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

May 31, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CULTURAL CELEBRATIONS

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

GAMES FOR THE DISABLED

BOATING SAFETY

SPECIAL ABILITY RIDING INSTITUTE

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

IDA NUDEL

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

VISITORS

PORNOGRAPHY

EMERGENCY SERVICES

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

PORNOGRAPHY

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

EDUCATION FINANCING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

SOCIAL CONTRACT

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

TOBACCO PACKAGING

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CULTURAL CELEBRATIONS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to rise today to invite the public and members to visit Cornwall over the next month to enjoy the festivities of French Week and the Multicultural Festival.

Every year, francophones celebrate their heritage and achievements in Ontario during the parade, dances and other cultural activities. This year's theme focuses on the importance of the family unit. I hope that entire families will be taking

part in the festivities from June 18 to 25.

Franco-Ontarians are a strong and proud group in my riding and I am happy to be able to congratulate them and wish them all the best for a successful 32nd annual celebration.

I would like to also highlight the 12th annual Multicultural Festival, scheduled for June 26 of this year. The festival is a showcase of music, dance and international cuisine, reflecting the importance of all peoples who have helped make Canada the great nation that it is today.

With generous sponsorship from local industry and service clubs, there will be participation from 24 groups including delegations from Israel, Vietnam, Latin America, Italy and many others.

The organizers are expecting 10,000 visitors this year. I invite the public and all members to consider joining in the fun of both cultural celebrations.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise today to acknowledge an extraordinary achievement for Canadian nuclear technology. On April 10, Pickering unit 7 broke the world record for continuous on-line operation of a nuclear generator.

Unit 7 broke the old record of 713 days set by Oldbury 1, a British nuclear reactor. The Pickering unit has not only surpassed a world record, but will register a new and prominent accomplishment in the annals of international history. In fact, unit 7 is performing so well that it is not scheduled to be taken off-line for yet another four months.

This success is attributed to both Canada's leading-edge technology in nuclear generation and the hardworking men and women who see to the safe day-to-day operation of this unit.

I commend the employees at the Pickering station for demonstrating a superb commitment to team work, to safety and to excellence. I think all members will be pleased to know that no maintenance or safety measures were spared in pursuit of this performance record.

In closing, I ask every member of this House to recognize this accomplishment and to support the world's greatest nuclear generating system.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I oppose the construction of a medium-security unit at Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

I acknowledge the shortage of secure facilities for people with psychiatric disabilities who have run afoul of the law. I also acknowledge that the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, with nearly 500 treatment beds and significant outpatient services, is a long-standing and essential medical service.

However, I can find no excuse for the way in which community consultation has been handled. No one told the vast majority of residents and elected officials about this facility. In fact, the Toronto Sun is now the primary source of information for the community. We are told several community meetings were held. These, however, must have been very quiet meetings. One straightforward letter about this project filled a gymnasium with angry local residents.

The community's reaction to the complete lack of consultation has been a definite no to the project.

In the absence of consultation, the proper response of my colleague Minister Grier must be to halt the construction of the unit, engage in a meaningful consultation and listen to what the community recommends.

GAMES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have more pleasant news to report to the House. I had the pleasure, this Saturday past, to attend the north and eastern regional games for the disabled that were held in New Liskeard at the high school, école secondaire Sainte-Marie. It was a very cold and brisk day in New Liskeard and high winds did hamper the athletes, but it was a very successful event. We had 80 to 90 athletes from all across eastern and northern Ontario come to New Liskeard and participate.

There were some extraordinary achievements accomplished this weekend in New Liskeard in regard to that. Two I would like to highlight: one ex-resident of Timiskaming and one present constituent of mine.

The first is Martin Larocque, who was a resident of Timiskaming and has now moved from North Bay to Toronto, works out of the Phoenix Track Club here in Toronto, and by the way, is practising for the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. He won the 800-metre race, the 400-metre race and the 200-metre race.

Also, from the small village of Thornloe in my riding of Timiskaming, Adam Miller won the 1,500-metre race and the shot-put. He was also runner-up in the 200-, 400- and 800-metre races.

It was a joy to see all these people up in New Liskeard and very keen to participate. It was a great day for all. Many of them are going to go on to the All-Ontarians in Windsor in a couple of weeks.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the need to promote boating safety and education on Ontario's waterways.

Last year I reintroduced private member's Bill 41,

An Act to provide for the Certification of Motor Boat Operators. It is aimed at increasing public awareness of the need for boater safety and education courses. I am an avid boater and I know there is a real problem with careless and uninformed operation of motor boats.

I regret that both the Liberal and NDP governments have chosen to jeopardize the safety of boaters in Ontario by failing to recognize the importance of my bill. However, I am gratified that there are organizations that realize boating need not be dangerous, provided the operator acquires basic knowledge and takes reasonable precautions.

The Boat Pro Manual is a joint publication of the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons and the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association. The $10 manual is designed to present boating information in an easy format, recognizing that safety on the water is the prime factor. Copies can be obtained by calling, toll free, 1-800-268-3579.

The Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a Marine Safety Awareness Show at Tudhope Park on June 11 and 12. Police and marine safety agencies will be on hand to provide information on everything you need to know -- before you need to know it. I commend these organizations for joining me in trying to put an end to needless recreational boating accidents. Injuries and deaths that occur on our popular waterways need not happen, but this Marine Safety Awareness Show will, I hope, help that.

SPECIAL ABILITY RIDING INSTITUTE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I brought in one of my sneakers to show you my new fully automatic, self-tying electric shoelaces and to tell you I bought them at a SARI fund-raiser on May 15. SARI, the Special Ability Riding Institute, located at Route 1, Arva, Ontario, in my riding, is a non-profit organization which was formed in 1978 to provide instruction in horseback riding and driving to persons with physical, developmental, psychological or learning disabilities.

While participation in some sports may be denied to people with disabilities, horseback riding can be adapted appropriately in most cases. People participating in this sport have reported many benefits, such as increased balance and coordination, improved confidence and a sense of achievement.

Applicants, who are referred by their doctors, may be any age. Lessons are designed to meet their specific needs, and instructors are fully trained according to standards set by the Canadian Therapeutic Riding Association. Volunteers are trained to help in classes and are an essential part of this most beneficial program.

SARI relies on the support of individuals and groups in order to raise operating funds, so I'd like to tell members here, and anyone interested, that they need not be consumed by jealousy regarding my electric shoelaces. They can have a pair of laces for a mere $4, in any number of shocking colours, by contacting SARI at 666-1123 at Route 1, Arva, in my riding.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In recent weeks I've had the pleasure to attend at a couple of OPP community policing launches in my constituency in eastern Ontario, last week in the village of Beachburg and a few weeks before that up in Algonquin Park. I want to commend the communities that have been involved with the Ontario Provincial Police in providing a very important service that brings the face of our provincial police to small communities in my part of the province.

I want to say that, as one member in the Legislature, I have been finding particularly in my part of the province, and I know other members have from their point of view, a growing concern about public safety not just in large communities like where I live in the city of Pembroke, but in smaller communities like Beachburg and Foresters Falls and Cobden and many other places across the eastern part of the province and the rest of Ontario.

I want to congratulate the OPP for bringing this initiative to the streets of small towns and rural townships, because I think it is important that we in this Legislature understand the pressures under which the Ontario Provincial Police are now operating. I'm hearing in my constituency, and my colleagues elsewhere, in southwestern, in northern, elsewhere in central and eastern Ontario, are hearing alarming reports about the constraints with which the OPP is operating.

I have growing reason to believe that these budgetary constraints are seriously impairing and impeding the ability of our excellent OPP to meet the public safety requirements that are properly theirs in large centres and in rural communities.

IDA NUDEL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today I want to express appreciation to the Ontario Legislature from Ida Nudel.

During the 1980s, all three parties -- the NDP with Marion Bryden, the Liberals with Monte Kwinter and myself -- served as co-chairs of the legislative committee for Soviet Jewry.

We worked closely with the Jewish community in the Toronto area to fight for human rights for Jews in the USSR. The persecution of Jews was acute. When a Jew applied for an exit visa, not only was it refused, but the applicant was identified by the KGB for persecution.

These refuseniks, as they were called, lost their jobs, lost their homes, were sent to remote work camps, and many died. The Ontario legislative committee for Soviet Jewry adopted Ida Nudel as a refusenik who epitomized the plight of Soviet Jews.

For years we met and sent letters to senior Soviet officials. We presented the Ida Nudel award to leading human rights activists in Ontario and Canada. In 1988, Ida Nudel was given an exit visa from the USSR and immigrated to Israel.

Last week, when Ida was in Toronto at the home of Eric and Marsha Slavens, I asked her, "Did we in Ontario make a difference?" She responded: "Yes. I would not be alive today were it not for the media attention that you gave me. Many of my friends were killed, but I am alive because of you."

To all who helped fight the battle for human rights, for refuseniks like Ida Nudel, I say thank you. May we keep up the battle for the other Ida Nudels around the world where their human rights are being oppressed.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Watch out Doug Henning and David Copperfield. There's a new kid on the block with an amazing new disappearing act. His name? Michael -- "call me Mike" -- Harris, aka Mike the Magnifico. In a blink of an eye, Mike the Magnifico made the entire Ontario Progressive Conservative Party disappear. Yep, just like that.

During his recent non-election bus tour of Ontario, the PC logo was nowhere to be found, not on his bus, not on his pamphlets, nowhere. Simply amazing. And during his whirlwind non-election tour, Mike the Magnifico told everyone who came to his big tent that he will cut taxes by 30%, slash government spending by 20%, and at the same time balance the budget and create 750,000 new jobs. Wow. Anybody who accepts all that at face value is probably a major investor in the Brooklyn Bridge.

During his grand tour, Mike the Magnifico honoured the town of Dundas with his presence. He took time from his busy magic act to tell us he wants to inject the private sector into operating health care. He talked about making health care costs more competitive in the private sector. Perhaps he should take his dog and pony show down to the States and view just what their health care system is all about.

Now, my fellow Ontarians, can you figure out what Mike the Magnifico's next disappearing act will be? Yep, you guessed it. As quickly as he made the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party disappear, he is planning to do the same with our universal health care system. Mike, what a guy.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming some special guests to our assembly this afternoon. Seated in the Speaker's gallery are members of the consular corps who are posted here in Toronto, representing quite a number of countries. I invite members to welcome the members of the consular corps to our chamber this afternoon. Welcome.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The presiding officer might get together a search party and see if you can find a government to which questions might be directed.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. However, it is now time for oral questions. Is there someone from the official opposition who wishes to pose a question? The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The minister to whom I wish to direct my first question has entered the House, so I will place my question to the Solicitor General.

Minister, all of us I think were shocked by the story we read today, by the evidence and the events that are being brought to light in the London Police force's investigation of a child pornography ring in that particular city.

As you will undoubtedly know, the chief of police and his officers have been investigating that child pornography and prostitution ring since last December. They have made, to date, some 30 arrests. The chief has now indicated publicly that the problem is more widespread than he had realized and that he simply does not have the resources to be able to deal with it. Their investigation has led the chief to conclude that a provincial task force is required to deal with what you would term the shocking proliferation of child pornography in Ontario.

Minister, do you agree that this provincial task force is needed and, if so, will you move immediately to set up such a task force?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I thank the member for this important and timely question. I can advise members of the House that I have this morning spoken with Chief Fantino myself, and he apprised me of the situation and the circumstances in London, talked with me about his concern that it reaches beyond the jurisdiction of his particular police service, and advised me further that he has spoken to senior officers of other police services. Senior members of my ministry staff have also been approached and he has had dialogue with them.

The upshot of it all is that the chief is seeking to submit a proposal to my ministry that we become involved in a JFO, a joint forces operation. I have advised him that of course there are mechanisms for such a proposal and such approvals, that my ministry officials have been advised to respond as quickly as possible, as soon as that proposal is submitted, and the chief has advised me that he is indeed putting together that detailed proposal. My officials will receive it shortly. We'll move on it expeditiously.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we're obviously concerned that the London police chief not only says that the magnitude of the problem that he's been investigating is beyond what he is able to manage, but that indeed there is evidence that it spreads to other jurisdictions, including Toronto and other communities across the province.

I have to assume that the London police chief has talked with you about this concern before this, at least that your ministry has been looking at it before this. This investigation has been going on since December. There has certainly been a public awareness that this particular investigation was taking place.

I have to also assume that you have talked with other police chiefs in other jurisdictions and that they have talked to you. This is surely not the kind of problem that we wait until it reaches proportions where a police chief is having to say publicly that it is beyond his control before you, as the minister responsible for policing, are ready to take some action to provide the support that's needed.

Can you tell me, Minister, how long you have been aware of this problem, what you believe the magnitude of the problem to be and what actions you have taken as minister to deal with this problem up to this date?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I believe that the honourable member is not characterizing the position of the police chief in an accurate fashion. I don't believe that there's any sense that the matter is out of control. In fact the chief has assured me in our discussions that the matter is under control. I believe, based on my discussions with him, that the London Police have acted appropriately and I believe that they have dealt adequately.

The issue now is whether or not it goes beyond the jurisdiction of one particular police chief. There are processes in place for chiefs to make proposals to the ministry for such joint forces operations undertakings. There is nothing unusual about that. I want to say very clearly and very emphatically that this is not a question of anything being out of control, particularly where Chief Fantino is concerned.

While I believe he has done an excellent job in leading his police service in dealing with this issue, what has happened is a properly, orderly movement of the issue to the point where he feels that he needs to involve other police services. We have the mechanism for that. He has had the dialogue with my ministry officials. He is prepared to submit his proposal. My ministry officials await that detailed proposal, and I have assured the chief that it will be acted on quickly.

Mrs McLeod: My concern in raising the question is quite clearly to be sure that the London police chief and other police chiefs across this province get the support they need for what is a truly horrifying problem, and get the support they need in a timely way. I don't understand why the police chief should have to make his concerns known in a public session if the minister responsible is indeed working closely with the police forces to help them deal with the kinds of issues they are facing.

The question I am asking, Minister, is, what have you been aware of and what action have you been taking to provide our police forces with the support they need to deal with this problem?

I understand that there is a project called Project P, the anti-pornography squad of the OPP, which has made child pornography its number one priority for 1994. Clearly your anti-pornography squad has said that this is a major problem, but that, as I understand it, is a six-person squad that has the responsibility of dealing with all of the issues related to pornography across the province.

What Chief Fantino would appear to be calling for, and what his evidence says is needed, is a very focused, very aggressive approach on dealing with this absolutely appalling problem of child pornography and prostitution.

Minister, I ask you, do you think this six-person squad is sufficient to deal with this problem? If you do not, will you give us an absolute assurance today that you will make sure the police are given the resources they need to deal quickly and effectively with what could only be described as horrendous abuse of our children?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Firstly, let me ensure that I convey the fact that I think all members of this House and in my ministry believe that these types of issues need to be addressed vigorously and thoroughly and are absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable. We all need to do everything we can.

I would, however, again, because I think that the member may do an injustice to Chief Fantino, caution her on how the member describes the approach that the chief has taken, the motivation for the position taken by the chief and the process. I've spoken with the chief and I would suggest to the honourable member that this is not a question of a problem in terms of policing resources; this is a question of leadership.

The leadership of the police in London have said they are now at the point where they believe that, based on precedents in the past, they have an issue that justifies them making a proposal to this ministry for a joint forces operation, which means certain things will come into place, all the things that the member is talking about. That is the way the process works.

I have assured the chief that when we receive his detailed proposal -- and I understand he's having discussions with senior officers from other police services -- we will move on it expeditiously. I've spoken to senior members of the ministry, my staff in the ministry, to ensure that happens.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response quickly, please.

Hon Mr Christopherson: My last point is the fact that the member knows also that questions of whether or not investigations should happen are not made by the responsible civilian parties such as myself. They are made by the police experts, and therefore there is a process in place within the ministry to deal with joint forces operations proposals. That is what will happen. I do assure the member that we will act on this as the priority that it is.

Mrs McLeod: I trust that we remember that we're talking about kids and pornography and prostitution and that the answer and response will be immediate and effective.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question to the Minister of Health. Once again I want to raise the issue of emergency care in small rural hospitals and northern hospitals in Ontario. I would stress the word "again" because we have a continued inability to take the action that's necessary to resolve the kind of crises that are facing hospitals in rural and northern Ontario.

Yesterday the Ontario Hospital Association released a survey that showed that some 40 hospitals -- small rural and northern hospitals -- are topping off doctors' salaries in order to keep their emergency wards open. The minister is well aware that those hospitals have to take those payments out of their global budgets which are used to run the entire hospital.

Minister, I wonder how long you've been aware that this kind of topping up out of the global budgets is taking place. What does that mean to the access to health care in hospitals in rural and northern Ontario? How many bed closures has that meant? How many fewer nurses has that meant?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I welcome the opportunity to discuss once again an issue that is of real importance not just to the Leader of the Opposition but certainly to those of us on this side and to my members from rural and northern Ontario.

It is not a new issue. The topping up of doctors' salaries is not new. It has been happening in small rural hospitals for quite some time. That was why I was delighted that last August we were able to arrive at an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association that capped our payments to physicians at $3.85 billion, and that within that we would begin to discuss with the OMA and with the Ontario Hospital Association how best there could be some redistribution within that budget to make sure that physicians covering emergency rooms in small rural hospitals were paid in a way that made it worth their while to go.

In the current fee-for-service system, if they only see one or two emergency patients a night, they have decided to withdraw their services because they don't make enough to warrant being there. We think that's a very serious problem. We set up a tripartite committee. The OMA withdrew from that committee in February and, as I informed the House yesterday, I'm delighted that they now have agreed to come back and sit down with the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry. I'm very confident that with goodwill on all sides we can resolve the issue once and for all.

Mrs McLeod: Obviously you're the Minister of Health. You're ultimately responsible for ensuring access to quality health care across this province. My question was about what impact the topping up of doctors' salaries in order to keep emergency wards open is having on health care provided in those hospitals.

I agree that you and your government negotiated the agreements with the Ontario Medical Association. I agree that you put in place the budgets for the Ontario hospitals and the hospital association. I think you have a responsibility to understand the impact of those agreements and to be willing to step in and try and resolve any problems that have been created because of them. Both the OHA and the OMA have said that they're willing to sit down and resolve the issue. They want to go back to the table. They want to go back with the Ministry of Health as a full partner in resolving the issue.

Minister, I ask then, are you really prepared to negotiate with the OHA and the OMA? If so, tell us when that meeting will happen and whether you will accept the responsibility for calling that meeting immediately.

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition seems to misunderstand what has been happening. We have always been at the table. The Ontario Hospital Association has always been prepared to be at the table. The Ontario Medical Association withdrew from the table in February. Now the Ontario Medical Association has agreed to come back to the discussions. We are attempting to convene a meeting just as soon as we possibly can.

The Ontario Hospital Association has suggested that there be a 60-day framework for negotiations. I have certainly indicated to my officials that whatever it takes to meet that kind of a deadline in terms of the number of meetings and trying to do it as expeditiously as possible is what we are anxious to see.

I have to say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, though, that the luxury that her government had of throwing money at the problem is not one that we have. We have committed ourselves --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): You signed the deal with the Mount Forest doctors.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- to $3.85 billion a year for physicians. We believe that within that, it is important to begin to do some reallocation --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- so that rural residents of this province, northern residents of this province, get the health care that they deserve and have a right to.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the question here is, when is this going to be resolved, how long is this pending crisis going to go on and what is happening to health care in these hospitals while these endless negotiations or non-negotiations continue? That's the question we keep putting forward.

It's not just about negotiations and bargaining tables and it's not just about what association has what responsibility for administering what budget. The question we want you to respond to is a question about health care. It's about people's need to have access to the health care they need when they need that care. It's about a car accident on a northern highway at 3 o'clock in the morning and people being sure that they're not going to arrive at the nearest hospital and find that there's a "Closed" sign on the door of the emergency ward. That's what this is really all about and that's what we're asking you to address.

People have a right to expect --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Why don't you do something about it?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Mrs McLeod: -- that they can get that essential emergency care when they need it, where they need it, regardless of what community they happen to live in. It is a fact that --

The Speaker: Could the leader please place a question.

Mrs McLeod: -- at least 40 small rural hospitals are now struggling to provide that very basic essential emergency care while you wait to convene a meeting and attempt to resolve the problem.

I ask you, how long do you believe that these hospitals can continue to cope by siphoning off their global budgets? What advice are you giving to these small rural and northern hospitals to deal with the crisis in the meantime? Will you assure them that at the end of all this they will not have to make decisions that jeopardize health care in every aspect of their hospital simply in order to make sure that people have access to essential emergency care?

Hon Mrs Grier: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is about people's care, people's care in their communities, people's care in their small rural hospitals, people who have a right and have an expectation that their physicians will be there for them to provide that care whether they need it at 3 o'clock in the afternoon or 3 o'clock in the morning. What we are coping with is physicians who have said, "We won't be there at 3 in the morning, because we're paid on the basis of how many people we see, and that doesn't generate enough income to justify us being there at 3 in the morning."

I think it is a very serious problem, one, let me say, that the previous government in five years didn't find a way of resolving, but one that can be resolved if there is goodwill on the part of the physicians and on the part of the hospitals, and I believe there is. I believe that we can now begin to resolve it, a problem that has been there for a very long time and that the people of this province want resolved, and we're prepared to try to resolve it.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I want to ask you about a lengthy investigation into the ministry of corrections operation through the Elizabeth Fry Society in Hamilton and allegations of misuse of funds, conflict of interest, lesbian sexual assault and serious violations of the parole supervisor-parolee relationship.

We're advised that the investigators' review was completed and delivered to the ministry of corrections either January or February of this year. Minister, can you advise us if the report made any reference to a requirement for matters being referred to the police? If so, what have you done in respect to that? Also, did the review contain any information requiring administrative action by the ministry? If so, what have you done in that respect?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): Yes, I am certainly aware of the review that is taking place. The recommendations and the report itself from the reviewing panel or individuals have been received by the funders. There's more than one funder, as I'm sure the member knows, that provides the budget money to the Elizabeth Fry Society, and collectively all of the funders are a part of this review, and they are the ones that are receiving these recommendations.

I understand that the discussions between the authors of the report and the funding partners is still under way. In fact, as recently as within the next week or few days even, there will be further meetings between the funders and the authors to review the report, and I expect the funders will make recommendations to their parent bodies on actions that should be taken.

Mr Runciman: Essentially the minister evaded answering my question. I asked him a very specific question in respect to matters raised in that report that required involvement of the police or required administrative changes, and he did not respond specifically to those questions. In my view, if he refuses and continues to refuse to answer those questions, he's participating in a coverup of what occurred at the Hamilton Elizabeth Fry Society.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Yes, take a hike. That's the kind of response we get from this minister.

I'll reiterate my questions in respect to police matters. This has been ongoing for some time. We're talking about very serious allegations and some victims involved in this. Who is the minister representing in this instance as the top police officer in the province? His chief of staff, one Darlene Lawson, is a former executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society in Toronto and a friend of Terri-Lee Seeley, the executive director of the Hamilton Elizabeth Fry Society.

I ask the minister once more, are matters in this report critical enough to be referred to the police? If so, have you done it? If not, why not? What has been the role of your chief of staff in this whole matter?

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, I don't think it does the honourable member of this House any credibility whatsoever to be tossing around terms like "coverup" as lightly as he likes to do, simply seeking a cheap headline, when the reality is that there's no such evidence whatsoever.

I have said to the honourable member where we are in terms of the process. It's the funding group that received the report. If I were to have taken action that precipitated the receiving and review by those funders, the honourable member would have been on his feet accusing me of interfering in an arm's-length relationship and would link that to Lord knows what other kind of conspiracy he could throw together with flimsy ideas and very little fact. That is the fact. That is where the process is. He knows that.

In terms of the specific question about my chief of staff, my chief of staff had absolutely no role at all involved in the development; the report itself was done by independent investigators, including the federal government, and they were responsible to the funding group.

I would very quickly and emphatically suggest to him that he's trying to generate cheap headlines. It's disappointing to see somebody who at times has great credibility throw it away on this kind of slimy stuff.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister was doing fine until the last few words. I know the minister would not want to use language that is provocative in the House and I know he would wish to withdraw those last couple of comments and allow his colleague to place his final supplementary.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I certainly, and of course, withdraw anything I said that was unparliamentary.

Mr Runciman: The minister's feigned indignation doesn't impress anyone; we're used to that kind of response.

In respect to very serious allegations, about sexual assault especially, I would think that the top cop in the province would as his first priority be concerned about victims and ensure that the police were called in in those kinds of situations, and not suggest to us and the people of Ontario that he's going to draw in all the funding groups and get their advice when those kinds of allegations are brought to his attention. He has a responsibility, and he's not following through on it.

I would suggest -- and I'm not using cheap political rhetoric -- that in fact this reeks of government protection of political friends of the government. It reeks. The minister's chief of staff, Darlene Lawson, is the former executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto and a close friend of Terri-Lee Seeley, the Hamilton executive director at the centre of this investigation. The reason your ministry has been so lax in following through on this is, I suggest, Mr Minister, that you're protecting your political friends.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Runciman: The minister suggested his chief of staff has not been involved. The people in Hamilton say that when they've tried to contact the minister in respect to this matter, those calls are referred to Darlene Lawson's office. Have you required Ms Lawson to withdraw from any dealings in respect of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Hamilton?

Hon Mr Christopherson: With regard to the direct question the honourable member asks, at the outset of this I had a discussion with my chief of staff to ensure that she had no involvement at all that could in any way lend any credence to the kind of allegations that I knew certain members of the House might try. Therefore I am very satisfied, particularly knowing the individual in question, who is one of the most honest individuals I have ever met. I would stand behind her integrity any day, every day, all day. I do in this case also.

Let me just say that if guilt by association were to be true and that's how you were found guilty, the Tory party in Ontario would never have survived four months in government, let alone 40 years. Let's get off this. Look at the facts, look at the process. Everything is aboveboard, it's being done the way it ought to be, and I'm absolutely satisfied that things are being done appropriately.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Solicitor General. Mr Minister, the child pornography trade is spreading across the province. You're very much aware, from the questions this afternoon, that it's a tremendous concern. We know a lot about it in London, and we'd like it stopped. We know that 30 people have been arrested, and, you should know, with London resources, four in Metropolitan Toronto.

These young children are vulnerable and are being victimized by these predators and, sadly, sometimes by people in positions of trust to children. It's a community issue and the communities in Ontario want these people put out of business. I wasn't satisfied with your response this afternoon to the question, and I would like to ask you to respond again in another way.

I know you're looking for a proposal, but you're the Solicitor General. You're asking that communities tell you of their concerns, either elected representatives or police forces. So my question today is, are you going to say yes to this proposal, and when can we expect it to begin?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): First of all, let me say that I appreciate the role the honourable member plays in this area in terms of the leadership she's providing. I know she is very concerned about this, and in my discussions with Chief Fantino, certainly that reflected his view of the way the honourable member was conducting herself in her riding and in her community.

I appreciate the question she's asking and the reason for it, but I must say again -- and I would ask honourable members to be very, very clear on hearing this response -- that this is not a question of Chief Fantino saying that things are out of control, that he can't handle it and is hollering for Queen's Park to step in. That is not the case at all. Chief Fantino has done an excellent job in providing leadership to his police service. I suspect the honourable member would be prepared to make that statement herself. The London Police service has done an excellent job.

The issue now, however, is that it does go beyond the boundaries of one particular police service. We have a process in the ministry for dealing with those types of issues. The process involves submitting a proposal. There's nothing unusual about that, and I would say very sincerely to the honourable member that were I in this case to do anything different --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- than the established procedures, I would be doing a great disservice to the expertise and the professionalism that policing and police decisions around joint forces operations would have. I would ask the honourable member to check with Chief Fantino himself to see if there is any variation between what I am saying here today and what he would say to the honourable member.

Mrs Cunningham: Well, I did speak to Chief Fantino this morning, and I can only quote what he said. I think everybody in this province respects the leadership of this particular police chief and others across the province, but he did say, and I'll quote, "This whole thing begs for a concerted effort." He's saying this is the kind of issue that is not being dealt with in many communities.

In London, we have put all our resources into this issue, to try to turn every stone, try to find every victim, to talk to families and to track down these predators. That's what we've done. The search is far beyond London now, and he's saying, and I'll underline again, that dealing with this has to be a priority right across the province and it has to be dealt with now.

This police chief, Julian Fantino, does not speak lightly on this issue. I think he is taking a stronger stand than what you've stated. I do know that he respects process. If you're the Solicitor General, you can speed up the process. You can predetermine the need. You can tell all of us in this Legislative Assembly that you will be supporting this proposal and that you know it's necessary. That's what I'm looking for: not only a yes for speeding up the process --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mrs Cunningham: -- but a time frame. Announce in this House when you expect to have this study done.

Hon Mr Christopherson: With great respect to the honourable member, I think there is nothing at all lacking in this, and if she can find someone who wants to suggest to the contrary within the policing community, I'd be prepared to respond to that. The fact of the matter is that the London Police service has done an excellent job of dealing with this issue, as far as it could. It has gone beyond their boundaries, and that means we need to bring in other police services.

The member will also know that we do have a permanent unit dealing with pornography in the province, Project P, which involves OPP officers and Metro officers and others as required, and the chief is suggesting that there needs to be a tie-in here, but there does need to be a formal joint forces operation. That is not unusual. Some joint forces operations are known about publicly, some are not. It depends on the need the police have, which is why it's a police matter, not unlike a decision for a police chief initiating an investigation or concluding an investigation. Those decisions are made by police experts at arm's length from the civilian accountability --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- and that is what happens in this place. However, I have spoken to my senior officials and given assurances to Chief Fantino that the proposal will be received as a priority, it will be treated as a priority, it will be expedited, and Chief Fantino has assured me that he was satisfied with the actions I've taken to date. If there's anything different from that, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it.

Mrs Cunningham: I will then assume that the minister will be reporting back to the House soon, maybe within the next couple of weeks, on the status of a province-wide police task force in the province of Ontario with regard to the child pornography trade. I look forward to that announcement. There are many communities that should not be smug and comfortable with regard to the issue of child pornography, and it's the kind of thing that people do feel comfortable about because it's just so awful that they don't know where to start.

It's widespread, and victims are traumatized for life. Some of the children in London have been as young as eight years of age. I have to tell you right now that these children -- two words. They become dysfunctional, which we've all been talking about in committees of this Legislative Assembly in the last couple of weeks, and communities may eventually have to support them in so many ways.

Because you feel, I know, that your ministry and boards of education must add their deep concern to education policies for violence-free schools and because the Ministry of Education is probably going to be making an announcement in that regard on Thursday, will you instruct the Minister of Education to include in his announcement and his guidelines for safe school communities -- I think they're going to be released on Thursday and I may not be here. So we can have a community response to violence and maintain not just safe schools but whole communities, will you ask him to insert this as one of the issues of concern in his guidelines: community education?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm certainly prepared to talk to the Minister of Education about any matter that could have an implication for his ministry as it overlaps with mine. I can't speak to the specifics she raises, since they are primarily at this point an Education ministry-driven matter.

Let me say this to her: If in the course of dealing with this issue, either locally in her community or on a province-wide basis as the result of a JFO being started, there are any matters that need to be brought up with the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Community and Social Services or any other ministry in this government, we will deal with that as a priority.

I think she would agree that all members in this House share a concern when it comes to our children and the abuse that takes place in these kinds of cases. She has my personal commitment that we will deal with this thoroughly, adequately and in an acceptably timely fashion.

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Minister, there is some understanding, or at the very least some very widespread rumours, that despite a 30% vacancy rate in the city of Toronto, TVOntario is currently contemplating pursuing plans to build a brand-new office tower in the heart of Toronto's downtown. Minister, will you tell us today that this simply cannot be true? If by any chance it is, would you tell us what possible justification there could be for even contemplating such an expenditure?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): There is no decision yet made for TVO to move. Should there be such a decision, it will be based on it being a better deal for taxpayers than what TVO now pays for its rent today.

Mrs McLeod: I can hardly believe that the minister didn't simply assure us that nobody would even contemplate building a new office tower for a government agency in downtown Toronto, particularly when we've just been talking about hospitals across the province struggling to provide emergency care.

May I remind the minister of the fiasco that occurred the last time this government decided it needed a new building? The government spent $180 million on a new building for the Workers' Compensation Board that it could not afford. The auditor was critical of it and critical of the government's role in letting that project go ahead.

The only things that have changed since the decision was made to build that building are that the vacancy rate in the city has increased, the government is much poorer, and critical services this government provides are being cut.

Minister, will you tell us, if this is a business plan, what could possibly justify such an expenditure and how much would the expenditure be? Would you at least tell us that no matter how much it is, it is still too much?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Under both of the predecessor governments to this one, TVO has been paying very high rent for very poor facilities. TVO has a great need for improved broadcast facilities. Their lease is coming to expiry. It makes every bit of sense that TVO should be looking for facilities that will finally meet its needs at a far better deal than it's been paying Moog in the building it's been in under the Tories, who negotiated it in the first place, and then under the Liberals before us.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday the minister announced that Peat Marwick Thorne, led by Ronald Hikel, will conduct a comprehensive review of MTHA. In her statement the minister said, "Mr Hikel will work closely with the MTHA board of directors and its staff during this process of change."

However, the MTHA board of directors and senior management are part of the ongoing serious problems at the agency. Vance Latchford, chair of the board's tender review committee, said in a recent memo to the minister that MTHA staff withheld key information the board needed to make decisions about the improper performance of contractors who continue to receive large contracts.

Given these allegations that staff have blocked the board's efforts to do its job, how can the public be certain that the auditors will have access to all the information they need to form a complete picture of the management of MTHA?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It is precisely because of the questions that have been raised by members of the board, by members of staff of MTHA and, most important, by residents who live in MTHA communities that we have asked Peat Marwick Thorne to undertake the review of MTHA operations.

The member for Mississauga South asks the question, how can we be sure that all information will be available? I can assure her, I can assure members of the board, I can assure staff and I can assure residents that it is my will, and it will be monitored by me, that any information required by Peat Marwick Thorne in the execution of its undertaking on behalf of our government will be met.

Mrs Marland: That's not very assuring for us, because this minister also had assured us all along that there wasn't a problem at MTHA.

I'd like to remind the minister that the vice-chair of MTHA, Anne Smith, has also complained that MTHA staff has kept information from the board. Ms Smith says, "Senior management has withheld such basic information as staff resignations." There are also allegations that another board member is being harassed and intimidated by the board chair and by the general manager.

There continues to be a shroud of secrecy over the agency. At the MTHA board meeting on May 17, the board chair, Pat O'Neill, did not release the internal audits to the board members, even though many outsiders already had received leaked copies of the audits. Instead, the members received a synopsis of the audits. Clearly, both senior management and the board chair are determined not to share information with the public and other board members, yet these senior officials remain in place during this audit process.

Minister, will you ensure that the auditors can get to the bottom of what is going on at MTHA by asking the current board chair and the general manager to step aside during the four months of the audit?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The work that Peat Marwick Thorne will be carrying out on behalf of the government is work that will touch on every area of the operations of MTHA and include all matters to which I have previously referred. I would underline to the member for Mississauga South what she already knows, if she would state it accurately, please, in the future: I have never said that all was well at MTHA -- never, never, never.

The work that they will be carrying on has the full support of this government. It is our will that the work will produce recommendations which will help us to make improvements in the operations of MTHA on behalf of the residents of MTHA in the short term and also will produce options and a proposed method for the involvement of the board, of staff and of the people who live in MTHA communities in the future shape of an organization which has well outgrown its need to perform in this community.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is for the Attorney General. Attorney General, recently the Zonta Club of Woodstock sponsored a public information meeting called Justice Without Fear: What Can I Do? Over 800 people attended the meeting to hear speakers talk about our justice system. One of the issues raised was Ontario's position on harsher penalties for young offenders who commit violent crimes against people.

My question for the Attorney General is this: During the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of justice ministers in Ottawa, what was Ontario's position with respect to increasing sentences for young offenders who commit violent interpersonal crimes?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I appreciate the question from the member for Oxford. As I've said in this Legislature a number of times, Ontario and all of our sister provinces and the federal government were unanimous in saying that we were concerned about the growth of interpersonal violence and about the need to change the Young Offenders Act.

Prior to the current government being elected, the justice ministers from across the country had already agreed to a year-long study of the Young Offenders Act, a study that's taking place on the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the act. The feeling was at that time, by all of those provinces, that a piecemeal or simplistic approach would not be appropriate, that we really needed to look at the whole act and how it was operating and that we needed to look at how we shift some of the emphasis in the system from the low end of the scale in terms of seriousness of crime to the high end.

Ontario's position has been clear. There is a real need to make changes in the sentencing options that are available for young offenders. However, those changes must be comprehensive, because what we are seeing is not only a growth in violent crime but a huge growth in the charging and the incarceration of young people at the lower end of the seriousness scale.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you for that response, Attorney General. I realize the Young Offenders Act is a federal act and that it is up to the Liberal government in Ottawa to make the necessary changes. However, I believe my constituents would like to know what steps the provincial government is taking to best utilize the current act in such areas as sentencing, transfers to adult court and how the provincial government is making the best use of our limited resources to combat interpersonal crime.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Our agenda has been very clear as it relates to justice and law enforcement. We are doing everything we can to focus our limited resources on violent interpersonal crime and to explore other, non-court-based methods for dealing with non-violent and relatively less serious crime.

If I go back to the issue of sentencing young offenders, I think it's a good example of how we need to approach this issue. Currently, we are incarcerating young people at unheard-of levels for generally less serious property-related crimes, and incarcerating young people is extremely expensive.

It is this government's position that we could be using some of these resources from that lower end of the seriousness scale to direct them towards youth who do pose a danger to themselves and their communities and their families. It's that group of young people who are most in need of these resources so that they can rehabilitate themselves and become self-sufficient members of society.

Prevention is the other key issue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The practice of incarcerating young persons for non-violent and minor offences reduces the resources we have available for prevention.

The Speaker: New question, the honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier, but after almost three weeks away, he's ducked out after 35 minutes. I guess I have to give it to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. But before I ask my question, I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines on their recent announcement.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the government's policy to think globally and abandon locally on forestation policy.

Yesterday it was revealed that Ontario Hydro is considering investing in as many as 18 international projects involving the restoration and reforestation of large tracts of forest land in Central America, Russia and, yes, the United States. It is interesting to note the active interest which this government, as represented by Ontario Hydro, is taking in these foreign projects at the very same time when it slashes funding to forest renewal in this very province year after year. Under this government, funding for planting trees on crown forest land has dropped by 30%, the amount of forest land tended has been cut by 50%, and last year 11 million trees were mulched in this province.

The minister suggested yesterday that these international projects are being considered as a way of combating the problem of global warming and greenhouse gases. My question is, what does the minister have to say to the tree seedling growers, to the silviculture contractors and all the users of Ontario forests who witness this type of potential investment going on in other parts of the world by a provincial government agency when the province itself has seriously cut back on reforesting the forests in its own backyard?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): First of all, I want to thank the member for the question. I can only say, if it took me that long to ask the question, I'd still be waiting around. So let me try to come directly to the answer.

For many years in the province of Ontario, the province has not had the funding necessary to do the kind of regeneration work that we need to do in the forests. Year in, year out, the Ministry of Natural Resources, under Conservative governments, under Liberal governments and, yes, in the difficult economic times we're having under the New Democrat government, has gone and sought money for forest renewal. Over the last 10 years, the last 15 years, that money has been difficult to come by.

What we are attempting to do is put in place a forest renewal trust fund which will have first claim on stumpage fees, which will mean that for the first time ever in the province we will have a guaranteed fund for forest renewal.

That proposal by our government is being warmly received by the forest industries, is warmly received by the silvicultural contractors, is warmly received by the tree nursery operators. They all recognize that what we need is a new type of relationship designating funding for forest renewal.

I am very proud that we are the first government, the only government, to move in that direction, the first government to recognize that forest renewal ought to have a first claim on revenue generated in the forest. I look forward to the member opposite supporting us when we bring the legislation forward very soon to implement what we're trying to do.

Mr Brown: As you know, for the last almost four years, as I mentioned before, reforestation has decreased by 30%. The amount of land tended has decreased by 50% since this government came to power. The minister is most selective in his memory of what goes on in Ontario's forests. Let's look at the raw numbers. The operating budget of his ministry has been cut by some $32 million this year. The Ministry of Environment and Energy's budget has been cut by $59 million.

They claim they're interested in reforestation and they claim they're interested in global warming. They make lots of claims but have not produced anything.

We look forward to his announcement of sustainable forestry. We look forward to the act. We thought it was going to be here three months ago; so did the seedling producers, so did the silviculture people, so did all those people who right now don't know what's going on. There's just chaos there.

Is the Minister of Natural Resources now considering approaching Ontario Hydro and asking Ontario Hydro if it will provide the funding to reforest Ontario?

Hon Mr Hampton: The irony of the Liberals standing in the House one day and saying, "You should cut your spending," and then when we find effective ways to cut the spending and still deliver the service, they complain that we've cut the spending.

Since we have become the government, the management within the Ministry of Natural Resources has been cut from 11 levels of management to five levels of management.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Don't buy the rain forest. You don't have to go to Costa Rica; do it in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Hampton: We've moved from eight regional offices to four regional offices. We've reduced from about 16 different branches in the ministry to six different branches. What we have done is removed levels of management, we have done away with unnecessary offices, we have moved services closer to the people, and that has saved people money.

Further, so that the member will understand, the reality is that our forest issues will not be solved by throwing money at them, as the Liberals tried to do. No forest policy under the Liberals, no old-growth policy under the Liberals, no sustainable forest policy under the Liberals, no new legislation. I am sure the member will support us as we do, in the next 12 months, all those things that five years of Liberal government failed to do.

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns a meeting that my leader and I had yesterday with Mr Hector Verhoeve, mayor of Norfolk township, Deputy Mayor Jack Boughner, planner Jim McIntosh and clerk administrator Merlin Howse about your flawed planning development reform package.

Norfolk township officials, like their counterparts across Ontario, believe your new policy fails to recognize the diversity of Ontario's municipalities and planning areas, limits any possible development in small rural municipalities and limits locally elected officials in the decision-making process, they claim.

Minister, will you recognize and respond to these very serious concerns raised by Norfolk township and completely overhaul your planning and development policy to make the system clearer, easier and more accessible to the people of rural Ontario?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The package of reforms we have introduced, which is the first major reform package in some 30 or 40 years, in fact meets the concerns of rural communities. We've heard from rural communities. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has four members on the committee that is working on the implementation of these policies.

We've had a buy-in from the home builders, we've had a buy-in from the environmentalists, we've had a buy-in from the developers and we've had a buy-in from the municipalities. When you can get that kind of consensus, I don't think we're doing too badly.

Mr McLean: The minister has not listened to the rural Ontario elected officials. They tell me they cannot get a meeting with the minister or his officials. They tell me the member who represents that area will not return calls or meet with them.

Minister, your Sewell Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario spent more than $2 million over two years, travelling the province to review the planning and development process. You then turned around and formed a censorship on duly elected local councils by forcing them to respond to the Sewell commission in 90 days.

It's apparent you have little regard for local Ontario municipalities, and I join with rural Ontario in demanding that you withdraw your new planning development package until all concerns have properly been addressed. Will you make that commitment today, withdraw that? Because those people we met with yesterday said that they were not listened to and they're not happy.

Hon Mr Philip: No, I won't withdraw it, because the people of Ontario have been asking for a streamlined form of government, a streamlined form of planning. They've asked for that for years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Name one. Name one.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: You did not deliver it. You delivered absolutely nothing. We have delivered it, and we intend to proceed with it.

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Labour. One of my constituents, an older worker, was laid off from his job in January 1992. He was just one of the 30 let go. His unemployment insurance benefits ran out the following October.

He then applied for assistance under the federal-provincial program for older worker adjustment. It is now June 1994, a full one and a half years after he applied to the program, and my constituent still doesn't know if he qualifies. We've heard there is some kind of backlog in the system. Can the minister advise this House and my constituency why there is such a delay in a program for older worker adjustment?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member is probably aware that the program for older worker adjustment is a joint federal-provincial program designed to assist older workers who are laid off due to a major closure that occurred on or after January 1, 1988. They have to have little possibility of being re-employed. Before any decision can be made on whether or not a layoff will be designated under the program, extensive research on the layoff itself is carried out by officials in both my ministry and Labour Canada. I might say that we have never had the money from both sources that would fully deal with all of the people who might qualify.

In January of this year, the Ministry of Labour received cabinet approval to enter into discussions with the federal government on possible ways to change the current criteria of POWA to assist and try and get a larger number of older workers into the existing budget. Once these discussions have been completed, an adjusted Canada-Ontario POWA framework agreement will be signed with the federal government, which should assist us to get an additional group of workers covered under the plan.

Until these arrangements are completed, ministry officials will continue to analyse those who are laid off and see whether or not they qualify.

Mr Hansen: Can the minister advise this House and my constituency of what this government is doing to help older workers who have little hope of being recalled to their jobs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are rather proud of our record, although it's not all that we would like. We have several programs. As I've mentioned, there is the Ministry of Labour and the POWA, with changes currently being negotiated with the federal government, which incidentally co-administers the program. To change any of the criteria to assist older workers, they have to be involved.

This government has also brought in the employee wage protection plan, and I think it's significant to say that up until now this plan has paid out better than $126 million to better than 55,000 workers whose employers have declared bankruptcy or gone into receivership.

As well, the member will know that we have the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board administering the transitions program which provides training to laid-off workers who are now over 45, and labour adjustment services also provided through my ministry which work closely with both employers and workers in the event of a layoff.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition from the riding of Quinte and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the majority of Ontario citizens believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas redefining the fundamental institutions of marriage and family in allowing same-sex couples to adopt children would cause an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term;

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

"That the House refrain from changing provincial laws that deal with family, marriage and children and that the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which was brought to me by a gentleman named Elroy Belbeck who received over 30 signatures just in a very short time one night. It reads:

"Whereas, to our opinion, a majority of Ontarians believe that the privilege which society accords to married heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas for our government to use our tax money to furnish contributions for the propagation of practices which we sincerely believe to be morally wrong would be a serious violation of our freedom of conscience; and

"Whereas redefining marital status and/or spouse by extending it to include gay and lesbian couples would give homosexual couples the same status as married couples, including the legal right to adopt children; and

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to the demands for equal treatment by persons with deviant sexual orientations other than the practice of homosexuality;

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

"We request that the Legislature not pass into law any act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation or any similar legislation that would change the present marital status of couples in Ontario."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces rather than act on its own to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

I sign my name to this petition.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario coming from my constituent from Manor Park:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods,

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I affix my signature to the petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to Minister of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and 'grandfathered' those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years;

"Whereas we believe that we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination, and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

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

"To amend your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

This petition has been signed by approximately 100 constituents in my constituency, and I have affixed by signature thereto as the member of the provincial Legislature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which recognize the importance of marriage and family;

"Whereas the redefinition of marital status will extend to same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage;

"Whereas this redefinition will further increase the likelihood that children will learn to imitate homosexual practices;

"Whereas there is evidence that there will be negative financial, societal and medical implications and effects on the community with any increase in homosexual practices, the redefinition of spouse and family status, and policies concerning adoption of children by homosexuals;

"We request that the House refrain from passing any legislation that would alter or redefine marital status."

It's signed by a number of constituents in Elgin county.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of the plain packaging of tobacco products, and it's a pleasure to read it on today's World No Tobacco Day.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the Ontario government reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

I've got a page here waiting, standing right by, from Mount Albert, and I'm going to sign this and send it down to the table officers.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition from the Catholic school board. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student (based on 1993 estimates, MET published statistics);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equality."

I've affixed my signature to the petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have several petitions, but I'll just read one of them into the record and that should cover them all. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

Whereas this bill would change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex'; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas this bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas the NDP government has indicated it will force private sector employers to pay same-sex spousal benefits; and

"Whereas redefining marriage and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to withdraw consideration of private sector spousal benefits for same-sex couples and refuse to pass the private Liberal member's Bill 45."

That is from Bethel Baptist Church in Orillia. One is from First Baptist Church in Orillia, another is from the Orillia Baptist Church, one from Marchmont Baptist Church, one from Christian Reform Church and another one with 135 signatures privately, and I'll affix my name to them.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Last week during constituency week, Wayne Smith, who is the president of OSSTF District 46, came to my office to present me with a petition that is signed by 329 members of District 46.

They object to the disproportionate way in which the social contract affects their members, particularly those members still on the salary grid as well as those nearing retirement. They demand that grid increments be made mandatory under Bill 48. As I say, there are 329 signatures on that petition expressing concern about not having grid movement, so I present that petition now.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario on the issue of the 20-bed forensic jail which is in the process of construction at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre;

"Whereas the public has been assured through the media and other sources available that all levels of government have agreed that the political process of this issue has been greatly negligent, it is in the best of public interest and of taxpayers of this community to terminate all construction procedures directly related to the building of this 20-bed forensic jail for the criminally insane immediately;

"Whereas the citizens of this community believe it is their right to demand an investigation of this 20-bed forensic unit from its original proposal to the planners and building department and everyone that has participated in the process to this very date;

"Whereas community leaders and city council members agree that employees of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre be re-evaluated, as they have demonstrated a lack of supervision and negligence to the care of their patients;

"Therefore, we request that construction of this forensic jail for the criminally insane be stopped immediately."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislature Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the funding required to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating cost of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

It's signed by quite a number of my constituents, and I've affixed my signature to it as well.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Today being No Tobacco Day, it's most appropriate that I read this petition signed by many people from the town of Dundas. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

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

I also affix my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by a number of constituents from Middlesex and addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in regard to Bill 21,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases.

The thrust of this petition is the concern that Bill 21 has languished too long. The signers petition this Legislative Assembly to process the bill as quickly as possible and make the protections in it available to seniors in land-lease communities and others who rely on these places for homes so that they can avail themselves of the same protections that other tenants in this province have.

I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP

On motion by Mr Malkowski, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 168,

An Act to ensure Equal Access to Post-Secondary Education, Transportation and Other Services and Facilities for Ontarians with Disabilities / Projet de loi 168, Loi garantissant aux Ontariens qui ont un handicap l'égalité d'accès à l'enseignement postsecondaire, aux transports et à d'autres services et installations.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This bill creates the right of access for people with disabilities to the following facilities and services: post-secondary education, transportation, government publications, training programs and communication. A person who believes that his or her rights under the act have been infringed may file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 91,

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): As a member from a largely rural riding, I'm pleased to be able to join in the debate and offer my perspective on the legislation before the House, Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act.

I think there are a number of quite important provisions in this bill. I'd like to focus on its intent, the effect that it will have on factory farm workers and the manner by which it came to this stage of the process. I'd also like to remind the House that the agricultural community asked for this bill, and I think part of the reason is the fact that Ontario is among the last of the provinces to provide this type of protection, this type of legislation. That in itself speaks volumes in terms of our need to catch up and afford protection to workers at factory farm operations.

In addition to the right to organize and bargain collectively will come rights in regard to health and safety. Because this bill exempts the family farm, the people affected will indeed be those who are employed on factorylike places like mushroom farms, the horticultural sector and large processors. These operations employ anywhere from 50 to over 100 people at locations across our province.

In total, after Bill 91 passes, about 18,000 year-round employees will benefit from this legislation and 14,000 seasonal workers following the passage of regulations. That is 32,000 people living and working in this province of Ontario who would otherwise be excluded from some extremely important safeguards: the right to organize, the right to bargain for fair wages and the right to insist upon a safe workplace.

This last issue is one that I think needs to be examined, and examined very closely, because of the current situation on some farms in the community: factory farms and those places where conditions are just not acceptable. The reality is that because of those conditions on some farms -- and I want to emphasize "some factory farms" -- workers have been put at risk. We've all heard of these places, and we have an obligation to move ahead on the health and safety problems that do exist.

A significant number of operators in the factory farm sector use homemade machinery that is never inspected. In the past five years there have been six deaths on mushroom farms. Three of the victims died in the shredders. This is a situation that must be addressed, and a very effective way to address it is through health and safety standards that can be enforced by workers as a result of a collective agreement.

We're obligated to provide the legislative framework that will help reduce the kind of dangers that some workers face. I know that responsible factory farm operators support this legislation as well, because they want safe workplaces in their industry. They want their workers to have this margin of safety and they don't want their reputation besmirched by those who don't take the kind of care that's needed to ensure that workers in our society are not endangered.

There's a great need to reduce the number of these preventable accidents. The cost in human suffering and the loss to Ontario families is unacceptable. This bill is a step towards ending these accidents, and that needs to be very clearly stated and very clearly stated as often as possible.

I'd also like to spend some time discussing the process by which we arrived at the recommendations that led to agreement by stakeholders to Bill 91, the bill before us. The Ministry of Labour established a special task force with representatives from labour, commodity groups and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in early 1992.

Their June report recommended the extension of the right to organize to all employees engaged in agricultural or horticultural work if there could be a separate labour statute for agriculture, a prohibition on strikes and lockouts, the creation of a binding dispute resolution mechanism and the establishment of educational programs on labour relations.

The government agreed with the task force and extended its mandate to develop recommendations on the appropriate statutory framework and dispute settlement mechanism. In the late summer and fall of 1992 the task force continued in its efforts and once again, in November 1992, reached a consensus and provided advice to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour that right to organize be extended to seasonal workers once the regulation was passed, to facilitate the establishment of a farm labour-management advisory board to advise the government, to create special rules for farm owners and family members and to provide resources and data to arbitrators to assist in decision-making.

These recommendations became the basis of the bill that we see before us today, and I want to go back to what I said before, that there was a consensus among all of these stakeholders. They came to the government and said, "This is the kind of bill that we need." This is precisely the bill that we see before us.

The process has been long and complex, but it has been well worth the effort inasmuch as this kind of consultation -- listening and respect for the recommendations of the stakeholders -- has produced what I think is a very strong piece of legislation that will successfully accomplish the purpose for which it was intended.

This, of course, as you well know, Madam Speaker, is not the first nor will it be the last time that this government has had mutually beneficial consultations with the agricultural community. That has allowed us to move forward with important policy for the people of this province.

You will recall that in February of this year this government passed the Environmental Bill of Rights. The Environmental Bill of Rights is Ontario's most significant environmental legislation in the past 17 years. It fulfils our long-time commitment to provide the people of Ontario with a greater say in environmental decisions affecting their lives and their communities and it ensures increased government accountability for the environment.

When the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier, began that process to establish an EBR for Ontarians, there was some concern in the agricultural community because of fears of nuisance complaints.

We all know that in the last few years the trend has been for more and more urbanites to move to rural areas in order to enjoy the benefits and the quality of rural living. Most of these ex-city dwellers move smoothly into our rural communities. They've become involved in our neighbourhoods. They make an important and welcome contribution in our schools, our social and our economic activities, and they are most welcome.

There are some, however, who don't understand that a working farm is not a static place like we see in postcards and picture books. It's a place where people, men and women in our communities, earn their living by producing the products that we need for domestic consumption and for export. In fact this very dynamic sector of our economy is our second-largest industry. We produce 35% of all Canadian agricultural production.

You can see that in addition to the importance of the agricultural community to our economic wellbeing, it has become a place that has been rather idealized, and we have to put things into perspective. These are working farms, as I said, where men and women earn their living.

In addition to the fact that this sector has felt some concerns regarding the invasion by ex-urbanites, farm communities have had to deal with low commodity prices for their goods and the realities of a very difficult recession. We know in this province that in 1989 we began to see a downturn that has had a catastrophic effect in some sectors. We're moving out of that. We're moving out of it very quickly now, very effectively, but those lingering problems still exist in rural Ontario and we have to have special understanding of that.

The stress that all of these things has placed on rural families is quite significant. We, as a government, were and are determined to work in partnership with all sectors of Ontario society to bring about positive changes that Ontarians were demanding in September 1990. You'll remember that day, Madam Speaker, because Ontarians said very clearly that they wanted significant change in this province. In the last four years we've seen that kind of change, marked with collaboration with the government, partnership and consultation.

In the late fall of 1990, when the Minister of the Environment took steps to implement the Environmental Bill of Rights, the farm community worried that it might be faced with nuisance complaints regarding noise, dust or odours from people who are unfamiliar with the normal farm practices that most in rural communities understand, and that complaints or statutory interference could make farming and earning a living from agriculture all the more difficult.

In response to that concern, representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had full access to the advisory committee of stakeholders that had been charged with the task of consulting with Ontarians in order to advise the government on the proper principles and possible content of an Environmental Bill of Rights.

As a result, under

section 84 of the EBR, normal farm practices are not subject to outside intervention. An action may not be brought until the plaintiff has applied to the Farm Practices Protection Board under

section 5 of the Farm Practices Protection Act and the board has disposed of the application.

Quite naturally, since the environment is of profound concern to rural communities, all of us would wish those causing harm to our precious resources, namely, farm land, to be stopped.

However, the responsible members of our agricultural community, and those are the vast majority of people in the community, are protected from those who are ill informed or simply bent on mischief.

It was essential to the minister and to this government that such accommodation be made, and in addition to this accommodation is the investment by our government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in green farm plans. In the next two years $38 million has been made available to farmers who wish to voluntarily inventory their farm practices to make improvements to help protect the environment.

This kind of cooperation and respect for the opinions, the needs and the concerns of the members of the agricultural community is something of which I believe we can and should be proud. It has allowed us to fulfil some important obligations to the people of this province in a very constructive way, and it speaks of respect for people and dedication to progressive and positive government for Ontarians.

That respect has helped us to build partnerships across Ontario within all communities, and that includes those affected by Bill 91. We have made sure that the special circumstances that exist in agriculture have been given full regard in this legislation. It's a bill that is fair, that extends rights to workers, protects the family farm and moves forward a resolution to the health and safety concerns of factory farm workers.

I'm pleased to support this legislation, and I would like to extend congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture and Food as well as the Minister of Labour and the task force, because it's their diligence that has helped to create this very important, very workable piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Now we have questions or comments to the member for Middlesex.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just a couple of comments to the member for Middlesex: One thing that was said was that the Ontarians had cried out for this type of legislation, and I think one thing that some of the Ontarians are crying out for, that is, those in the agricultural sector, is that the minimum wage has been raised so high that there are some, many in fact, farmers, greenhouse growers, in my area who can't afford to hire agricultural workers any more. Some of these workers have come to us and offered that they would prefer to work for less money if they could only get a job for the summer.

I think that's one thing that may result from this type of legislation, that in fact not only will the minimum wage be exceeded, but there may be an attempt to make it go far beyond that.

The other area I want to comment on is the fact that the workers will have rights. It's kind of interesting, and I make a point of this because you say the workers have rights, and not that I endorse it, but they don't have the right to strike. But you say if they do strike, then there's a long procedure that has to be gone through. Meanwhile, the farmer has a crop that's sitting there. That crop can't be harvested, and at the end of the day, the person who's going to suffer the most is the farmer, because if workers do strike, there's nothing in the legislation that's punitive to them. So you come back to the workers and you say, "Well, you shouldn't have struck."

So there are those two areas, I think: the effect it will have on agricultural wages and the lack of teeth in the legislation when it comes to strikes.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to comment briefly on the remarks that were put forward by the member for Middlesex. I would ask her a very direct question and hope she would respond to it. Who in her riding, given the nature of the riding that she represents, truly wants Bill 91, truly wants labour laws extended to the farm to the extent that this legislation requires family farms to become unionized? I represent a similar type of riding with a large rural component and I have found no one in my riding who speaks in favour of Bill 91.

We have seen and are seeing on a daily and weekly basis the effects of the NDP's job-killing Bill 40 labour laws that have dramatically affected industry and business in this province and are discouraging people from investing in this province and coming to Ontario to set up shop. Now the government, having learned nothing from that experience, is extending similar labour laws to the farm community.

I've had many constituents indicate to me that if employees strike, they really are holding a huge gun, in fact a bazooka, to the owners and operators of the family farms in my riding; that it is not a sector of our economy that needs these laws as proposed in Bill 91; that there is no demonstrated need out there other than in the ideological minds of the NDP government here at Queen's Park; and that the people of Ontario, and most important the family farmers in my riding and throughout Ontario, overwhelmingly reject this type of legislation.

I ask the member to please tell me who wants this -- are they farmers, are they family farmers? -- and why the government is moving in this direction when the people of Ontario clearly do not want this legislation.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to basically take up the challenge from the member for Simcoe West because, like the member for Middlesex, I have an agricultural component to my riding. Geographically, it probably forms about half of the riding, although not so population-wise. Probably the labour-intensive nature of the type of farming mirrors that of the riding of the member for Essex South, because Niagara grows more in the way of tender fruit crops, which require a lot more handpicking than most of the other types of farming that are practised by the different farm communities across the province.

I have met with horticultural workers who feel very strongly that they need this legislation, not just to organize themselves but to ultimately deal with the range of health and safety issues down the road. It would be very difficult to bring about health and safety legislation and bring forward these concerns without having in place an organization that can carry that mandate.

In my other life, I was on a steering committee that made a presentation to the Tory government. They had a committee that travelled the province dealing with agricultural health and safety. It was very much a concern among the different horticultural workers, but they frequently felt themselves disfranchised. As immigrant women working on the mushroom farms not too far from my home, they felt they could not raise these points without having an organization. We need this change.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to respond to the comments by the member for Middlesex. The member has been doing a very effective job of representing the interests of the rural part of her riding, which makes up the largest portion of her riding, and the many fine people in Middlesex who make such a significant contribution to food production in this province.

I didn't hear all the comments by the member for Middlesex, but I was wondering if the member, in her two-minute response, would be able to comment on what she thinks about the fact that there is a certain organization going around the province claiming that it represents the interests of farmers. This group is called Ontarians for Responsible Government. They're saying, "We're looking after the interests of farmers."

It's my understanding that Ontarians for Responsible Government is an umbrella arm of the National Citizens' Coalition. From what I know about the National Citizens' Coalition, this group opposes supply-managed systems. They see this somehow as a subsidy to farmers.

I would be interested in knowing what the member for Middlesex thinks about an organization that fundamentally opposes supply management in our agricultural sector and now claims, despite having no other track record in representing the interests of farmers and in some effects really opposing the interests of farmers, that it's looking after the interests of farmers by saying this bill is going to unionize the family farm.

The member for Middlesex in her remarks did a very effective job of pointing out that it's not going to unionize the family farm, and if we look at the track record of other provinces where farm workers have been allowed to unionize, it's only been about 3% to 4%. They still have very viable family farms going on in those provinces and significant agricultural production.

I ask the member for Middlesex for her comments on that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Middlesex has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Mathyssen: I think I have quite a task ahead of me.

First of all, to the member for Essex South, perhaps if you read Hansard you'll see that my comments were rather more moderate than you would suggest, but I do wish to reiterate that the agricultural community wanted a separate piece of legislation to address their special needs, and I think that's important. Second, in my discussions with my community, once people understood what Bill 91 did, what it contained and how it would affect workers in the province, they were very supportive. They haven't given in to these scare tactics that we've seen out and about.

As far as the member for Simcoe West is concerned, I can only say that I think you show a rather profound ignorance of the collective bargaining process and organizing procedures. Very small units are not practicable in terms of organization. Second, we've been very clear that the family farm is to be protected. This bill is addressed to the larger operations where there are concerns regarding health and safety and lack of proper safety equipment.

Finally, thanks to the member for St Catharines-Brock; I appreciate her words and her support.

I would like to respond to the member for Oxford, because I too have seen these rather interesting road signs and I find it quite reprehensible that a group like Ontarians for Responsible Government, aka the National Citizens' Coalition, would have the audacity to say it's fighting on behalf of the family farm. Quite clearly, the survival of that entity in our society is dependent on the farm family being able to earn a proper living, and supply management is one way that happens. I want to remind the members that the National Citizens' Coalition is also the bunch who refused to --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): At this time, I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 120,

An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation

Bill Pr71,

An Act respecting the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor)

Bill Pr83,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington

Bill Pr86,

An Act to revive Tuberate Heat Transfer Ltd

Bill Pr90,

An Act to revive Wordz Processing Corporation Ltd

Bill Pr93,

An Act to revive North Toronto Christian School (Interdenominational)

Bill Pr100,

An Act respecting Ontario Southland Railway Inc

Bill Pr104,

An Act to revive North Toronto Business and Professional Women's Club

Bill Pr107,

An Act respecting the City of Brampton

Bill Pr109,

An Act respecting the County of Dufferin.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 91,

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

The Acting Speaker: Now we will resume further debate on second reading of Bill 91.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If we're going to resume debate, I think it would be in order to have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Now we are resuming the debate on Bill 91. Further debate?

Mr Crozier: It's a pleasure for me today to rise to give a few words to the debate on Bill 91,

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry. I feel particularly obligated to do this because, as was referred to earlier, I come from an agricultural riding. I'm proud to say that we lay claim to being the Sun Parlour of Canada, as well as being rather good at growing tomatoes and other products.

In beginning on this, I think I should give a little background to the labour agenda and history of the New Democratic Party. When they took office in 1990, there was this agenda that there should be extended powers of unions. I use the words "extended powers" of unions, because I don't see anything wrong with them working with unions, but it's when that ideology takes you a bit too far one way.

Under Bill 40, you will recall, they introduced measures that would give unions more power and I think that limited the ability of small business to survive in the face of labour disputes.

This, we think -- and many of us know -- has led to businesses leaving the province and to businesses cancelling any expansion plans.

Premier Rae and the Minister of Labour have to some extent sent out signals to the province that perhaps business isn't as welcome as it used to be. We've seen the legacy of this policy, I believe, in the continuing recession. For over a year the NDP has been saying the recession is over. Ontario has continued to notice plant closures and growing unemployment. In fact, in the first two months of 1994 there were 10,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than the year before. This must be compared to the fact that over 140,000 jobs were created in the rest of Canada.

There are 590,000 men and women without jobs in Ontario, and even the NDP doesn't expect unemployment to drop below 10% in the next few years. The recession doesn't seem to be over in Ontario, and Bill 40 and the NDP's anti-business agenda are in large part responsible for that.

But now there is a second Bill 40, if you like, in the works. There's another plan by the NDP to attack business in this province -- I'll call it "son of Bill 40" -- that is directed to a significant segment of the economy that's been facing financial difficulties for many years. The NDP has turned its guns on the farmers of Ontario, men and women in small, predominantly family-run business in the agricultural area who are struggling to survive. The agricultural labour legislation known as Bill 91 will place yet another burden on an industry that's already in trouble.

As the legislation is now written, it will add new union control to an industry that's very sensitive to any kind of labour dispute.

That's some background and history. Now I'd like to talk about agriculture specifically.

Agriculture has played an important role in the local economy of rural communities across this province, and, as I said at the outset, more specifically I'm interested in it because of my riding of Essex South. The farming industry has gone through tough times for more than a decade, and we have no regrets about the large increases in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that occurred under the Liberal government.

It's important to remember that Ontario is Canada's largest agricultural province, generating $5.8 billion at the farm gate and over $17 billion in total sales of agricultural products and contributing over $1.6 billion to Ontario's exports. Between 130,000 and 150,000 people work on about 72,700 Ontario farms, with the total industry responsible directly or indirectly for one in five jobs in Ontario. The agriculture industry is second only in size to the auto industry and continues to be the economic foundation of rural Ontario.

During the first few years of the NDP's term in office, the agriculture industry faced one of its most difficult periods in the income crunch of 1991. During the year 1991, crop prices fell over 30%. Net incomes for the entire industry fell over 15% to $1.31 billion, the lowest levels since 1985.

The government responded by delaying its promised support for GRIP and NISA programs and promising future financial assistance following the recommendations of the Hayes task force on farm finance. While still recovering from this latest crisis, the industry has also seen major provincial support programs cut back over the past two years as part of the government's cost-cutting. The major financial assistance funding programs promised by the NDP during the election, in the Hayes task force on farm finance, and in the agricultural investment strategy announcement of 1992 have never materialized.

The $120-million assistance that was promised to farmers disappeared under the province's spiralling deficit problems.

Far from providing any new assistance, the Ministry of Agriculture's budget has actually declined by more than $100 million since this government took office in 1990. This is 20% of expenditures. If we think that decline is serious, we can only imagine what would happen if the Harris American revolution were ever to come to fruition, because what they are saying is -- well, you have to go to two or three places to see what they say.

If you see what they say on television, they're not going to touch health, but they're going to cut spending 20% overall. Then if you go to the written material, they say, "We're not going to touch health and we're not going to touch the classroom part of education and we're not going to touch police services." But then if you read Hansard, they say, "It doesn't say anywhere in there that we're going to cut agriculture," so I guess that means they're not going to cut agriculture. If they go through all of this and keep saying, "We're not going to cut that one or another one," I don't know where they're going to find the funding cuts to pay for the $4-billion tax reduction.

My point is this: If they do cut their spending the way they want to and if the NDP continues the way it's been doing, cutting over $100 million since 1990, not only will agriculture be cut off at the knees, it will be cut off at the neck, and I certainly don't accept that in Essex South.

While many other ministry budgets have increased, funding for agriculture has declined, as I've just suggested, and as members of the third party would suggest, would further decline. Government spending, though, has increased 15% since the NDP took office, including an increase of 13% to the Ministry of Labour and an increase of $32 million for the Ministry of Citizenship, an increase of 58%. Meanwhile, agriculture funding has declined. I'll leave it to the government to explain these inequities.

One of the other major promises the government made to the agriculture industry since taking office was to support rural development. In fact, the ministry has even recently changed its name to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Unfortunately, that's all that's happened. The minister has no real new authority and no new funding. The NDP will likely spend more money just to change all the signs and the letterhead and vehicle signs than it will on any new rural development work.

The minister talks about doing some ombudsman work in consulting with other ministries as part of the ministry's new name. Meanwhile, the NDP still plans to go full steam ahead with the Sewell commission recommendations and make planning in the province more restrictive, more complicated, more time-consuming and less efficient. The Sewell commission simply adds more layers of bureaucracy and throws up more roadblocks to development as the NDP works to control all local planning in the province.

The Sewell commission report says, "We're going to give more authority to the municipalities." I came from a municipal background. The problem is that it's going to be so difficult to get that authority. There are so many levels of bureaucracy above -- a couple of new boards -- and there are so many conditions to meet before it ever gets handed to the municipality that I doubt some will ever give it, so I don't know how that can be making things easier. The Sewell commission's report, I suggest, will only hurt small communities which are trying to develop and diversify their economies. The NDP is doing more to prevent rural development than to encourage it.

When the government first started talking about its labour reforms after taking office, it made it clear it intended to remove the traditional protection family farmers had from labour disputes. The government planned to simply eliminate the agriculture exemption in the Ontario Labour Relations Act and subject farmers to the same provisions as all other businesses were to face. However, we heard farm groups across the province stand up and make it loud and clear to the Minister of Labour that this would seriously hurt the agriculture industry. In January 1992, the Minister of Labour agreed to an agricultural labour task force to quell the growing protest in the farm community.

The task force was given the mandate to study the unique nature of agriculture in relation to labour reform. The task force was comprised of three representatives of farm employers, two representatives from organized labour, one representative from farm workers, and two staff from the ministries of Labour and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs who acted as co-chairs.

At the time, the minister said, "We want the task force to look at a wide variety of options, particularly the inclusion, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, of factory-like agricultural operations, but certainly not the family farm." The NDP led farmers to believe that the report of the task force would be used as input into the changes planned under Bill 40. Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour just simply went ahead and introduced Bill 40 before the task force was finished. In fact, the final work of the task force, including its specific recommendations, was not released until the fall of 1992.

With Bill 40, the NDP removed the agriculture exemption under the OLRA, removing all protection for the farmers. This action was nothing less than a threat designed to intimidate farmers and farm groups to agree to the reforms under the work of the task force. Farmers were now dependent on the government bringing in additional legislation to protect them.

The task force ended up recommending a number of specific measures designed to protect agriculture and the industry and family farms, such as preventing strike action, separate legislation instead of amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and exempting family farm members from collective bargaining.

Many individuals and farm groups worked long and hard to ensure that the task force provided a reasonable framework for recommendations, in the face of the government ultimatums to reform and in the face of the reality that the exemption for agriculture was removed under Bill 40.

I want to emphasize my support for the difficult work done by farm leaders in the work of the task force. Although there were only two farmer representatives, I believe it is, on the task force, farm leaders from across the province worked through the labour issues coordinating committee to ensure that the farm task force members had input from across the country.

Mr Speaker,