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

November 29, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

DURHAM COMMUNITY CANCER CENTRE

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

MANAC INC

CLOSURE OF CANADIAN FORCES BASE DOWNSVIEW

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

PHOTO-RADAR

GOVERNMENT MAILINGS

TVONTARIO PROGRAMMING

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

HEALTH CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

WINDSOR CASINO

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

ADOPTION

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION IMMOBILIÈRE

CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM INC. ACT, 1994

PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994

PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I stand in my place today to offer an invitation to the newly sworn-in Minister of Northern Development and Mines for Ontario, Gilles Pouliot, to come to the riding of Timiskaming and specifically Kirkland Lake. I proffer this invitation today because he has refused a similar invitation by the mayor of Kirkland Lake, Joe Mavrinac, and Mr Mavrinac asked me the other day to make sure that I asked Mr Pouliot himself that he would come.

The matters of concern in the Kirkland Lake area are especially Highway 672, locally known as the Harker Holloway road, which is an access road to one mine up in our area, the Holt-McDermott mine, but also that another mine has been announced and many people commute up that way.

It has become a very dangerous road, with logging trucks and people in passenger cars and pickup trucks trying to get to work. We anticipate a great increase of road transportation and we want to make sure these upgrades are accelerated. They are planned and we'd like the minister to see those. Also, Kirkland Lake has embarked upon an industrial development road that will link some of the industrial park areas of Kirkland Lake.

We would like to see him up there. We think he's a pretty good fellow and we think he should be up in Kirkland Lake. Mr Mavrinac and the new council would like to see him, and so today I stand in my place and make that invitation.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On December 6, 1993, the anniversary of the Montreal massacre, the Redwood Shelter for Victims of Family Violence opened its doors to women in the west end of Toronto who have been the victims of family violence.

While this 30-bed emergency shelter has helped some 300 women and children during the past year, unfortunately hundreds more have been turned away because there was simply no room for them. Despite the obvious need and the strong community support for this shelter, the Minister of Community and Social Services has not only denied the shelter funding; he has denied them the opportunity to discuss possible solutions to their financial problems.

This is a matter of setting priorities, which this government is not able to do. They spend a great deal of money on advertising and encouraging women to leave abusive situations and then they fail to financially support the shelters when women do seek help.

This morning, representatives from the Redwood Shelter were forced to hold a news conference to try to get the minister's attention because he refuses to meet with them. It is imperative that the minister communicate with them and make every attempt to help keep the doors of the Redwood Shelter open. It is time for this government to eliminate the rhetoric and get down to action now.

DURHAM COMMUNITY CANCER CENTRE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise today to speak about the Durham Community Cancer Centre that will be located in Oshawa at the Oshawa General Hospital in my riding. The community centre is a welcome and important addition to the health services provided at the Oshawa General Hospital, a hospital known for its excellence and devotion to the community.

The cancer centre will serve a catchment area that extends from the Metro border east to Port Hope and north to the Haliburton area. This includes a population of some 600,000 people, and some 1,200 people will be treated at the radiation therapy unit every year. These 1,200 people will be receiving the highest standard of health care in or close to their own community while battling this potentially devastating disease. There will be 1,200 families empowered to care for their loved ones with less stress on the bonds of their family life.

Since 1990, our government has devoted more than $370 million in capital to expand cancer services, and through the investment of $25 million in the community centre in Durham we are bringing this essential service to an area of the province that has been recognized as having one of the highest population growths. The residents of Durham have patiently waited through several governments for the kind of essential services that our Premier and Minister of Health have brought to them. I am pleased to join with them in saying: "At last. Thank you."

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I am glad that the Premier is here today. I rise today to draw attention to the lack of leadership and the lack of action by the Minister of Education and Training and particularly the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat in responding to the terrible racist incident that happened at Humberside Collegiate in Toronto last week.

According to the reports, Mr Mahendra Gupta, a teacher at the school, was pushed down the stairs. Prior to that, he and other visible minority teachers had received threatening letters. Also, hate propaganda materials were distributed and swastikas painted on the school walls.

I am very disappointed to report that as of this morning, neither the Education nor the Citizenship ministry has undertaken any direct response to these disturbing incidents. This is not only a Humberside issue, but a broader one. It is not up to an individual school to deal with hatred in our schools. Surely the Ministry of Education and the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat have important roles to play.

Hate crimes should not be tolerated in Ontario schools. The individuals and groups responsible for this type of racial violence need to get the message loud and clear that their violent actions and words against racial minorities and others will not go unchallenged. For the sake of our children and the sake of our students, I urge the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Citizenship and the Anti-Racism Secretariat to end their silence and start their work.

Finally, I want to commend the work of the police who have been investigating this incident. They are doing an excellent job.

MANAC INC

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to share a good news story from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. This fall, a new manufacturing business opened its doors in Orangeville. Manac Inc will create 200 highly skilled new manufacturing jobs in Orangeville.

Manac is recognized as the number one Canadian company for quality custom-built semitrailers. The new Orangeville location of 143,000 feet will serve markets in Ontario, western Canada and the United States. Founded in Quebec in 1966, the Canam Manac Group Inc has experienced consistent record growth. This is an achievement that cannot be overlooked, considering the many changes that have taken place in this industry and industry in general.

Key company policies such as a positive work environment, including open communication with employees and continuous improvement, are key to Manac's success in the marketplace. Customer satisfaction is the focal point of Manac's success.

I have had the opportunity to work with some of the members of the Manac staff on issues of mutual concern, and was very impressed with the professionalism and thoroughness of their staff and administrative officials.

The Orangeville plant that Manac has purchased will be used to manufacture the company's target of 24,000 semitrailers annually.

I would like to extend my congratulations to President Gaston Bureau and vice-president and general manager of the Orangeville plant, Charles Dutil. I am sure that your success will continue in Dufferin-Peel and that the quality and commitment of our workforce will serve you well in the coming years.

CLOSURE OF CANADIAN FORCES BASE DOWNSVIEW

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): February last, the federal Liberal government announced the closing of Canadian Forces Base Downsview. No other issue will directly impact on the future of our community as will the closing of the base.

Our community will lose hundreds of jobs directly. We will lose roughly $59 million in annual salaries from the local economy for housing, groceries, clothing etc. This will mean many homes in the area will be left vacant. Many local businesses, quite frankly, feel they will be devastated. Many more jobs will be lost in the greater Metro area because the base purchases many more millions of dollars from the local economy, the impact of which nobody, quite frankly, knows.

The downsizing activity is expected to take place in 1996. It's been 10 months since the federal Liberals announced the closure of the base, and as we inch towards this deadline, there has been no word on what the real impact of this will be on our military activity, on what the impact of this will be on our local community, and on what they plan to do with the base in the future.

We are a community that is confused and nervous about what all of this means. We in Downsview have a right to know the answers to these questions. I call on the federal Liberal government to give us the answers so that we have a clear understanding of what the future holds in store for us.

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I would like to address an issue which the Leader of the Opposition, Lyn McLeod, raised in this House yesterday. The leader asked the government for an explanation of its decision to request the Quebec government to bar Ontario's young people from medical schools in Quebec.

My leader said, "I stress the fact that this is a constituent, a young woman, a resident of Ontario, who cannot even apply to the McGill medical school because the Ontario government, her government, has told Quebec that they should not accept Ontario students."

My leader quoted from a letter this young woman had received from McGill which said, "We regret to inform you that the Quebec government, in response to a request from the government of Ontario, has recently prohibited Quebec universities from accepting applicants who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents whose place of residence is outside of Quebec."

Later, outside of this House, Ministry of Health officials indicated that this was the first they had heard of such actions. Whether by design or by accident, they have created the misleading impression that Quebec acted alone in this matter. The fact is that Quebec was simply responding to a request from the government of Ontario.

My leader raised this issue because the young people of Ontario have a right to know why their government, the government of Ontario, would close an avenue of opportunity for them. They deserve an explanation from this government, a government whose actions have resulted in reducing the opportunities open to young people in this province.

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns proposals coming from her multiservice agency planning committees.

Joanne Wagg, area coordinator for the Barrie-Orillia district office of the Canadian Hearing Society, indicates that communication issues arising from hearing loss or audiological assessment and services are included in MSA services. As well, available funding may not be adequate to purchase the required communication and hearing health support services in local communities.

Between 50% and 80% of seniors have a hearing loss. If this hearing loss interferes with the ability to communicate, an individual could be misdiagnosed and institutionalized prematurely. Recommendations and instructions relating to health regimen and therapy may not be heard or understood. This situation has the potential for a significant waste of long-term-care dollars that are already stretched to the limit.

Ms Wagg recognizes it may not be financially possible to build hearing assessments and services, hearing rehabilitation, communication and hearing strategies and related training into every MSA.

The PC caucus attempted to address these issues during the public hearings on Bill 173, but the minister chose to ignore us and brought in closure to end constructive debate on this controversial legislation; about 18 closures in this regime.

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to invite everyone across Ontario to the annual Festival of Lights in Niagara Falls. The festival opened November 19 with 20,000 people there in the park, and Mickey and Minnie Mouse threw the switch. There were spectacular fireworks and three live Mickey Mouse shows that evening.

The festival continues every night until the middle of January. I invite you to walk through Queen Victoria Park for a very enchanted evening, then drive down the parkway towards Chippawa and visit Dufferin Islands for the new displays there, and also visit the greenhouses by the falls for the beautiful Christmas display of poinsettias. And it's all free.

Every Saturday night until the new year there is special live entertainment on the outdoor stage by the falls. Saturday, December 3, is country music night.

I'd like to ask you to ask your nearest Ontario travel centre for their brochure about all the events.

I would also like to thank Ron Buffett, who is the chair of the festival board, and also all the volunteers who have done so much work.

New Year's Eve will be the most spectacular of all. There will be childrens' entertainers earlier in the evening followed by headliner Blue Rodeo, and at midnight, fireworks over the falls. The evening will be televised live coast to coast by Baton Broadcasting Inc.

This is alcohol-free, family-oriented entertainment. Please come and visit us and stay over in the Falls.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Four weeks ago, in responding to your statement on Wife Abuse Prevention Month, I brought the plight of Redwood Shelter to your attention and to the attention of this Legislature.

Redwood Shelter is the only battered women's shelter in west-end Toronto. It has been full since the day it opened a year ago, the day in fact of the anniversary of the Montreal massacre. They have had to turn away hundreds of women who came in crisis seeking their help because they were full, but the provincial government has refused to give Redwood core funding so that their doors can remain open.

After two months, Community and Social Services minister Tony Silipo finally answered the letters I sent him pleading Redwood's cause with a resounding no.

Minister, with all the years that you spent helping abused women and their children, I know that you realize the importance of women and children having a safe haven to escape to when they are in dangerous, abusive situations. As the minister responsible for advocating for women in this province, have you voiced your support in cabinet for giving Redwood the funding it so desperately needs, and if not, will you commit to us today that you will do so?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): It's more appropriate for me to refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services since it is his area of responsibility and there are two more supplementary questions to come.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me say, before I get directly to answering the question, that my colleague the Attorney General and minister responsible for women's issues has been continuing to be very supportive of these issues and I think it would be very few people who could question her commitment to this issue.

This is a very sensitive issue and one that we've taken quite seriously and we do take quite seriously. I know the member who asked the question also believes very strongly in this issue and the importance we place collectively, I think, as members of this House, on the whole array of anti-violence initiatives, particularly as they relate to women and children, who tend to bear the brunt of that violence.

The reality as it applies to Redwood is simply this: We have a situation in which we have an amount of money that we are spending through the Ministry of Community and Social Services and others. Through our ministry alone we spent about $42 million to fund shelters. Among these there are 13 shelters in Metropolitan Toronto that we fund.

We simply do not have the money to be able to add core funding to additional shelters, and that is the reality. We are providing per diem funding to Redwood Shelter and we will continue to do that, but we just simply do not have the dollars to be able to allocate additional core funding to the centre.

Ms Poole: First of all, let me express my deep disappointment that the minister responsible for women's issues is refusing to advocate for the women in this province. What is her job if not to advocate for women at the cabinet table? What is her job if not to press the government on important issues like this?

The Minister of Community and Social Services mentioned the fact that they had 13 shelters in Toronto so there was simply no room at the inn for another shelter. Well, let me tell the minister that this government could find money to fund the failed Jobs Ontario scheme, over $1 billion, and look at how much was spent on advertising, how much was spent on public relations. They found money, $50 million, to fund the Interim Waste Authority and what a joke that's turned out to be. Money is there if you make it a priority. This is the only shelter in west-end Toronto that serves battered women.

I find two things very disturbing concerning your government's refusal to fund Redwood. The first is that a government which purports to defend the interests of women and children could turn its back while this shelter closes, forcing women and children into dangerous, abusive situations.

The second disturbing aspect is that, according to your office, the NDP government has decided to divert direct funding for women's shelter to counselling services. Minister, we all believe in counselling and that it's necessary, but there is no substitution for the direct funding to shelters for counselling. I'm sorry, it just doesn't wash.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Ms Poole: The question I have for this minister is, will he once again review the situation at Redwood Shelter, will he agree today to provide relief to the many women and children in Parkdale who require Redwood's services and will he fund this shelter?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me reiterate that the member is just quite wrong when she continues to attack the minister responsible for women's issues in terms of her advocacy position. If she had not been advocating at the cabinet table and if other ministers had not been advocating at the table, we would not have had the 40% increase in funding in this area of expenditure that we've had since we became the government, which I think speaks volumes to the kind of support this government has continued to place. We would not have had the situation this year and last year in which we maintained the level of funding in this area of expenditures

whereas in other areas we've made cuts. That is just the sheer reality. We are very supportive of this area.

I really find it a bit disappointing, quite frankly, that the honourable member chooses to take this issue and turn it into one of partisanship by tying it to other issues around Jobs Ontario expenditures. I just think that does a whole disservice to the importance of this issue.

We will continue to provide funding for the shelters that are there now. We have, yes, increased funding to counselling service, but we have also increased funding to the shelters, and I think both of those facts need to be on the table --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister complete his reply, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and need to be understood by the member opposite and by all members in this House.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On January 12 of this year, I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services and asked him to review this issue. In May, which is four months later, he finally replied, and he says in his letter that shelters such as the Redwood Shelter clearly provide a service to women who've been abused and their children. Then he says, "I sincerely appreciate the contribution of shelter workers to making our society a safer place for women and children."

I don't think this minister has understood the question. Does he not realize that there were, this last year, a thousand women turned away from this shelter? This shelter now is serving 340 women and children. The question has not even been answered, and I wish the minister would take it seriously and answer this question, because it has real community support in Parkdale.

Is he going to review this decision, hopefully favourably, and come back to this House and to the board of directors of Redwood Shelter and tell us, yes, there will be a favourable review so that these women and children will have an adequate place at the table and in Ontario for all women and children who are abused?

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to be very clear. I appreciate as much as any other member in this House the work that the Redwood Shelter does. We show that through the fact that we do provide them some funding, and I think that also needs to be on the record. We provide, through the per diems that are paid through the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, to this shelter and to all other shelters in Metro 80% of the per diems, which we estimate in this centre would be about $300,000 a year. We need to be really clear that we are already providing a fairly high level of funding.

I understand what Redwood Shelter is asking for, which is to have additional funding beyond that, what is commonly known as core funding. That is an area that I cannot say that we have the money to provide. We are going to continue to look at how we spend money in this area. If it's possible to find some funding from within the envelope, because there is no other money, then obviously we will continue to do our best. But that's not something that I can give an answer to today.

I also know that the shelter has some immediate, pressing funding shortfalls. Again, we will continue to look at that and we will continue to work with them and see if there can be some answers found. But the reality still remains we have increased funding in this whole area. There are 13 other shelters in Metropolitan Toronto that we fund. I understand, having said all of that, the very valuable service that this shelter provides, and we all want to see if we can find ways to continue to support what they do.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns one of my favourite subjects, namely, photo-radar. As the minister is responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police --

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Conflict, conflict.

Mr Conway: Well, the Premier says "conflict." A few months from now when he's driving himself again, we'll see who has a conflict. But my question is to the minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police and it concerns photo-radar.

Minister, could you tell the House what specific safety criteria the Ontario Provincial Police are using to assess the effectiveness or the lack of same of your photo-radar pilot project, and just how well or how poorly is that pilot project meeting those safety criteria as of today?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I suspect that the supplementary question will be quite interesting, given the initial question. Let me say then, with that in mind, that the whole purpose of the pilot project is to determine how best we can use this technology to make our roads indeed the safest in North America and as safe as we possibly can.

I know that those who are in charge of this particular initiative are very confident that by testing the various ways that it can be used and the various climatic situations and in terms of where they place it, they can determine how best it can be applied. I would think from that they will then develop the kind of criteria, as well as looking at where it has been used in other places, and measuring our effectiveness against those particular measures that they've developed for themselves and beyond that, would indeed anxiously await the supplementary.

Mr Conway: I can imagine how the minister might anxiously await the supplementary, because he's probably been briefed about this very subject. The government, as the minister has indicated, has said for months that the principal justification of photo-radar is that it will improve, without doubt, safety on our highways, particularly our major highways like 401, 400 and 403.

Is the minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police aware of the fact that last week, specifically in the Midland Free Press of November 23, 1994, his colleague the NDP member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay was bragging in that part of central Ontario about how he had done his homework on this subject?

Notwithstanding the fact that he stood in his place as a loyal government member on December 13, 1993, and voted for photo-radar, Mr Waters was bragging in last week's Midland Free Press that he'd done his homework and that he had successfully lobbied the government and the OPP to secure an exclusion of all parts of his constituency from any application of photo-radar.

I remind my honourable friend that Highway 400 cuts through a portion of that electoral district. Is the minister responsible for this project and for public safety in the province aware of Mr Waters's very proud boast in the Midland Free Press of last week?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say very clearly and very directly that I have not sanctioned, I am not aware of, nor would I ever support such an initiative from any member, anywhere, based on what are clearly implied to be parochial issues around the application of photo-radar or, for that matter, and let's be very clear, the application of the law and law enforcement as it is done by the OPP or any other police service in this province.

Mr Conway: I have a report in an Ontario paper that quotes directly the government member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay as saying that he successfully lobbied his government and the OPP to secure an exemption from photo-radar for his entire riding, including an exemption for that portion of Highway 400 that traverses part of that area.

Minister, you've got photo-radar signs plastered through remote sections of north Hastings and Haliburton. I want to say, how many other government members are playing Boss Hogg in their constituencies? How many other government members are playing Boss Hogg, having voted for the legislation here, and going home and bragging about the fact that they contacted the police, they contacted the minister and, yes, they succeeded in keeping photo-radar out of their ridings, including keeping it off heavily trafficked four-lane highways like 400 through Muskoka-Georgian Bay?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Once again the Liberal Party chooses to listen to words that didn't happen and they ask their question away. It really should be pretty clear for anybody watching that there really is no intent to ask questions and get information and further the public agenda. It's all meant to play some partisan game.

I answered the question very clearly, very succinctly. It's in Hansard, it's on the record. I stand by every word I said. It's the opposite of everything that's implied in the question the honourable member asked in his last supplementary.

GOVERNMENT MAILINGS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Recently, Minister, the Ministry of Health mailed very expensive glossy packages to over a quarter of a million addresses in Ontario to promote its new Tobacco Control Act.

Staff in your ministry and in Health have told us, in response to inquiries from many phone calls we've been getting from this glossy propaganda mailing, that the mailing list for this propaganda was provided by your ministry. This list of mailing addresses exists solely for the purposes of tax collection. Minister, were you aware that these confidential addresses, supplied solely for tax purposes, were used by the Ministry of Health, and if so, did you approve it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Yes. The answer to the last part of your question first is, I am aware that that indeed is what happened and that before it happened the legislation was checked. There is in the legislation of privacy -- it is appropriate, when the public interest is taken into consideration, to allow that to occur. I make no apologies on behalf of this government for informing retailers -- I think to do less would be inappropriate -- of the new tobacco control legislation in the public interest of this province.

Mr Harris: First of all, this mailing didn't go to those retailers of cigarettes. This went to all of those who were registered collecting sales taxes. Secondly, it didn't go from your ministry to notify them of the act. In fact it went out from the Ministry of Health, as you will see right here, as I'm going to lay out all these million-dollar glossies for everybody before I conclude today.

The officials indicated that this is the first time some little-known overriding technicality has ever been used to violate the freedom and privacy act in the history of the government. Second, this official told us that you have absolutely no control over the content of the mailing once the confidential list is turned over to another ministry.

Minister, taxpayers in Ontario submit tax information in good faith. They don't expect to have it wind up on another government mailing list. Do you not realize that, at a time of increasing sensitivity over privacy of information and information that government has, you have destroyed the integrity of your office and of your list by turning it over, for whatever purpose, to the Ministry of Health? Do you not realize that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I could not agree with the leader of the third party more. I believe that since the legislation was changing, if anything, there was an obligation on the part of the government to write to retailers and inform them of this. I make no apology for that. I believe that this was indeed in the public interest to do so.

Mr Harris: Clearly, if you felt those who are filing tax information with you needed to know about new legislation, you could have inserted those changes at no cost when the monthly assessment goes out and the notification goes out. However, if the purpose was a million-dollar, glossy propaganda campaign, which is the propaganda campaign here, then we could see why the Ministry of Health -- totally unrelated to tax information, totally unrelated to those on that list for the purposes of filing taxes -- wanted to engage in that.

You've now started the ball rolling. You've violated this principle once and you're justifying it now on some worthwhile cause. No matter how worthwhile the cause, it does not justify using a list that you have in your ministry for tax collection purposes for NDP or another ministry propaganda. It does not justify it at all. We can only then assume that now your tax lists are available to the Minister of Education and Training to boost the Bob's Ontario program, or the Minister of Transportation for photo-radar, or any other government program.

Clearly the privacy commissioner almost every week is public with grave, grave concerns, in this new computer and information age, about the lists that government has, concerns about the violation of privacy. Surely you would agree that this was a mistake. Surely you will apologize and assure this House it will never, ever, ever happen again.

Hon Mr Laughren: I did check the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to make sure that what we were doing was appropriate. The freedom of information act permits the release of information where the competing public interest clearly outweighs the purpose of protecting the information from disclosure.

I ask the leader of the third party what he could possibly object to about informing retailers about

an act that affects the way in which they do business. I can tell the leader of the third party that if we didn't inform them, in as clear a way as possible, and retailers were charged for violating the act --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- the leader of the third party would be on his feet demanding why we had not informed the retailers of the change in the legislation in order to protect them from that very change, so the leader of the third party is trying to have it both ways.

I can tell you that changes in the legislation dealing with the Tobacco Control Act legislation are something of which we are very proud in this government and we will continue to inform as many people as possible about those changes.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Clearly you have a different definition of protecting the privacy of Ontarians than I do.

TVONTARIO PROGRAMMING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. TVOntario is funded to the tune of $60 million by Ontario taxpayers. Could you tell us, and the taxpayers who pick up this $60-million tab, what specifically is TVOntario's mandate?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): TVOntario's mandate is to contribute to the education of the people of Ontario and to contribute to our communications as Ontario's people.

Mr Harris: TVOntario recently launched a public affairs daily news show called Studio 2, in competition with CITY-TV, Global TV, CBC, BBS, CHCH, CKVR, CKCO and CFMT, as far as television news goes. Rumours are widespread, some of them confirmed today, for example, that original production of Polka Dot Door has now been reduced from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. Clearly the emphasis and the thrust on children's programming and educational TV are in the legislation, are in the mandate. Programming that is more in keeping with TVO's original mandate has in fact been reduced or scrapped in order to pay for a new public affairs offering.

I would ask you this: Do you personally believe that the new Studio 2 show conforms to TVO's mandate as outlined in the legislation?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: TVOntario, I believe, is tremendously unique in its approach to helping us as Ontarians develop our identity as Ontarians. I think that as a public broadcast institution it helps to shed light and shed opportunities for us to communicate and get to know each other in a way that's different from what private, profit-making broadcast institutions do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: In terms of children's programming -- if the members are interested in listening -- TVOntario continues its tremendously strong mandate of children's programming. It is right now working on new programming to help make sure that it meets the growing new needs of children as they face the late 1990s and as we go into the 21st century. I'm tremendously proud of the work that TVOntario offers and gives to the people of Ontario.

Mr Harris: The legislation says the objects of the authority are "to initiate, acquire, produce, distribute, exhibit or otherwise deal in programs and materials in the educational broadcasting and communications fields." There has been a strong emphasis on children's programming.

Is Studio 2 the new programming for children? Is this why you've scrapped original children's shows, educational TV, access on the educational airwaves all across the province, for Studio 2?

Your government has a $10-billion deficit. When you leave office a new Premier, cabinet, government and party will take over with a $90-billion accumulated debt, and yet TVOntario not only has been a priority of spending for you, it has been in areas in direct competition with other broadcasters and away from the mandate of TVOntario of providing children's programming and educational programming to Ontarians.

What I want to ask you is, who's in charge over there? Who made these decisions to abandon the mandate of TVO for children and education and get into public affairs and news programming in competition with other networks? Was it the president, the chairman, the board? Was it with your knowledge, and would you not agree with me it is time to have a full public debate, because the public wasn't consulted, the Legislature wasn't consulted when the legislation was violated, on the mandate of TVOntario, ie, is anybody in charge over there of this $60-million boondoggle?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: On the issue of who's in charge, is the third party suggesting that this government should take control over programming TVOntario for our political ends? I don't think so.

I think what's important is that TVOntario continues, independently, its ability to offer the people of Ontario what they increasingly want, and in fact TVOntario's ratings are continuing to grow in its growing sensitivity to meeting the needs of the people of Ontario.

In terms of children's programming, as I mentioned, there is now --

Mr Harris: Is that the mandate, to increase ratings, or is the mandate for educational TV and children's programming?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: If the member who's asked the question would like the answer, perhaps he'd like to be quiet a moment.

Actually, the critic for Culture in the third party recently attended, I know, the TVOntario phone-in campaign fund-raising evening and I'm sure had the opportunity there to learn that Polka Dot Door is in fact now being revitalized with 32 new Polka Dot Shorts programs. Next year TVOntario will be producing 32 more. There is new children's programming being invested in and delivered by TVOntario.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I do believe, in closing, because I know nobody wants a government to dictate or censor what TVOntario produces, that in fact public debate, public interest, public feedback is very much what TVOntario sincerely wants and I'm sure it would be interested in listening to the input of the third party too.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, my question is, in principle, are you in favour of the removal of sexual predators from the street in order to protect the public?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can't imagine any answer to that which wouldn't be in the affirmative. Obviously, yes.

Mr Offer: Then in the affirmative, as you've answered, you will know that currently the law does not protect the general public from sexual predators, that there is a loophole, that there is the need to change the Mental Health Act so that individuals who are deemed sexual predators will be removed from the streets prior to the commission of a crime.

Premier, I have introduced a bill which indeed will amend the Mental Health Act and accomplish that purpose. My question, since you have answered the first question in the affirmative: Will you make certain that that bill passes and becomes the law of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: Since I take the question seriously, I would say to the honourable member that my understanding of the discussions that have been under way for some substantial time is that I think there's a strong consensus across the country that the federal government, which has the responsibility with respect to the criminal law power --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You can fix it in Ontario.

Hon Mr Rae: If members will just hear me out without shouting back, if you'll just hear me out, because there is an issue here, to make sure you do something which is actually going to work, is actually going to be effective and is actually going to withstand constitutional challenges as well as other challenges, that's an issue --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: You speak with great confidence in these matters. We have to take lots of advice from people within the various ministries who also have experience in these matters, and their views are not to be dismissed or treated with cavalier contempt. Their views are to be taken seriously and treated with some respect. The evidence that I've seen is that the consensus across the country is that this would be the best way to proceed.

With respect to the existing powers under the Mental Health Act, there are powers under the existing Mental Health Act which deal with questions of people who are seen as being a threat to the public, seen as representing a direct threat to themselves or to the public. There are powers under the Mental Health Act which provide for some powers to admit people into hospital and provide for their temporary incarceration. This is not a perfect solution; it does not provide us with all the answers.

I will say to the honourable member that I will certainly be glad to ask the law officers of the crown and others to look at the particular proposal which is coming from the honourable member, but I think the way he dismissed my earlier answer -- I was not trying the least bit to say this isn't an issue. It's an issue for all of us. It's an issue for all of us who have families. It's an issue for every citizen to be concerned about this. This is not something which one dismisses easily.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm just saying that the consensus that I have seen is that the clear question of the application of the criminal law power -- if you're dealing with something involving the civil liberties of the individual and involving a potential infraction of the Criminal Code, the issue is one that is best handled at the federal level. It doesn't mean we do not have responsibilities.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Rae: It does not mean that the Mental Health Act does not apply. It does mean it has to be something that's treated with some care and balance as we try to solve this thing through.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Since your government took office, nearly 8,000 hospital beds have been closed in Ontario, there continue to be long lineups for important medical services and treatments, a record number of services have been delisted, out-of-country health coverage has been slashed, and user fees and copayments are so common they now account for nearly 20% of hospital revenues. You have seriously undermined what was once a first-class health care system.

On behalf of all Ontarians, on behalf of our employers, for whom a first-class health care system was indeed one of those things that helped attract industry and investment here, why has health care not been a priority for your government?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I really find that question offensive, as do all of my colleagues on this side of the House. We had just last week a debate in this House on health care, when the member opposite moved that in fact we restore all out-of-country coverage to the people in this province at a cost of $200 million, because that's been the savings we've made over the past several years with respect to out-of-country coverage. At that time and in that debate, members on this side, for whom the member opposite didn't even have the courtesy to stay, explained very clearly the advances that there have been in the health care system of this province over the last four years.

We spend one third of our provincial expenditures on health care, a more expensive system than any in the industrialized world. We have a system here that is first-class. We have, over the past four years, expanded cancer treatment, eliminated waiting lists for cardiac care and expanded the bone marrow transplant program. We have put in place an aboriginal health policy which was never there before. We have established midwives, the first province to do so. We have expanded long-term care by $600 million. The people of this province have a better health care system than anywhere else in this country, and certainly better than Alberta.

Mr Harris: I asked the minister why it hasn't been a priority for her government and the minister opened up her answer with all the cuts and slashes, and benefits and programs that you've taken away from Ontarians. You seem to be proud of the fact that you've slashed benefits for travellers and our senior citizens.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: This Friday, we are sponsoring a public policy forum on health care in Ottawa. We have released --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the leader take his seat. I would ask the government members to please come to order so I can at least hear the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Cambridge please come to order.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This Friday we're sponsoring a public policy forum on health care in Ottawa, and we've released a discussion paper for that forum which I'd like to send over to you right now, to the minister of non-health.

Minister, one of the commitments that we clearly make by slashing pensions, by slashing the number of politicians, by cutting back on bureaucracy, duplication and waste, is that not a cent will be cut from health care. This document explains how we will do that. One of the second commitments that we make, Minister, is for a health care bill of rights for every Ontarian so that no future government can get in as you did and five years, 10 years, 15 years from now come back in and slash health care.

I'm asking you, Minister, given the serious deterioration of the health care system in Ontario, will you support our call for a health care bill of rights for all Ontarians?

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the member for sending me a copy of the material that he is going to provide to the forum he is holding. I have looked through it very quickly and perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see in here the health care levy that is going to raise $400 million and that is part of the Common Sense Revolution. I would say to the member opposite, if you're going to have a health care forum, at least be open and honest with people and tell them that you're going to impose on the people of this province a levy for their health care.

What this government has done is maintain spending on health care. We now spend per capita in this province more than in any other province across the country, and we have in this province access to a greater number of services and a larger number of services than we have anywhere else, and certainly than we had before this government took office.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I have recently met with a group of injured workers from our riding and they have reminded me how they fought for years to get the right to receive the full cost-of-living adjustments for their compensation benefits. Finally they won this right in 1985, with all-party support from this Legislature. They showed me the speeches from Hansard where all three political parties welcomed this measure as a symbol of dignity and justice for Ontario's injured workers.

These constituents wonder why the government has proposed to do away with the full cost-of-living adjustments with Bill 165, and request that this government and this Legislature reconsider these changes in light of their historic agreement in 1985 to fully protect injured workers from inflation. Since a royal commission has recently been announced to study benefit structures and funding issues, will the minister maintain this protection until the royal commission has evaluated it?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): Bill 165 is a balanced package that addresses the urgent needs of the Workers' Compensation Board. Our government's position is that we needed to act now; we couldn't wait any longer.

The unfunded liability was growing as we speak, daily.

In passing the bill we will give nearly 50,000 injured workers, people I have met, people who are seniors over the age of 70 years old, an additional $200 a month. All of us in this House will agree that this money has been needed and they need it right now. But the WCB's financial woes, problems it has had, also need to be addressed, and adopting the Friedland formula for most benefits is the best thing to do at the present time.

Also, as the member had asked, the royal commission will address these problems that we're having at the Workers' Compensation Board, but the most important thing is to get on with Bill 165, pass it now, and be able to help injured workers.

Mr Malkowski: The proposal to increase some permanent disability benefits by $200 a month has been estimated to cost less than $100 million a year. This cost can be borne by the WCB without increasing employer premiums or reducing injured workers' benefits.

Will the Minister of Labour direct the WCB to recover some of the estimated $260 million a year that it loses in bad debts by employers and employers evading registration, and some of the more than $200 million a year in assessments collected to pay injured workers' benefits that the WCB pays to employers in refunds under experience rating? Will the Minister of Labour act now to use the money which is available to increase permanent disability benefits without changing benefit structures or current employer assessment rates?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Wrap it up.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I have a comment to make to you and to the opposition. I do not appreciate being told to wrap up. This is an important issue in this province. The heckling I think is --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Coppen: The opposition knows how the unfunded liability has been a major worry for all three governments, and we were the only ones to act upon it.

I think it's totally unfair to say that all employers are evading making their assessment payments. It really is unfair of the member to say that. We have people who are investigating and are collecting those assessment rates at the present moment, but again, it is unfair to say that all employers are evading it. The board is moving vigorously to collect these assessments.

On the larger issue, as I said in the first question, we need to move on with Bill 165 to help injured workers in this province, but most importantly, or secondly, to get the unfunded liability under control, something we have taken control of, a mess we were left, and something very positive that we're going to do for the people in this province.

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Health. She was here a moment ago. I see her books are still on her desk. She's back.

I want to raise the issue of medical school admissions which my leader raised here yesterday. We're very concerned to learn that Ontario has asked Quebec to cease admitting Ontario residents to its medical schools. Yesterday, Madam Minister, your officials indicated that they had not heard of this policy before.

Today, I've got a letter dated October 4, 1994, more than a month and a half ago, written by Jodey Porter, your assistant deputy minister. I want to quote from the letter. In it she says, "In July of last year" -- that would be 1993 -- "the minister wrote to her counterpart in Quebec, M. Marc-Yvan Côté, informing him of our plans to reduce undergraduate medical school enrolment in September 1993." The letter goes on to read, "The minister asked that Quebec consider limiting the intake of Ontario residents not covered by interprovincial agreements into undergraduate medical schools."

Madam Minister, would you please confirm that you were very much aware of the actions of the Quebec government and that in fact they took this action in direct response to your request?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm sorry I wasn't here yesterday when the question was raised and I think responded to by my colleague, but I'm very glad of an opportunity to remind the member and the members opposite that it was, I think, in the late 1980s that ministers of health from every province and territory began to discuss together how to deal with better planning in a human resource policy for physicians across this country.

In 1992, all provinces agreed to a national action plan in order to plan for the future needs of physicians and to limit the number of undergraduates receiving medical training so that we would match the number of physicians we train to the needs of the country, and as a result of that, here in Ontario there was a reduction of 75, 10% of the undergraduates entering medical schools.

As part of those discussions, which have been national, and as recently as last fall, all of the ministers and the federal government reaffirmed that physicians be regarded as a national resource and that potential physicians should be able to receive their training wherever they so desired in this country. But all of the provinces have been moving to limit undergraduate enrolment in order to plan for the future. So as Ontario had taken action, yes indeed, I wrote to my Quebec counterpart and asked them to work with us to limit the number of undergraduates who were being trained in Quebec, not to eliminate the possibility of Ontario residents being trained in Quebec.

Mr McGuinty: I can see how it serves the minister's purpose to attempt to complicate this, but really the facts here are very straightforward: Firstly, we have the McGill medical school accepting Ontario students; secondly, we have our Minister of Health writing to the Quebec government, asking it to limit the intake of Ontario students into its Quebec schools; thirdly, we have Quebec acting on this request by turning away Ontario students. These are the incontrovertible facts.

It is simply unprecedented for a province in this country to tell its students where they can and cannot study. We, in every part of this country, have always seen the merits in having students enriched by studying outside their province, whether that be by having Quebec students study here or Ontario students study there.

How can the minister possibly justify taking this unprecedented step in limiting the rights of Ontario students to study elsewhere, and will she now withdraw her request made to Quebec and acknowledge that she made a terrible mistake?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member I think missed the point of my first answer, which was that all of the provinces, as part of a national action plan, have agreed to limit the number of undergraduates entering medical training. Each province is working towards completion of a national plan.

We have, here in Ontario, limited the number of undergraduates who can attend Ontario universities and we need to work with other provinces, particularly with the province of Quebec, to make sure that if we are reducing the number of places for new doctors in Ontario as a result of requiring training in Ontario, we do not at the same time train Ontario students in other provinces in the absence of knowing what the overall needs of physicians are.

Quebec, last year, moved to require that any doctor trained in Quebec work return of service for a certain period of time in the province of Quebec. In view of that, it was important to sit down and discuss with my counterpart how we could plan together. We did not ask the province of Quebec to not accept Ontario students.

I agree with you completely that students in this country need to be able to study wherever they wish and wherever they believe they will get the best education, but all of the provinces need to work together so that we truly have a national action plan to determine that the number of physicians who are trained meets the needs of the people of this country from one end to the other.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services and it concerns the November 7 report of the public institutions inspection panel of the county of Simcoe that I gave him last week. In its report, the panel said the recent closure of Camp Hillsdale has only added to the burden at the Barrie Jail, a facility which can only be described as obsolete.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Spend, spend, spend. You Tories are amazing. First is health care; now it is corrections.

Mr McLean: The panel really questions the reasoning behind the Camp Hillsdale decision, not only because of the extra burden passed on to the jail, but because of the function which Camp Hillsdale provided. Minister, will you do the right thing and accept the panel's recommendation to re-examine this extremely important issue?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I certainly agree with the honourable member that this issue and all those related to it are indeed very important. As the honourable member well knows, and as I mentioned to him when this issue was raised the other day in this place, we have a clear direction from the Provincial Auditor in last year's report, which I've heard his party stand up and be forcefully behind many times, wherein the auditor said to us that there are ways and means of running a more efficient system than we now have without in any way lowering the high level of safety and the priority of safety that we have in this province.

With regard to this particular closure, we are of course reviewing the report, as we would do in any event. But let me say again to the member that I do not agree that the closure of this particular facility will in the long term affect our ability to safely and efficiently manage the jail system in this province. Indeed, the $1.2 million in net savings will go a long way towards ensuring that we don't have to look at other parts of this important ministry to find the kind of savings we need, that we're able to do it in a way that maintains the safety at a greater level of efficiency.

That's the way you re-engineer government, not the chainsaw approach that the member and his leader have adopted.

Interjections.

Mr McLean: I want to say to the interjections from the Treasurer that his mentality of trying to run this province budgetary-wise is all wrong, because this institution of 51 was the lowest-cost institution in the province of Ontario. They close the ones that are the most economic to run and they leave the most expensive ones open. That's the way this government has been run.

The Simcoe county inspection panel said: "As the closure of Camp Hillsdale is recent, any review must be carried out expeditiously before the bureaucrats mothball the facility forever. Reopening of the facility would both alleviate some of the overcrowding at the Barrie Jail" -- which is very expensive -- "and provide rehabilitation resources which are now non-existent. The economic aspects have been proven in the past through the supply of produce, poultry," cattle and eggs. The low-risk offenders are more hardened and dangerous. They are in with dangerous criminals.

I say to you, the people want this facility to be reopened because of the low cost it provided. I don't understand why the minister will not accept the recommendation from the panels that are making these very serious recommendations to him.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Again, as I said the other day, I have a great deal of understanding -- indeed, respect -- for the fact that the honourable member has a need to represent the people in his riding. However, as I said before, this government has an obligation to worry about the overall economics of this province today and into the future.

I would say to him that again we see an example of a member of the Tory party out there with the public talking about cutting the deficit, and about cost savings and always wanting to cut, cut, cut -- until it affects your riding. As soon as it's your riding, "Well, no, we've got to back away because this is unpopular." We can defend this decision in terms of having adequate space in other parts of the system for facilities like this -- very minimum security.

When we talk about other parts of the system, we have other needs, but the honourable member I believe well knows that this decision is consistent with the auditor's report and can be very much defended in terms of providing the safest, most efficient jail system we can in Ontario.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and also the minister responsible for the Ontario Casino Corp. It has to do with the Windsor casino. In Windsor, we've seen the positive benefits of the casino project: over 2,000 direct jobs created in the casino itself, thousands more indirect jobs, increased economic activity and tourism. But I know there are some people in my community and across the province of Ontario who are concerned about crime as well. Madam Minister, I would like to know what steps have been taken in Windsor to control criminal activity.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank my colleague for the question. I think it's a very good question. It is an issue of utmost importance, I think, to the people in Windsor and to people in other communities who are viewing the possibility of casino expansion in the future.

From the beginning, we built in very serious initiatives to deal with the issue of crime control and to build a capacity within the system to deal with this. For example, in the casino project team we brought in a number of OPP officers who, in consultation, I would say, with other jurisdictions, the US, internationally, have learned a lot and have had their concerns addressed on things such as the building design, the money-handling systems, the auditing systems, the security systems.

As you know as well, in dealing with the city of Windsor, we were able to secure funding for it to increase the number of police on the streets. The outgoing chief of police has even indicated that from his point of view there's been a decrease in crime as a result of those coordinated initiatives.

So I would say there were substantial steps taken, they were important steps that were taken and it really was built into the system from day one. The government was concerned about this issue and shared that concern with the people, and I think together we have effectively dealt with it.

Mr Lessard: There were some fears that there would be an increase in criminal activity associated with the opening of the casino, notably a possible increase in illegal gaming activity. Minister, is there any evidence of such an increase of illegal gambling activity?

Hon Ms Lankin: In my first answer, I did indicate that the stats actually are showing a decrease in the amount of crime in Windsor at this point in time, and I think in part that's due to the increased police presence on the streets. I think it's in part due to the economic benefits of this kind of investment in the casino and a number of other industrial projects where we've seen people get back to work, and really good, solid planning.

The member, in his supplementary, specifically raises the issue of illegal gambling, and just recently, again the reports of the police are that there has been a decrease in activity. I guess one of the problems that had been experienced in the Windsor community was illegal card games and gambling --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- houses that had been operating, and in fact, the security provisions that have been put in place have actually --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Sorry. I shouldn't pay attention to the members across.

The actual investments that have been made there, according to the Windsor police, have brought about a decrease in the amount of illegal gambling that was going on. I think people prefer to be in the legal opportunity of the casino that they have.

I think we have addressed these issues. We will continue to monitor them. There seems to be --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes. I think we've been successful in ensuring the safety and security of visitors to the casino and the city, and of the residents of Windsor. Windsor colleagues call Windsor "the city on the move" and it certainly is. It also continues to be a safe city and we're committed to continuing to work with them on that.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): An interesting petition about wine and beer in grocery stores.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas large grocery stores and shopping centres are now allowed to open on Sundays;

"Whereas convenience stores have suffered a major economic loss due to the generalized practice of Sunday openings by the larger stores;

"Whereas small business is responsible for the creation of a majority of jobs in Ontario;

"Whereas there is a dire need for job creation in Ontario with the current high unemployment and welfare cases;

"Whereas convenience stores could profit economically and thus maintain and create jobs by offering the sale of beer and wine;

"Whereas Ontario consumers' attitudes now support, in the 1990s, the sale of beer and wine in convenience stores;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, humbly beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support legislation authorizing convenience stores to sell beer and wine to their clients."

I have 165 names from my riding and I'm very proud to put my name on this petition that I fully support.

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition exactly identical to the one by my colleague from Prescott-Russell. It involves beer and wine in corner stores, particularly in those areas that are close to the Ontario-Quebec border. The petition reads as follows:

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que les grands magasins d'alimentation et les centres commerciaux peuvent maintenant ouvrir le dimanche ;

«Attendu que les dépanneurs ont subi une perte économique majeure dû à l'ouverture des grands magasins le dimanche ;

«Attendu que les petites entreprises sont responsables de la création de la majorité des emplois ici en Ontario ;

«Attendu qu'il y a un besoin urgent pour la création d'emplois en Ontario à cause du nombre accru de bénéficiaires d'assurance-chômage et d'assistance sociale ;

«Attendu que les dépanneurs pourraient bénéficier économiquement et ainsi maintenir et créer des emplois en offrant la vente de bière et de vin ;

«Attendu que les consommateurs de l'Ontario acceptent maintenant la vente de bière et de vin dans les dépanneurs ;

«Pour ces raisons et maintes autres, nous, soussignés, sollicitons humblement l'autorisation de pétitionner l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario d'appuyer tout projet de loi autorisant les dépanneurs d'offrir la vente de bière et de vin à leur clientèle.»

J'appuie cette pétition.

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here:

"We, the undersigned Canadian taxpayers, are pleading for the assent of a proposed bill to reform politicians' pension plans. MPPs must act responsibly and align their pensions more realistically with the private sector. Double-dipping, severance pay and voluntary resignation and collecting of pensions before age 55 must cease.

"We will not support candidates who are more concerned with furthering their own financial interests than protecting the interests of the average taxpayer and the security and the wellbeing of the nation."

It has been signed by many people, and I have affixed my name to it.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition here signed by a good number of my constituents from Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Sioux Narrows, and it's even signed by people from Milton and Moncton, New Brunswick. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and therefore are dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to equalize the prices of gas across the province have not been kept; and

"Whereas" I, as the MPP for the Kenora riding, have "called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of the motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high gas prices in northern Ontario;

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

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

I too have attached my name to that petition.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by approximately 30 residents of the village of Athens, petitioning the Ontario government to reconsider the decision to close the licence-issuing office in the village of Athens. I am affixing my signature in support.

ADOPTION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition and it states:

"Whereas the right of adopted persons in Ontario to know their natural identity is denied; and

"Whereas the present disclosure system under the Child and Family Services Act is discriminatory, inefficient and expensive and government has demonstrated an inability to provide service in a timely fashion since 1979; and

"Whereas provincial government studies since 1976 have repeatedly recommended that adopted adults be granted unrestricted access to their original birth registrations; and

"Whereas there is widespread public and political support for these rights to be recognized and codified; and

"Whereas Bill 158, Mr Martin, NDP, Sault Ste Marie, has passed second reading in the House by a wide margin of 49 to 3 on May 12, 1994, and is now before the standing committee on social development; and

"Whereas this bill addresses the right of adopted persons to obtain their birth certificates and provides a mechanism for birth parents to register a veto prohibiting contact from the person they surrendered parental rights to; and

"Whereas 1994 has been designated the Year of the Family;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the 35th Parliament of Ontario to act without further delay and respectfully request that Bill 158 be put on the committee's agenda."

That's signed by hundreds of people from across Waterloo region.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Reports by committees. Introduction of bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION IMMOBILIÈRE

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 202,

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act / Projet de loi 202, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la location immobilière.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): This bill is intended to speed up the process of evicting drug dealers from public housing projects like Regent Park and Moss Park and St James Town in my riding, and also to make sure the judges who deal with these evictions take into account that safety in apartment buildings is the most important factor, as well as that drug dealing is a crucial element to violent crime in our urban cities. I'm hoping the government and other members will support it. Eight months for an eviction, as it currently takes, is too long. We need to crack down on crack houses.

CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM INC. ACT, 1994

Mr White moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr142,

An Act respecting the Canadian Automotive Museum Inc.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr145,

An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr155,

An Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I beg the indulgence of the House. We earlier called for reports by committees. As remarkable as it may seem, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot did stand and I missed him. I would ask that we have unanimous consent to return to committee reports. Agreed? Agreed.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Cooper from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 22, 1994, this bill is ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the order of the day, the order I'll be calling is government notice of motion number 39. The government and opposition House leaders have had some discussions about the debate this afternoon, and I think we've reached agreement that the government will take 15 minutes, 10 at the beginning and reserve five for the end of the debate, and the two opposition parties will split the intervening time. If we have the consent of the House, that's how we would proceed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I'll be moving the motion and the Minister of Natural Resources will be taking the 10 minutes at the beginning for the government side.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 39:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 171,

An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario, the standing committee on general government shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on the first regularly scheduled meeting of the committee following passage of this motion. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the above-noted day.

At 4 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 128(a);

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 39. I understand that the Minister of Natural Resources has up to 10 minutes for his opening remarks.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I would like to speak in support of the government's motion that asks this House to set time allocation for third reading of Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I want to briefly review some of the things that have gotten us here.

No one can deny the importance of our forests to the people of Ontario. Our forests employ over 200,000 people in the province and contribute about $12 billion to the economy of the province every year.

Our forests are important for other reasons. Because of that, soon after we became the government, we put in place an independent forest audit committee to conduct an audit of forest regeneration of the boreal forests, the area of Ontario forests where most of the activities of our forest industries take place. The audit was important because it was the first independent audit that looked at how well we are regenerating our forests in Ontario. It gives us some guidelines and some indicia as to where we ought to go to promote better conservation and better management of our forests.

Also, soon after we became the government, we established the Ontario Forest Policy Panel. That panel received submissions from over 3,000 people, everyone from forest products companies to environmentalists. They produced a report called the Diversity report, which outlines a new direction centred on ensuring the long-term health of our forest ecosystems. Based upon that report, the government adopted the policy framework for sustainable forests.

The government also established an organization called the Forest Industry Action Group. The Forest Industry Action Group was a tripartite body made up of the two major forest industry associations, the Ontario Forest Industries Association and the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, the international woodworkers' union of Canada and, finally, representatives of the government. That body produced a consensus report which is also part of the blueprint for the legislation we are debating here today.

Finally, we put together a conservation strategy for the old-growth red and white pine forest ecosystems for Ontario which also is part of the blueprint of the legislation which we are dealing with today.

All of these processes involve days, weeks, months of consultation over many years. I think it's fair to say that the public of Ontario has never been consulted as much in the past about the state of our forests, about the value of our forests, about what we need to do to further conserve, protect and manage our forests so that we will have long-term forest sustainability.

Out of all of this consultation and out of all of these recommendations the government produced the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The act was introduced in the spring at first reading, had second reading and went out for weeks of public hearings across the province. In fact, it probably had a more extensive travel

schedule across the province than most other bills that have been introduced in the past few years. As well, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act has been before the general government committee since the House resumed sitting on October 31.

The bill attempts to respond to a number of challenges, and let me simply say what those challenges are. First is an economic challenge. Today a wide variety of competing uses are increasing the demands on areas which are sources of traditional timber supplies. That means there are greater demands on us for protecting our natural heritage.

To meet these goals we must address the needs of other groups for areas of land that people have considered productive forest land for harvesting. These competing uses put pressure on the sources of traditional timber supply. New technologies have also created whole new industries, to use forest products in different ways. These new methods have often been developed in response to the multiple demands on the forests. They include more efficient ways of using wood and ways of using tree species that were not considered for industrial use in the past.

New products have come into their own in the last 10 to 15 years. Markets for them are expanding around the world and Ontario is well situated to take advantage of those markets since we have an abundance of poplar and white birch. But if we are to have a system that enables us to utilize those resources we need some new tools in new legislation that will allow us to provide for flexible licensing and will allow us to ensure that we get best end use of the forest resource.

There is an environmental challenge and it's an important one. More than ever before the public is focused on what we are doing in our forests. In Ontario, like many other parts of the world, public opinion demands that natural resources, and forests above all, be protected and biological diversity be maintained. We have to address these public concerns about the long-term health and conservation of our natural resources.

Environmental concerns about forests have become so important that it is clear we will not be able to sell our products on the international market without demonstrating that we are managing our forests sustainably. One need only consider the challenges that the province of British Columbia has faced over the last two years and the measures they have had to take in order to ensure that it maintains market access not only in Europe but in certain parts of the United States.

If we are to meet these environmental challenges, we will need new tools. The existing tools that we find in the 1952 Crown Timber Act are quite out of date. I think there is a consensus that the existing act has been stretched as far as it can be stretched in terms of dealing with environmental challenges and dealing with the economic challenge.

But there is a third challenge; it comes from aboriginal people who are demanding that we acknowledge their traditional ties to forested land. They demand that we respect the cultural and spiritual importance of forests to them, the importance of wildlife to them. They say that some of our crown forests must take into account aboriginal habitation, use and traditional practices. We acknowledge these concerns, and we acknowledge that we must work to achieve some of them; otherwise, if we do not, we will find an even greater problem on the economic and environmental fronts. The existing Crown Timber Act does not allow us to meet those challenges either.

We are in a position where we can actually increase employment in our forest products industries. We have received, over the last two years, over 30 proposals from companies that are resident in Alberta, British Columbia, the United States and Finland, all of whom want to come to Ontario to invest, to create new mills that will take advantage of species that have not been utilized in the past; all of whom are saying to us, however, that they will require a more flexible licensing arrangement if they are going to be able to produce the products that are so much in demand and if they are going to be able to meet some of the other challenges that we are facing.

We are receiving important signals from the marketplace. If you look at forest industry investment in Ontario as compared to other provinces, in terms of productive forest land, we have led all other Canadian jurisdictions in terms of investment this past year. The projections for next year, 1995, are that our investment levels in terms of the forest products industry will be even higher, that they will surpass $1 billion.

I think the markets are signalling to us that we are proceeding in the right direction and people like what we are doing. People from all over the world are prepared to come and invest in Ontario if we are able to proceed with the act which we have, if we are able to proceed in terms of responding to the economic challenge, the environmental challenge and some of the challenges which are coming from aboriginal people.

The act addresses all of these things. It puts in place a new forest renewal trust fund, the first in North America, which will guarantee that we will have funds set aside to renew our forests. It provides for more involvement at the community level in the planning of our forests. It provides a definition of what we mean by forest sustainability, and more than that, through the regulations and through the manuals, it provides mechanisms whereby we can achieve forest sustainability.

This matter has been before the committee for some time and before the House for some time. It is time to move forward.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the motion as well today. Closure: When we talk to the folks back home, we talk about closure. A lot of people won't understand that we're back here in the Legislature some five weeks late. When we normally come back in September, we did not get back until October 31 this year. We have some very, very important legislation before us. We have four bills that are being brought before the House, this being of particular concern to me as a northern member.

We noticed even the minister flipping through his many pages, not really saying exactly what he wanted to say. He only had 10 minutes for an opening statement. We have only one hour and 20 minutes over on this side of the House. So again we're rushing something through the Legislature which really needs some good study and some good thought.

I must say that as we travelled across the province --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. Order. The member for Kenora has the floor.

Mr Miclash: I must say that I was a part of that committee that travelled the province, and it was some extensive travel, but we did hear over and over again that the people out in the forestry industry, the people who made their presentations to us, really felt that this legislation was being rammed through, that they really did not have the time they would like to have had to speak to the legislation.

As I indicated, we did travel extensively. We spent some time in the north, of course. We listened to the minister in his home town, Fort Frances, talk about the bill. We were in Thunder Bay and of course we were in North Bay and many other communities. You will know that I represent the second-largest riding in the province, one which truly depends a lot on the forestry industry, and it was interesting for me to hear the views at both ends of the province.

As I indicated, we started in the north and heard from the people who were directly involved in the industry, those of northern Ontario. As well, we returned here to Toronto and had hearings here in Toronto, here in the building, and we listened to the views here.

I was quite surprised to find out that the views did not differ across the province. We found that people in the north were not in favour of this legislation. They had a lot of problems with it, had a lot of questions about it, as we did when we got back here to Toronto as well. That is one thing that really surprised me. I thought there would be completely differing views in terms of the legislation, but we mainly found that everybody really felt that this legislation needed a lot of change.

I go back to my original point, that being under time allocation and being that it did not complete clause-by-clause in the hearings, we have to take a look at this legislation and really feel, as we heard, that it is being rammed through. We can only hope that we have been able to move forward, as the minister has tried to indicate that this is a forward movement. But I must say that we on this side of the House can only hope for that, as did a lot of people who made presentations.

You will know as well that my riding depends a lot on the forestry industry, whether it be the pulp and paper industry, whether it be the sawmill industry. I come from a family that goes back to the original roots of Boise Cascade, which is now Rainy River Forest Products, and the original roots that go back to the actual building of the plant in Kenora. I've been involved around forestry my entire life and it was very interesting, as I say, to get a little bit more involved and, as a former educator, to be educated myself in terms of the forestry industry.

What I'd like to do at this point is to go to some of the actual statements made by the people, particularly people from northern Ontario and, more important, from the riding of Kenora. I start off with some statements that were made by a group that was mainly from the Red Lake area. They're known as the Northern Forest Coalition, and we had a couple of people presenting to the committee, Mr Axford and Ms Goule.

They indicated that they had actually taken the position that "people who work in the forest traditionally, for a number of reasons, get very little say and very little involvement" in what they called "the timber management process." They felt that "as a result, there was a tendency to formulate extraction policies based on input primarily from consumption officials, both private and public." They felt also that the policy was written by "default," and that has had "some dire consequences to frontier employment and investment." They were quite worried about what Bill 171, which was before the committee, would do in terms of their coalition and in terms of the people, as I say, on the front lines in the forestry industry.

They went on to say that they viewed the new legislation as necessary but that Bill 171 was "premature and lacking a philosophical and cooperative approach. It seems to be an exercise in control...." They went on to say that it does not really seem to be an exercise in compliance.

They talked about the compliance penalties and the potential of these penalties and the implementation of the compliance penalties. They went on to say that it just may be the straw that stimulates another round of shutdowns for a few more hardworking northerners. Again, they were saying that this legislation could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of those people who are on the front line. The minister himself, who is in the House, will know that we have a lot of people out there who work very hard in the forestry industry and work very hard to make a living in northern Ontario.

In terms of the trust funds, we heard a lot about the trust funds as we travelled the province, and I'd just like to read into the record as well what this group had to say. They indicated that, yes, they were in favour of some type of trust fund, and we know we heard a good number of views regarding the trust funds, but what they were really concerned about was where the funds would end up and how they would be distributed back across the province.

They really wanted some backup documentation on the trust funds and how they would be redistributed. They indicated that they were feeling the trust funds may be treated as were the fishing licence revenues and used for enforcement rather than enhancement. They were really interested as to whether the minister of the day could decide something in downtown Toronto and actually come out with the distribution of a trust fund that in essence would not benefit their operations in the far north, so really a concern there.

They went on to talk about the class EA process and they suggested that the proposed bill and its attached backup are most seriously and probably fatally flawed in the EA area. They suggested that the minister or the ministry had better go back to the drawing board and find out exactly how this had an effect on the EA process.

Something which was of great interest to myself, as it was to a good number of groups again, was the establishment of citizen committees. This was a group from Red Lake, as I indicated earlier, from a coalition that actually applauded the bill's efforts to drive problem-solving from a local area. They felt that was a good move in terms of the bill, but they felt that the dispute resolutions were still weak and they would want more of a definition as to what would come about using these resolutions.

They went on to talk, as again many other groups did, about a concern as to how the committees would be formulated and where people would come from to formulate the committees and what groups they would represent and how that would be decided. Again, a very important group to our area summarized by saying, "This legislation, Bill 171, should be tabled or withdrawn until the rest of the pieces are attached or until either the MNR or some other ministry is prepared to deal with socioeconomics, exactly the way the EA rulings specified." That was their conclusion in looking at Bill 171.

As well, we heard from a forester, as we did a good number of foresters from various regions of the province. This forester was actually from Rainy River Forest Products, of course formerly known as Boise Cascade, in the Kenora-Fort Frances area. I must say this was one of the major employers in my riding, as it is in the minister's riding, a major employer for him as well. They employ some 1,500 people directly in both Kenora and Fort Frances, and pay nearly $100 million in wages, salaries and benefits on an annual basis and more than $6 million per year in municipal taxes, so just an idea of the very important contribution this company makes to our area.

They went on to say that in their view the proposed bill could be improved for the citizens of Ontario, the stakeholders, the government and the forest industry by simply allowing more time and dialogue to occur between and within the various parties. The minister indicated that there was extensive consultation taking place, but I must say that this was not the only time we heard that. The parliamentary assistant to the minister will remember that as we travelled across the province we had a good number of groups indicate to us that there was just not enough time.

Again, here we are today in time allocation, ramming this through with less than an hour and 10 minutes left to myself and my colleagues to get some very important issues on the table, and some very important concerns that we would certainly like to see addressed.

He went on to talk about the trust funds as well. He indicated that yes, this was something that was needed and had been needed for a long time. He had some concerns about the trust funds that he would have liked to have had some attention directed to, but in the very short period of time that this bill has moved around the province there was very little time actually to consider what these trust funds would do for the industry.

He went on to talk about the advisory committees too and how he felt that it was a way that Boise Cascade, or Rainy River Forest Products, had actually reached out to the people in both the Fort Frances and Kenora areas. He had indicated that these committees had already been formulated by their company and that they were very interested in some of the feedback. But he had some very positive stuff that he had to say and wanted to get across to the minister and hoped that his views would be taken into consideration. So there, from a forester.

The minister indicated that we had some presentations from first nation groups as well. He will remember, because he was there, the presentation by Chief George Kakeway from a first nation in my community, the first nation of Rat Portage. He was accompanied by their tribal chief, Willie Wilson, who is the tribal chief of some 10 communities in the area. It was very interesting to hear what they too had to say and put on the record. Let me just quote some of their statements before the committee.

Chief Willie Wilson indicated: "In Bill 171, first nations are defined as bands within the Indian Act. This outdated piece of legislation in no way reflects our territories and our continuing jurisdiction of the lands and resources within the 55,000 square miles of Treaty 3." You can see a concern that he put on the record.

Hon Mr Hampton: Where do you stand, Frank? Tell us where you stand. Do you stand with Willie?

Mr Miclash: I'm indicating some of the things that were brought before the minister and some of the things that these people wanted him to take a close look at, and comments made by people such as Chief Willie Wilson, who happens to be a very respected chief in the minister's own riding, a very respected person in the minister's own riding. I would hate to say this, but to have the chief disagree with some of this government's policies could get him into hot water, but I know they won't admit to that.

Then he goes on to say in his comments, "If our treaty and aboriginal rights as outlined in

section 35 of the Constitution of Canada were respected, we could work together and agree on how to manage the forest." What he is asking for here is some cooperation to work together.

He indicated, for the record, that they too -- I indicated a number of other groups that we heard from across the province were opposed to Bill 171, as written -- felt that they had not been consulted. This is what we heard from a good number of groups, that they wished for more dialogue, for more dialogue with the minister, who represents them in his riding. I have indicated a number of things that we as the committee heard specifically from my riding and from the minister's own riding in northwestern Ontario.

Going back to the fact that we have been allocated a certain amount of time to speak to this bill, I will give the floor to the next speaker.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Just a few brief comments in respect to the motion we're dealing with, time allocation of the forestry bill: I think, Mr Speaker -- you can correct me if I'm wrong -- this is the fourth time allocation motion that we've been forced to deal with in four weeks of sittings this fall. It's a sad occasion, really, when you look at what's happened over the life of this government in respect to its efforts to curtail debate on very serious and important issues facing the people of Ontario. This is simply another example of it.

I don't have the precise number, but I think this is the 20th time allocation motion brought in by this government during its life in office, four and a half years.

If you just simply look at what happened with Bill 163, I think it was, earlier this week, yesterday as a matter of fact, a very important piece of legislation having a very significant impact on communities right across this province, we had time allocation of one hour on third reading -- one hour.

Next week we're dealing with time allocation on two other pieces of legislation. We're getting a grand total of two and a half hours per bill, two and a half hours to deal with extremely important pieces of legislation. When we talk about the long-term-care legislation, one that we've heard from thousands and thousands of Ontarians on in terms of expressions of concern, volunteer groups like the Red Cross and VON, as you know, Mr Speaker -- I'm sure you're receiving those kinds of entreaties from constituents in your area as well as the rest of us in this assembly.

But the government has seen fit to only sit for a very limited time this fall. We had certainly the longest break from the summer to the fall sitting that I've experienced in my 13 1/2 years as a member of this Legislature. Then we come back and sit for a grand total of I think it's 20 days, then we're breaking for an indefinite period, perhaps until an election some time next year, and we're being forced to accept very limited opportunities to debate extremely meaningful pieces of legislation.

What's the government's strategy in respect to this? It would appear that they don't want to face the heat or the critical scrutiny that they'd be forced to face if the House is sitting. They have no real agenda. It was indicated some months ago when a leaked document came out of the cabinet secretary's office, Mr Agnew, indicating that the government, the NDP, was going to have a very limited agenda, focus on a limited number of pieces of business and try to do damage control in respect to getting out in the public and trying to convince them that there's some merit in once again casting a ballot for the NDP.

I think that's a futile effort, but one that's going to cost us all millions and millions of dollars, as we see the government out handing out the cheques, government members. When we're not sitting on Fridays, you can always count, if you have a fax in your constituency office, 5:30, 6 o'clock on a Friday evening, we get these faxes pouring in from Jobs Ontario, NDP members in their ridings handing out cheques and making grand announcements.

Clearly this is a planned strategy, but one, as I said, that's going to be very futile indeed. The voters of Ontario made up their minds some time ago in respect to where the current government is going to go, and you're going out. I don't think there's any doubt about that, and if you really look closely at it, you'll accept that fate.

But it's surprising: The member for Etobicoke West and I were just having a discussion related to some of the members from the government side who come over and talk about their fortunes as they see them, and they clearly believe, in many instances, that they are going to be re-elected. I think that's a reflection of their naïveté, and perhaps it's a reflection of how voters generally are kind to less fortunate souls. In fact there's no question that the vast majority of members opposite are not going to be returning to this place, perhaps once we adjourn, if indeed we adjourn next week.

I'm not saying that trying to gloat over that fact or be arrogant about it in any way, shape or form. I don't know what my fortune is going to be at the polls come the next election. I have no real idea whether I'm going to be successful or not. But I think there's a clear message out there that this government and a vast majority of its members are not going to be re-elected. But that doesn't seem to have any impact in terms of backbenchers taking stands on issues like this attempt, another additional attempt, to cut off meaningful debate on very important issues.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since they're moving closure on practically every bill we're dealing with, maybe this government could see fit to have a quorum in this place.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Tannis Manikel): Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Runciman: I was talking about the futility of the government's efforts in its exercise and what it's doing in not having this House sit, not having members of Her Majesty's opposition afforded an opportunity to question this government on issues of the day through question period and through committees of the Legislature and through various other avenues that are available to us.

The government is cutting that off as well, cutting off those opportunities, cutting off debate in the limited time the House is sitting by motions such as this, but also cutting off opportunities on a daily basis, a weekly basis, for all of us on this side to raise those issues and concerns of Ontarians that are not being addressed by the government of the day, the NDP government.

Instead, they're out spending taxpayers' money, in effect borrowed money; as we know, this government is borrowing in the neighbourhood of $10 billion a year to finance its programs. When they leave office, the government that succeeds them, whichever party it is, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, is going to be faced with something in the neighbourhood of a $90-billion debt, with debt-servicing costs in the neighbourhood of $8 billion per year -- a scary thought indeed.

When the Conservative Party left office in 1985, we had a budget of $26 billion. Through the spend-and-tax years of the Liberals and the NDP, we now have a budget in excess of $55 billion a year. We get catcalls when we make propositions, proposals, like those that are contained in the Common Sense Revolution, which calls for cuts reducing the government budget to $49 billion a year. The NDP and the Liberals say that's scary: $49 billion, from $26 billion that we were spending in 1985.

We think the government can certainly be run very effectively and very efficiently on $49 billion a year and we can get our books back in order and balance this situation for the province of Ontario and lower taxes as well at the same time.

We're going to reduce the government by $6 billion. We're quite clear on that if you want to read the book. But this government is doing things like -- my leader, Mike Harris, today raised the question of spending by the government on its promotion of the tobacco bill. Who knows how many millions of dollars are being spent on that?

In January the Minister of Health is going to launch another initiative promoting the government in a new health card, which is going to cost the taxpayers another $7 million. That's the kind of money this government is throwing out the window instead of coming to grips with the real problems and the real issues of this province including, in a very significant fashion, the spending patterns of this government. This is a shameful day, a continuing series of shameful days, in this Legislature.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who is our Natural Resources critic, for sharing some of his time and for all the work he's done on this bill. I had the privilege of being with him this summer for some of the committee hearings in northeastern and northwestern Ontario. We thought it was time well spent.

Unfortunately, we just thought there should have been more time listening to the public, but I know my colleague the member from Algoma-Manitoulin has been working diligently in that resources committee since the summer, in the Legislature here, and going over clause-by-clause of this Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

It's very interesting to note, and I'd like to show the viewers at home, that basically the bill only makes up a few pages, but the regulations and the manuals that support this bill are this much material. Again I must salute our Natural Resources critic, Mike Brown, for going through this and sticking with this process. It's kind of sad that this process has been cut short.

It has been mentioned by previous speakers that this isn't the first time this process has been cut short through the invocation of closure. It's interesting to note that in our parliamentary history, invoking of closure was rather a rare and extraordinary device that governments used in order to precipitate the passing of bills. It was usually done in an emergency situation or after months and months of protracted debate that governments, being frustrated after that, felt that they'd have to go to that extreme.

I'm quite surprised that this is being done by this government, as it is known as being very good opposition when in opposition in this Legislature and would be very, very upset with closure motions or any type of time allocation. But this seems to be now the order of the day and that's what we're debating here, and in fact this particular government has used closure more than all governments in total up to this period of time. It's rather sad that we're at this at this point.

I want to use this time, though, rather constructively to talk specifically about the bill that this closure motion is about, because as a northerner from the riding of Timiskaming I feel that this forest sustainability bill is a very important piece of legislation in the province of Ontario, one I'm afraid, though, that I don't see any support for from either environmental communities or forest communities out there.

That gives Mr Brown and I and Mr Miclash, the member for Kenora, great, great concern as northerners, because we depend upon the forest industry for the livelihood of many, many of our constituents. It's very important, and we believe it will continue to be a very important industry in northern Ontario.

To get to the start of this, this bill is called the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. One of the main problems we have identified in the bill is that the word "sustainability" is not defined in the bill and that's what's causing great concern to all sides in this particular argument.

Both people in the environmental community and the forest industry are greatly concerned as to why "sustainability" is not defined and what that means. Until we get that, we're not prepared to give passage to this bill. In fact we will be voting against this particular legislation when it does come before us for third reading.

The question is, what is forest sustainability? How will ecosystems be defined, and what is an ecosystem-based management? These broad concepts are being put into this legislation but they're not being defined, and like other new concepts in the public sector vocabulary, we do not have very definitive

definitions as to what these things mean, so there's a lot of argument and a lot of concern.

I guess one of the points that the forest industry has been making to Mike Brown and to others in the committee is that in a very challenging international trade in forestry products, where countries, especially in Europe, are very concerned as to the sustainability practices of forestry in this country and other countries, they want to have some certainty as to what is the sustainable basis for forestry here if they will be welcome recipients of Ontario and Canadian forest products.

It is very important that we have very clear

definitions as to what our forestry industry is and how it is to act in the forests of northern Ontario and all of this province. That's a great concern, as we have environmental groups in Europe lobbying against governments to boycott forestry products from provinces of this country, and we in Ontario certainly don't want to get into that particular situation such as British Columbia found itself in last year. That's one of our major concerns.

Despite all the purposes and

definitions in there, the act does not define the concept of "forest sustainability," nor does the act indicate what type of forest ecosystem should be maintained within the management planning process. For example, the independent boreal forest audit revealed in its 1992 report that the composition of Ontario's forests is changing from stands dominated by softwood species to stands dominated by hardwood species. So what type of forest ecosystem should we maintain, the one that's growing up now or the one that was originally here?

Given the evolving nature of the forest, therefore, it's unclear how the concepts of sustainability and ecosystem-based management will be applied. We're very concerned about that because right now we're looking at quite a change in the products that our forest industry in northern Ontario produces.

I see the minister is here today, and of course he has been encouraging forestry plants to move on to oriented strandboard and other waferboard-type products that use what we used to call weed species such as poplar and aspen, so-called deciduous hardwood species, though they tend to be kind of a softwood, but where a lot of the market is evolving right now. This is kind of the concept we would want to understand. Are we talking about sustainability of new poplar forests that are growing up without the regeneration of the conifer forests? These things we'd like to have spelled out for us.

Another very important aspect of this bill is the forest renewal trust fund and the forest futures trust fund. This is with the new stumpage fee that's going to be set up to basically fund the reforestation of Ontario's forests.

Today my colleagues Mr Brown and Mr Miclash and I met with one of the former ministers of Northern Development and Mines, René Fontaine, the previous member from Cochrane North. One of the concerns the forest companies have in the Hearst area is that $6 a cunit that right now would be contributed to the forest renewal trust fund in their opinion is not enough to sustain the forest at the rate of the cutting today. That's a very big concern, and over the years we've seen unfortunately with this government the reduction in the amount of money that is spent on forest renewal.

Part of that I believe is the government has a belief that more and more natural regeneration can take place, and of course most of us in this House would like to see that. In an ideal world we would believe there could be more and more natural regeneration of our forests, but until we know we've proven that out and we have basically tailored and reformed our cutting techniques and our harvesting techniques so that we can have more effective natural reforestation, we're very concerned about the budgetary cuts of, if you will, artificial or tree-planting reforestation as we basically rely upon it today.

The idea of the forest renewal fund is to make sure the industry and government are contributors, and I think that's correct. We want to make sure the private sector that obviously gains a living and a livelihood and a profit hopefully from activities in the northern forest is also a stakeholder in the future of our forest, not only for their companies' livelihoods but for the livelihoods of the people in northern Ontario such as my constituents in Timiskaming, who really depend upon the forest industry for their livelihood.

We have some great concerns about how much money is going to be going into this renewal fund. Will there be enough money from the annual crown dues assessed to the companies in order to make sure this fund is fully financed so that we'll have proper funding in order to provide replanting that's necessary for Ontario's forests?

As I said before, the government's record on reforestation is very poor in the last four years and we're really having grave doubts that this particular forest renewal trust fund is going to supply sufficient funds to do the job that we think is there, because we need to have a little bit of catch-up involved in the cutting that we have done.

The forest industry has come before us, and also many of the environmental groups, and made presentations to an all-party committee this summer and through this fall session. Our great concern is, as I said before, that we don't seem to have any sort of consensus from any part of the industry or any of the stakeholders involved in the forest industry that they are supportive at all.

Our opinion from the Liberal caucus is that the government should be reviewing this act and should be taking into account some of the very constructive criticisms that were brought forward and the ideas that were brought forward in committee.

Unfortunately, and I've confirmed this with our Natural Resources critic, I have not seen any amendments that came from any of the public consultation process that had occurred in August and September of this year, and that's really a shame, because we spent a lot of good taxpayers' money trying to consult with people about this bill. I would've hoped that the government had an open mind about this bill, and I guess the government had such an open mind it had some of its own amendments put forward, but I didn't see any that were generated from any of the public discussions that we had. It was kind of sad that they really weren't listening to what was going on.

We have seen, in the last five years, basically many processes that have tried to examine what has been happening in our crown forests, and I know this is a concern not just for northern members who really directly depend on the livelihood of the forest industry for our constituents, but I find with great interest as I travel through southern Ontario that people right across this province are very, very interested and very concerned about what's happening in our forests throughout Ontario.

It's looked upon as being a resource not for just us northerners but for the province of Ontario, and I suppose that even though we don't have rain forests, the great boreal forests of northern Ontario are in some small way looked upon as being a smaller set of lungs for the planet, just as the great rain forests of the Amazon are. So everybody's very concerned, not just as a source of wood fibre to feed industry, but also on the environmental side, that the boreal forest of northern Ontario also is a great resource to supply oxygen to the planet.

We have received comments from people from all over the map of Ontario and from all sides of the issue, and as I said before, there doesn't seem to b