-contentious; that there are in fact very substantial items. Why don't you live up to your word and make the substantial changes part of the major review and put through your housekeeping legislation alone this spring?

Why are you trying to make major changes and mislead people by saying that they're minor changes? That's what it's all about.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to remind the members opposite that I recognize there is an NDP leadership convention; I recognize that you are looking for union support. However, I would also like to indicate to you that the changes we are contemplating are no different from any changes that have been introduced in the other nine provinces in Canada. They are not major changes.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the member for Windsor-Riverside used unparliamentary language. I ask you to ask him to withdraw his unparliamentary statement.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I heard the word, but in the phrase it was used I thought it may have been all right in the way it was used. But I don't condone the use of that language.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As members in this Legislature, we have all been contacted at one time or another by condominium unit owners, developers, property managers or lawyers who have told us that the current Condominium Act needs to be updated to deal with the issues and practices of today's condominium marketplace.

In response to these requests, Minister, you announced on April 4 in the Legislature the release of a working draft on reform to the Condominium Act. You also indicated that the deadline for submissions on the working draft was May 15, 1996. Could the minister provide an update on this initiative to the House and to our constituents?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I am indeed encouraged by the response I am getting back from members of the Legislature with regard to the process we're going through to amend the Condominium Act.

As you know, in April I introduced this working draft paper and it has attracted much attention from all of the stakeholders involved with condominiums. My parliamentary assistant, Jim Flaherty, has been meeting constantly with these people over the past while. It became apparent to Mr Flaherty and myself that the May 15 deadline was unrealistic, so on May 17 we announced that we would extend the deadline to June 28 of this year in order for all the groups to have an opportunity to examine this very complex bill and to put forward their constructive suggestions so we can have a very, very good piece of legislation to put forward to the House.

Mr Stewart: Minister, you indicated in your original announcement on April 4 that you intended to introduce legislation to reform the act this spring. With an extended deadline, as you have mentioned, to June 28, this will no longer be possible. Can the minister tell me what process he now intends to follow and when he will introduce legislation in this House?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm indeed a little disappointed that I wasn't able to carry through the consultation process on the original time frame, as I would like to get this piece of legislation introduced into the Legislature and get on with the legislative process as soon as possible. However, I do believe the more prudent action is to have further consultations this summer, and we will plan to introduce the legislation this coming September or October.

It's interesting that the people who are participating in this process would much rather meet together as stakeholders, talk with each other and try to make compromises within a more or less formal atmosphere than is presently available in the legislative process.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this piece of legislation works out, and with regard to the possibility of following this new avenue with other pieces of legislation so that we can have the best possible legislation in this province, and with a lot of consultation, I hope not only from members of the public but from members of this Legislature as well, not only on the back bench of the government but also from the opposition.

NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTIONS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I know you're having trouble making up for the revenue you've lost through the tax cut for the rich and I know these budget constraints you've had to go through. It has been decided that you're going to cancel all the subscriptions to weekly newspapers for the legislative library. In cancelling these, you're asking for the balance to be paid back to the government. Something was mentioned about privatization by the Chair of Management Board and he said that perhaps, if the US is drooling about the chance to invest in our private businesses, those in Ontario are frothing at the mouth.

Minister, I have in my hand a cancellation refund request to a small weekly newspaper in my riding. But could you explain to us, if you want to help business in Ontario, why the company is EBSCO publishers' services department in Birmingham, Alabama?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I believe this is something that falls under the auspices of Management Board or the Board of Internal Economy.

Interjections.

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

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): In all the hubbub from the other side, it was very hard to hear the question, but I do know that advertising costs for the province generally come from two sources: One is Management Board, which would deal with government advertising, and another is for the main Legislative Building, which deals with the Board of Internal Economy. As with all other costs, there has been a containment put on advertising costs both from the province of Ontario and from the Board of Internal Economy.

I'd be happy, if the member would give me the details again -- I'm sure he will in his supplementary -- to look into this particular case and get him a more precise answer.

Mr Crozier: Speaker, I'd like you to know and the members of this place and the people watching that this minister does not know what he's talking about. This isn't a question of advertising, Minister, it's a question of cancelling subscriptions to weekly newspapers. I'd like to know what you think of the fact that the company requesting the return of funds -- and you're going to have to pay them -- is located in Birmingham, Alabama. What do you think of that?

Hon David Johnson: Again, there is a containment of costs that is required, and yes, certain subscriptions have had to be cancelled. I would be happy to look into the details of this particular situation and report back directly to the member involved.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You're embarking on a so-called disentanglement initiative with municipalities, and in discussions I've had with municipal leaders around the province, they really worry that what you mean by this disentanglement process is that you're going to dump many provincial services now delivered by your government on to municipalities. They worry that this is going to mean possible new user fees or increased user fees, and they also worry that it might mean that to offset those costs, they have to raise property taxes.

I am talking to local ratepayers' associations around the province. They also have the same concern.

I say to you, Minister, there is only one taxpayer. We have heard this in the House by your government when you were the third party; we're hearing it again. There is only one taxpayer.

Will you absolutely guarantee that your disentanglement process will not result in increased property taxes or new or additional user fees to the ratepayers of this province?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The one thing I can guarantee is that our approach to disentanglement is going to work a whole lot better than your approach did.

It is a good idea that anytime you can separate the delivery of services between municipalities and the province, it should be done. Even you agreed with that. What you try to do, as much as you can, is to ensure that the separation of services is done in a method that doesn't add cost to the delivery of one side or the other. If I take X, you take Y, and it's a balancing thing. The same approach had been tried by all parties in this House, except that this party will succeed.

Mr Bisson: Minister, you sounded awful nervous in your response to my first question. That makes me worry even more. We, the third party, the New Democrats, believe with you that disentanglement is an objective that we should be working towards. The difference is that as government we said we were going to do that, but not at an additional cost to municipalities and certainly not at the cost of increased municipal taxes or user fees.

In an

article that appeared on May 9 in the Globe and Mail, you're quoted as saying, "The goal of the negotiations should not be" --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Speaker, I want members of the House to listen to this. Here's what the minister had to say: "The goal of the negotiations should not be, as it was with the NDP effort, an effort to get an exact equivalent of dollars transferred between the two levels." That sounds to me like you're saying you're going to allow local municipalities to either increase property taxes, or force them to do it, or increase user fees because of the transfer of services that you're going to do from the provincial government down to the municipalities.

I ask you again, Minister: Will you guarantee in this House today that when you go through this process of disentanglement it will not result in increased property taxes to ratepayers or new or increased user fees? Come clean. Answer the question.

Hon Mr Leach: Disentanglement is a matter of negotiation between the two parties, and there's more than just municipalities; there are the other sectors involved as well. What we're going to try and do is to ensure that we establish a system that provides the most efficient delivery of services, and I think we can do that, just as you thought you could do it and so did the Liberals. I think it's a goal to try and attain.

Whether you do it by ensuring that it's right to the penny -- I don't know if that can be done. The province may have to assume slightly more expenditures or municipalities may have to, but if it's all in the process of ensuring that the public receives the most efficient delivery of services at the most economical cost, that's what should be done.

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. International trade is very important to the province and especially to agriculture. One just has to look at the Ontario grape and wine industry, especially in Niagara region and particularly Niagara-on-the-Lake. They have become internationally known for their quality and taste and are winning gold medals all over the world.

Mr Speaker, I know that you, along with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and certainly the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable Norm Sterling, as well as all members of this House, enjoy Ontario wine and will choose it first over all international wines. In addition, the Ontario tender fruit industry, particularly the peach sector, is exporting its products to the US.

Minister, could you tell us if there are any other international opportunities for Ontario's agrifood business?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): To my honourable friend from St Catharines-Brock, that area where most of our very good Ontario wine comes from, yes, we are exporting wine to places like Italy and France, where indeed wine originated, and we are winning awards.

On my recent trip to Asia, I can tell you that the Asian importers told us that our pork, our soybeans, our tobacco are among the best in the world, that the quality is number one. As we speak, we have Japanese and Chinese importers in Ontario making deals. Yes, we do have some of the best food products in the world and we have been just a little bit shy in telling the world.

Mr Froese: I would like to further ask the minister how this government is supporting agribusiness to ensure that it continues to grow and create jobs in Ontario.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'm very pleased that my colleague asked me that. We did provide $8 million to the ethanol industry very recently. We did provide, in the budget, $15 million for research, development and marketing. We will also be exempting, for farm building construction, up to $20 million -- an estimate -- and providing a rebate for the provincial sales tax. It's good news all across Ontario.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. As you well know, school boards across the province have had to terminate junior kindergarten programs due to the decrease in funding that you are providing that program, not because it's a local option. It's a financial decision, not an educational decision.

In defence of your cuts and your support to junior kindergarten, you continually make reference to the review of JK which you say is under way at the moment. I wonder if you could share with us today with whom you and your staff are consulting and when we might expect to have a report on this review.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): As the honourable member knows, this government is proud of keeping its commitments to the people of Ontario, and particularly those commitments that were spelled out in the Common Sense Revolution. So I and my colleagues are very proud of living up to our commitments in the area of junior kindergarten and restoring it as a local option to school boards across the province, and of funding it at the same rate as other education products and services across the province.

As far as the review is concerned, we are committed to an in-depth review of early childhood services in the province of Ontario. We had an internal look at the history of junior kindergarten, how it's offered in other jurisdictions, the history of it in Ontario. We have completed that internal piece of work. Now one of my colleagues is investigating the whole area of child services in the province, because we believe these must be integrated.

When that report is complete, we will look and see what process we need to develop in order to have a thorough look at not just junior kindergarten, but in fact how we offer services and support to the most at-risk young people in our province. That's what our intention is.

Mr Patten: I noted that he didn't mention one party, one group, that he's consulted with, and I also note that now, all of a sudden, there's a shift to Janet Ecker's work with child care and day care. That was never made reference to before. All of a sudden now there's a shift because nothing is happening in your ministry related to junior kindergarten review.

Minister, you said in January, and I quote, "At the end of the review, if we come to the conclusion that the system that was in place last year or this year was the right system, we will put it back in place, and this will include funding and mandatory status and all the rest of it." That's from you.

Does it make sense to destroy a program only to find out later that perhaps you should keep it? At the moment, you're destroying the option for kindergarten because it's a financial decision. Every single study that we heard in the last week across this province suggested the incredible benefits of junior kindergarten. Why do you continue to put the cart before the horse?

Will you commit yourself today to keep the funding in place for junior kindergarten until a thorough review is made and until the results of that review are known?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can say this. I have also seen the reviews and some of the studies that have been done on different early childhood education programs around the world. Many of those programs, I'm sure the member will agree, differ considerably from the junior kindergarten program that's offered, or has been offered up till now, in the province of Ontario. We believe a thorough review is necessary. We believe it should be comprehensive. We believe we should look at the whole of child services in the province of Ontario.

Our commitment remains the same. Our commitment remains to provide services to the most at-risk kids in the province of Ontario, and we will use all of the assets of this government to do that. We will use all the people we have, all the ministries we have, to focus on that. I intend to be part of that, and a very serious part of that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I'm sure you've been made aware of a study that was released yesterday by the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, a study which began under our government but which your government refused to continue funding.

There's no wonder that you probably didn't want to hear the results, but NAN and the Grand Council Treaty 3 went ahead without your help and they found that even with the special northern allowance of $280 per family, social assistance recipients in remote communities cannot come close to adequately feeding their families.

There's no shopping around in those communities. The vast majority of them are reachable only by air. In the communities which are accessible by road, just the transportation costs to get to a grocery store range anywhere from $16 to more than $300 a month. Minister, what are you going to do in response to these findings?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, we acknowledge that it is challenging for some people to live on restricted budgets, but I would like to reiterate, as I have been for several months, the fact that we reduced the welfare benefit, that's true, but we reduced it at 10% above the average of the other provinces.

In connection to that, we also introduced the ability of somebody to earn back the difference between the old and new rates. This is something we're trying to encourage. As the member has said, it is true that we have a special allowance that takes into account the fact that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I can't hear the minister. It's a problem when we have interjections.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You're not missing anything. Don't worry about it.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton East, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, we have a special allowance that acknowledges that there are additional costs to some remote northern communities. We did not cut this special allowance for the northern remote communities. I'd like to point out as well that there is a variance in the amount that someone can get, but that also varies with the size of the family. That is taken into account, and that program was supported by the members across.

Mrs Boyd: The minister is clearly identifying for everybody in the province that he's not aware of the real facts of the matter for the nations that we're talking about.

There's no denying that the cost of living has always been higher in the northern communities, but surely the minister knows that unemployment in those communities can be as high as 90%. Where does he suggest they go for a job? They can't fly in and out every day to a job. Because of your government's 21.6% cut to benefits, many families in first nations communities in Ontario's north spent this winter making the choice between fuel and food, to quote NAN Grand Chief Charles Fox. In other words, there isn't enough to go around even with the special northern allowance.

Minister, what are you saying to these families? That they just have to grin and bear it? What are you going to do about the fact that hundreds of people in these far northern nations are not able to feed their families properly? They have none of the facile alternatives that you suggest. Just exactly what are you going to do to make sure those families and those children do not get faced with this horrible choice between warmth and food?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What the honourable member points out is the importance of our workfare program, which we'll introduce shortly. Clearly the members opposite would like to support a program of more of the same, basically do nothing to try to resolve the problem that has ballooned over the last 10 years.

I'd like to add, in closing, that I have met recently with the Chiefs of Ontario. We have been discussing some of the issues they're aware of, including workfare. We'll continue to have discussions with them to try to find some solutions for their communities, and they're willing to sit down with us and find those solutions.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I wish to register dissatisfaction with the last answer from the Minister of Community and Social Services. I will be filing the appropriate papers.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In answer to a question, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs had quoted that wine was invented and created in France. For the record --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Will the member take his seat, please.

PETITIONS

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it `wants to get out of the housing business'; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I affix my signature to the many who have signed this petition.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from people in my riding who are concerned about what is happening to the poor in this province. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe it is wrong to put the burden of fiscal restraint on the most vulnerable and powerless people in society, in effect scapegoating welfare recipients for the financial problems we as a whole society are responsible for.

"Therefore, we call on the provincial government to re-examine its welfare cuts, and at the very least: (1) establish rates that reflect the fact that the Metro Toronto rental market is 40% more expensive than the average in major Canadian cities; and (2) exempt those from cuts who would be unable to work to make up the difference, such as single parents of pre-school-aged children."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): A petition from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, a message for Premier Harris of Ontario:

"By placing an undue burden for the fiscal recovery on the backs of the poor, your government is reneging on its responsibility to protect the most vulnerable of our society.

"We ask you, the government of Ontario, to first and foremost consider the common good of all the people of Ontario in your fiscal and economic decisions."

I append my name to this petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to that.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition which is appropriately labelled "Petition," and it reads:

"We, the residents of Ontario, demand that Thorold Magazine be allowed to sell lottery tickets in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Ontario Lottery Corp, and not to be discriminated against because of large corporations having a monopoly and control of lottery operations.

"We, the residents of Ontario, understand that this petition is to be presented to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ontario Lottery Corp and the House of Commons, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, by MPP Peter Kormos, who has been given no response to his request in the denial of lottery tickets to Thorold Magazine."

HURONIA DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition signed by approximately 198 of my constituents. It relates to the Huronia District Hospital. I'd like to file it at this time.

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting petitions against the 10-bed open custody residence for troubled children and youth at 182 Dowling Avenue in south Parkdale. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas the residence" at 182 Dowling Avenue in south Parkdale "is an inappropriate site for the rehabilitation of troubled children because it is within walking distance to illicit drug and prostitution activities; a large number of unsupervised and supervised rooming houses that are home to ex-psychiatric patients, parolees and our society's most vulnerable and ostracized members; and a number of licensed establishments that have been charged with various liquor infractions; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Dellcrest Children's Centre have decided not to hold open discussions with our community prior to the purchase of this house for the purpose of an open-custody residence; and

"Whereas the decision to relocate also expresses a total lack of regard to our community's consistent and well-documented wishes for the Ontario government to stop the creation or relocation of additional social service programs or offices in an area that is already oversaturated and overcrowded with health and social services for disadvantaged, troubled or disenfranchised people;

"We, therefore, the undersigned local residents and business owners, urge the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to suspend plans to relocate the open-custody residence for troubled children and youth until a full review of the Dellcrest Children's Centre's decision can be conducted and explore with us alternative locations which are much more appropriate."

I'm affixing my signature to this document.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to present a petition from the folks in my riding of Nepean, the city of Gloucester and Ottawa, which reads as follows, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

As I am in agreement with this petition, I have affixed my own signature.

INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): To the Honourable Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I have signed my name as I believe in it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas a great number of tenants are seniors and people on fixed incomes who may 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 makes 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 the Landlord and Tenant Act and Rental Housing Protection Act."

I affix my name to this fine petition.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of Ontarians that reads as follows:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse, and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across Ontario is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in complete

agreement with its contents.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 732 young men and women.

"Whereas many students feel that the government should find other solutions to cut back on government spending; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has directed hundreds of millions of dollars to be cut from the budgets of school boards in Ontario; and

"Whereas the cuts in the budget will force the layoff of many young teachers and that it will have a deleterious impact on curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular activities;

"Therefore the undersigned call on the Ministry of Education to (1) reduce the required employment time a teacher must serve before retiring without penalty, (2) reduce the number of boards and (3) consolidate the number of school systems into one system."

I present this petition to the Legislature.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I have a petition that's been presented to me by a number of Mississaugans.

"We, the undersigned, urge you, as representative in Peel, to take action to ensure that Peel region receives its fair share of funds available for social services. With the present and imminent cuts to budgets, Peel's allotment must be made in proportion to its population.

"Peel does not receive the same share of funds appropriate to its size. In 1994, the amount allocated per child for social service programs in Peel was $96.52,

whereas Toronto received $338.18 per child and the average for Ontario was $261.68. An equitable distribution of the available funds is the only tolerable solution."

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 plan and should be cancelled."

I have affixed my name to it as I agree with it.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition that reads as follows and is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health will begin to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled on June 1, 1996; and

"Whereas health care experts have asserted that user fees for drugs could jeopardize the health of individuals who cannot afford to pay for their medication; and

"Whereas Ontario's ex-psychiatric populace relies heavily on prescription drugs to remain stable and mental health care providers and the general public are scared of the outcome of these patients, they can't afford to buy their medication because of the $2 user fee when it is normal policy to only prescribe them a two- to three-day supply of medication to prevent potential misuse and overdosing; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 user fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee and will not even cover the costs of extra emergency services needed for people whose health has been jeopardized because they cannot afford to pay for their medication; and

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

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government of Ontario to repeal this user fee plan before it takes effect on June 1, 1996, because of the potential dramatic increase in emergency and police services and the suffering and misery of human lives -- especially psychiatric outpatients and those who depend on medication for their daily survival."

I'm affixing my signature to this document.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Waste Management Act, 1992 with respect to the Importation of Waste from one municipality into another / Projet de loi 56, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement et la Loi de 1992 sur la gestion des déchets en ce qui a trait au transfert de déchets d'une municipalité à une autre.

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

OPPOSITION DAY

USER FEES

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion number 1:

Whereas the Progressive Conservative campaign document promises to ensure that any actions by the Mike Harris government will not result in increases to local property taxes; and

Whereas Mike Harris and his government have repeatedly said that there is only one taxpayer; and

Whereas Mike Harris has repeatedly said that a fee hike is the same as a tax hike; and

Whereas Mike Harris and his government have either introduced new fees or hiked existing fees in the ministries of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation; Consumer and Commercial Relations; Economic Development, Trade and Tourism; Education and Training; Environment and Energy; Management Board Secretariat; Municipal Affairs and Housing; Natural Resources; and the Solicitor General; and

Whereas Bill 26 gave municipalities the power to impose new and increased user fees despite the overwhelming opposition from the electorate; and

Whereas Mike Harris and his government have reduced transfer payments to municipalities by 42%; and

Whereas this reduction has led to property tax increases in various municipalities; and

Whereas transfer payments to school boards, colleges and universities, social service agencies and other transfer partners have also been significantly reduced; and

Whereas these reductions have led to a 20% tuition fee increase; and

Whereas these reductions have forced municipalities to introduce hundreds of new user fees; and

Whereas these reductions will negatively affect the province of Ontario and its citizens; and

Whereas Mike Harris and his government's approach to deficit reduction has led to Ontario now being known as "Home of the User Fee"; and

Whereas the spending cuts leading to all these new fees and fee hikes will ultimately fund the tax cut to the wealthy in Ontario; and

Whereas for the average Ontarian any tax cut will be eaten up by new user fees;

Therefore this House calls on the Mike Harris government to stop any further actions that will lead to new or increased fees at the provincial or municipal level; do a complete inventory of new and increased user fees at the provincial and municipal level; acknowledge the impact of Bill 26 on user fees in Ontario; and present to this House a more balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I am pleased to rise and speak to the motion, because I am concerned that the government of Ontario, which has introduced user fees or seen increases in user fees beyond anything that we have ever experienced before, is sublimely unaware and intends to remain unaware of the sheer number of user fees that are being introduced or increased in this province.

We have undertaken to keep a list of the user fees, the Mike Harris user fee watch, in order that we can be aware of how the tax cut that is forcing cuts to services and forcing cuts to agencies is leading to new and increased user fees in this province, and how indeed the government itself in every ministry is coping with cuts by new sources of revenue called user fees.

We're undertaking to keep the Mike Harris user fee watch so that we are looking at how these fees are being increased and what the total cost to people in this province is going to be, because the government itself does not want to be made aware and is certainly not keeping any list. In fact, I thought it was interesting that when we presented our first list of some 160 user fees that had not been introduced by the government -- we didn't even include those -- but that have been introduced by municipalities and communities across the province, the government phoned us and asked if they could have our list so they could at least be aware of what we were keeping track of.

What we are finding is that there are, if you speak very broadly, two kinds of user fees that are proliferating in this province. I want to refer to the first kind of user fees as being user fees of the pickpocket kind. Those are the kinds of fees where the government claims to be putting money in taxpayers' pockets on one hand with its tax cut, but in fact is taking money equally as fast out of their pockets with the other hand.

You could realize that every new user fee and every increase in a user fee actually has that effect, so that while the government puts money into the taxpayers' pockets with its tax cut on one hand, the new and increased user fees take it out with the other hand. All of the user fees have that effect of gobbling up any benefit to a taxpayer that the tax cut might have brought about.

I don't think you're going to find very many seniors in the province of Ontario who think they are going to benefit from a tax cut, not when they find that they are facing that $2 fee on prescription drugs which the government is introducing and not when they have to pay the increase in transit fares. That increase in transit fares is something that seniors are experiencing whether they live here in Toronto or whether they live in my home community of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario. There's not a lot of money left in the pockets of seniors after the increased user fees hit.

I don't think you're going to find that students feel as though they have a lot of money left in their pockets when they face the $400 on average more in tuition that they're going to face in colleges and universities this fall.

I don't think even middle-income people are going to feel they benefit very much when they get hit with a new fee and an increased user fee every time they turn around.

I understand why this government doesn't like to be confronted with the list we're keeping with the Mike Harris watch on user fees. They don't like to be confronted with the charge of picking people's pockets, because they really did want a lot of credit for putting money back in people's pockets. They didn't want anyone to really notice in how many ways, how many different places, that very money is being taken out again. But that is what's happening.

I think it is remarkable that the voters in York South last Thursday night understood exactly what this government was doing. They weren't fooled by this government's attempt to buy them with their own money. They realized that even as the government talked about its tax cut, boasted about its tax cut, spent thousands of dollars marketing the great benefits of the tax cut, this same government was taking that money right back out of their pockets, and they were cutting the health care and the education and the policing services in York South even as they boasted about the tax cut.

Some of this picking of the pockets of the Ontario citizen is happening very directly. These are user fees that the government itself is introducing or increasing in a whole host of areas. In our resolution, we documented the sheer number of ministries that are actually introducing new user fees or increasing their user fees.

Some specifics: In the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the registration program has increased the marriage licence fee to $75 and introduced a new fee of $2 for staff-assisted searches of records. We have the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario standardizing special-occasion permit fees for receptions and fund-raiser community festivals at $75.

We go to the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. There are going to be increased revenues of $594,700 from increased fees at Huronia historical parks and Old Fort William, and increased revenues from fee increases at Ontario Place and the St Lawrence parks.

We have the Ministry of Education with licences for private vocational schools increasing by 4%.

We have the Ministry of Environment and Energy with a generator registration fee giving revenues of $291,000 for registering and managing records of generators of liquid and hazardous waste. We have the waste manifest fee. We have the water well records fee.

If we go to the Solicitor General, we have the Solicitor General implementing a pre-employment basic training program for correctional officers and introducing a fee for that for five weeks of basic training.

In every imaginable way, this government is looking for new sources of revenues to replace the $5 billion in tax cuts that it is putting back in the pockets of the wealthiest people of this province.

There is going to be more to come, without any question at all. The list of fees that are being increased and the list of new fees that are being introduced are literally growing on a daily basis. While there is nothing in the business plan that the government tabled today about specific new fees that are about to come, we know for sure they are coming.

You have to wonder how it could be happening, because this is the same government led by the same Mike Harris who used to say a user fee is exactly the same as a tax. This was the tax-fighting government, the tax-fighting Premier. How could this tax-fighting government claim to cut taxes and actually be increasing them? How could they say they would bring in no new taxes, and yet they're bringing new ones in? The Premier said that a user fee was the same as a tax.

The government would like to simply ignore the fact that it's raising fees, that it's bringing in new fees and that Mike Harris used to say a user fee was the same as a tax. There are places where it was said so clearly. I think of the very clear statement that there would be no new user fees in health, and what did we see in Bill 26 but a new user fee in health, a user fee of the worst kind, a fee for prescription drugs for seniors and for the disabled in our province? There is only one conclusion anybody can come to: This government, which said it was going to lower taxes, not raise them, is raising them by any other name a lot faster than it is lowering them.

I recognize that only some of this pickpocketing activity that's going on is being done by the government directly; some of it is indirect. Some of the new fees, some of the increased fees are being put in place by other agencies, and in particular by municipalities. The government says: "We're not responsible for any of that. We're not the ones who are raising those fees.

We're raising our own, no question about that, but these other fees that municipalities are raising, these property taxes that school boards are increasing, we're not responsible for those." Of course they are responsible, because they have encouraged these new and increased fees, and they have made these new and increased fees absolutely necessary because of the cuts they have imposed on their transfer partners.

I give you as an example colleges and universities, which have been cut by some $400 million, and the government said: "Don't worry, colleges and universities, we're going to give you a means of recovering some of those revenues. We're going to give you permission to raise tuition fees for students in colleges and universities. You can raise them by 10%, and if you like, you can raise them by a further 10%." As a result, students in this province are facing tuition increases, on average, of $400 next year.

They made the increase in tuition fees necessary because of their cuts and then they encouraged them, gave them permission to recover some of those revenues by increasing user fees to the students of this province. Is this government not responsible for the fact that tuition fees are going up $400 for students this fall?

We look at what they've done to municipal governments -- cuts on average of 43% over two years, and then the government says: "We have nothing to do with the kinds of user fees that municipalities are being forced into. We have nothing to do with those increased property taxes." I wonder what the government really thought that municipalities and school boards were going to do when they were hit with cuts of this magnitude. School boards were faced, on average, with a cut of 9% in their grants from this government. The government said: "Don't worry, you can find all this in administrative savings. Don't worry, we're going to give you tools that you need to reduce administrative costs."

None of the tools that any school board would need to actually reduce costs have been provided by this government. In fact, this government is getting out of any kind of centralized support for boards of education in curriculum and in evaluation. All that this government has done is to give the boards tools for cutting programs like junior kindergarten, adult education and special education.

When boards and parents and communities say, "We don't accept those kinds of cuts in education. We want to keep junior kindergarten. We want to protect our special education. We want our adults to have training," when they say no to those kinds of so-called tools the government has given them, the only resource that the school board has is a tax increase. That's why many school boards are facing tax increases.

With municipalities, the government has given them a different approach, and I acknowledge that, because this is where the government said: "We know we're cutting you by a horrendous amount, 42% over two years. We know you can't cope with that, municipalities, so in our famous Bill 26 we will give you permission, we will give you encouragement, we will give you the legal right to bring in new user fees."

In fact, you may recall that when Bill 26 was first presented by this government, the sky was the limit for the municipalities. They could bring in new sales taxes. They could bring in increased gas taxes, their own gas tax. They could even put a head tax or a poll tax on every citizen within their community. All of that was going to be allowed under Bill 26 until the government finally realized that that indeed was what was likely to happen, because many municipalities were looking at doing exactly that: tolls on their roads, taxes on their gasoline.

So they put some minor limitations on it, but they still gave municipalities the freedom to raise new taxes by another name, and indeed that's what we're seeing: 160 at last count, up now to over 300 user fees that are being introduced at a municipal level.

I don't think this government should be surprised, when it not only forced those municipalities into making these kinds of revenue increases but encouraged them, gave them permission, gave them the direction as to how they could do that. They shouldn't be surprised that municipalities are taking that route, and they certainly can't claim they aren't responsible for it.

I ask you, if the transit companies are raising fares, if they're eliminating discounts for seniors, is it because municipalities have less money to support public transport in their communities, and is a 42% cut to municipalities responsible for that? I suggest it is.

If the Toronto Transit Commission has to budget more for needed renovations because this government is not prepared to commit itself to 75% of the cost of renovations, which governments traditionally have done, is the government responsible for the increased fares for the TTC that result from the TTC having to pay its own renovation costs? I say again that of course this government is responsible.

In some cases government decisions are going to be responsible for new or increased user fees that the municipalities themselves have to pay. This is getting really indirect, and I think it's important to give a couple of examples.

Ministry of Environment and Energy labs: The regional laboratories, testing laboratories, of the Ministry of Environment and Energy are being shut down across this province. These are the same labs that do the weekly high-volume testing of water to make sure our communities have safe drinking water. The ministry is simply going to shut down that testing capacity.

You have to ask, who is going to do the testing of our water in communities? The municipalities already pay a fee for service. The private sector is clearly going to have to step in and do it. We can't let our water go untested, particularly not when there are very serious concerns about the quality of drinking water in at least 40 Ontario communities. So the private sector is going to have to somehow come in and do it.

What are they going to charge municipalities? Is this really going to be more efficient? Is it going to be more cost-efficient for municipalities? This government, with its so-called business plan, hasn't even addressed that question. All they've done is go out and cut the labs of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, shut them down, and they haven't even looked at who is going to provide the service or what it's going to cost or whether this is going to be one more offloading, downloading of costs on to municipalities.

The government hasn't looked at it because this government doesn't want to know, because if municipalities have to pay more to test their water, if the private sector provider isn't more cost-efficient and it actually costs more for that service, that's going to mean that down the road there's going to be an increase in the charge for water or an increase in the property tax for residents of that community. That's an increased user fee, a new user fee, directly related to a decision this government has made. But they want to make those decisions in isolation. They don't want to look at the impact down the road.

Now they're looking at shutting down public health laboratories. Again, they don't really say for sure in their business plan they're going to do it, but we know that the Minister of Health has said he's going to privatize a slew of public health labs. Who's asking the questions and who's providing the answers as to who is going to take over that service?

If the private sector is going to step in and do what the public health labs now do, what is it going to cost? Who's going to pay the cost? Are we going to see new user fees? Are we going to see user fees for AIDS testing, for example? Nobody is asking the questions in the government. Nobody wants to know the answers. Nobody wants to look down the road at what it's going to cost the citizens of this province.

That's the second kind of user fee that I want to touch on. It's the kind of user fee that not only picks your pocket by actually taking money out of your pocket, but the user fee that threatens basic values in our society. There is no question in my mind at all that access to health care, one of the most basic values we hold in this society, is threatened by the user fee introduced by Bill 26, prescription fees for drugs for seniors and the disabled.

There are many seniors who cannot afford this fee and there are certainly many psychiatric patients who will be on as many as 10 prescriptions that have to be replaced weekly who could be facing as much as $40 a month. The advocates for the psychiatrically disabled in our communities tell us that if this prescription fee goes ahead, what will happen is that our psychiatric patients simply won't take their medication. Their health will be jeopardized and the safety of people in our communities indeed will be jeopardized if we can't provide adequate treatment for those who are psychiatrically disabled.

There is now a sort of threat from the Minister of Health that as he moves to this new system he has in mind, people may be asked to pay if they go and see a doctor who is not the designated doctor for that individual. I have to wonder what's going to happen in a small community if there are only one or two doctors there who are designated to provide all the medical care for people in that community and their waiting list is long and somebody would like to be able to jump the queue to get ahead of the waiting list.

Who's going to be able to jump the queue? Who's going to be able to get in faster? Who's going to be able to pay to go to a doctor who's not the designated doctor for the people in that community? I suggest to you that only those people who can afford it are going to be able to jump the queue. Welcome to two-tiered health care in the province of Ontario, where only the well-to-do can afford the user fees that let you access the best, and in some cases like seniors and the psychiatrically disabled, only the well-to-do can access care at all.

There's no question in my mind that access to quality education is threatened by the user fees that are proliferating in Mike Harris's Ontario, threatened by the 20% increase in tuition that students are facing this fall. Access to education, both post-secondary education and elementary and secondary education, is going to be threatened in the future if you're in a position where you just can't afford the new, expanded user fee for the private elementary or secondary school or the first-class private university that Mike Harris and his colleagues have in their vision of the new Ontario.

There's no question that those private sector institutions, whether it's elementary and secondary schools or universities or colleges, are going to have to provide something that's first-class, because that's what people who can afford to pay are looking for. If you can afford to pay, you will therefore be able to get the best in Mike Harris's Ontario, and there will certainly be much less pressure on this government to provide anything more than mediocre for everybody else.

That's why user fees are wrong. It's not just because Mike Harris said a user fee is a tax by any other name and because there is a sheer hypocrisy in boasting about a tax cut that puts money in people's pockets when you know it's primarily the most well-to-do who are benefiting and the middle-class person or the senior or the student is actually going to have more money taken out of their pockets than they're ever going to have put in it; it's not just the hypocrisy of that, but user fees are wrong because only those who can afford to pay can get the service. That's the whole idea of a user fee.

In Mike Harris's Ontario there are actually going to be two Ontarios: one for those who can afford the fees and one for those who can't. Those who can't afford the fees may be unable to use the public library in the future, and we've found 24 communities that have introduced some form of new or increased library use fee. It may be that kids in the future, if they can't afford the fee, won't even be able to use the local playground. We certainly know they're not going to be able to visit very many parks or very many tourist attractions.

Even access to police and fire service, basic safety and security, is now being threatened by the advent of the new user fees. We see the pay-for-protection scheme in Ottawa, the forerunner of what police forces are going to have to look at as this government brings in more and more cuts and police forces are told they've got to find new ways to get revenues if they want to keep their police on our streets.

And firefi