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

March 28, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

IRWIN HASKETT

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

HUNTING AND FISHING

IMMIGRANTS

GARDEN CITY KIWANIS HOCKEY LEAGUE NOVICE TOURNAMENT

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

JOB CREATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AIDE SOCIALE

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HYDRO

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ONTARIO HYDRO

ONTARIO HYDRO

FIRE SAFETY

ONTARIO HYDRO

POLICE SERVICES

ONTARIO HYDRO

POLICE SERVICES

COMMUNITY PLANNING

FIRE SAFETY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VIOLENCE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE CENTRE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

PHOTO-RADAR

HAEMODIALYSIS

CASINO GAMBLING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PSYCHOTHERAPY

LAP DANCING

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TUITION FEES

NORTH TORONTO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUB ACT, 1994

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IRWIN HASKETT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to draw the House's attention to the death of a former member from my riding of Ottawa South. Irwin Haskett died last week at the age of 91 years, but his life was one that was filled with great accomplishments.

He was first elected to this House in 1959 under Premier Leslie Frost. He served until his retirement in 1971. He served in the cabinet of the Honourable John Robarts as the Minister of Reform Institutions for two years and the Minister of Transport for eight years. By all accounts, Mr Haskett served with great distinction in the cabinet and was held in high regard for his learned advice.

I can also inform this House that Mr Haskett was also deeply committed to his constituents. In addition to fulfilling his duties as the member of provincial Parliament for Ottawa South, Mr Haskett immersed himself in volunteer activities in Ottawa. To name but a few of his achievements, he was president of the Ottawa Board of Trade, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, president of the Ottawa Association for the Blind, president of the Eagle Fish and Game Club, and founder of the Woodland Camp for Boys.

Mr Haskett also originated Ottawa's famous tulip festival, which every spring will act as a reminder for the people of Ottawa-Carleton of the man who so generously gave of himself to our community.

On behalf of all members of this House, I extend my condolences to Mr Haskett's family, and most especially to his wife Mary.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Today I will be presenting a petition from citizens of my area who feel very strongly that the Employment Equity Act should be withdrawn. There are over 1,200 signatures on this petition: 1,200 people who want the government to know that they know the employment equity legislation is not based on fairness and equal opportunity, nor is it devoted to any discrimination in the workplace, but rather it means reverse discrimination.

There should be equal opportunity for everyone in this province. Fairness and equal opportunity in the workplace mean giving good candidates an equal chance of getting a job. It does not mean trading one type of discrimination for another type of discrimination and calling it equity.

Martin Luther King said he had a dream that one day people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. These people are calling on the government to withdraw Bill 79 and let's get on with the dream of fulfilling Martin Luther King's dream.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On the weekend, the federal government held a public meeting on the federal airport lands. I believe this was in response to the efforts of this government and the petitions that were presented here.

I welcome this initiative as it begins a process that can lead to a healing in this community of an injury that began 22 years ago with the expropriation of these lands by both the federal and provincial governments.

My government, this government, recognized that this healing needed to take place almost immediately with respect to the provincial land holdings. We moved swiftly when we took office to review these issues involved and acted quickly to put an end to much of the uncertainty on the provincial lands.

We went forward with the Rouge park, the Rouge-Duffin agricultural preserve and the Rouge-Duffin corridor. We worked with the community to develop a vision for these lands and moved as fast as we could to implement it.

We also recognized that there may be a need for some type of development, so the Ministry of Housing appointed an advisory committee to determine the feasibility of developing Seaton.

This advisory committee of nine is made up of many people from the community including a tenant who was an original owner. The focus of this committee is to conduct a broad consultation and make recommendations to the minister.

The process is all-encompassing and deals with many issues, from the ecosystem to the preservation of farm land and cultural heritage. They are also looking at economic and financial considerations as well as the social and cultural influences.

This is a mammoth undertaking, but it has many positive aspects. Most important is the opportunity for public involvement in the decision-making process, and we hope that the federal government will conduct a similar process with its lands in the north end of Pickering.

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'd like to take this opportunity to advise the House about a program that members in my community, my riding have commenced along with me called the community witness program, which is a program designed to allow community members to be involved in the justice process by providing evidence at the sentencing hearings of convicted drug dealers.

As you may know, Mr Speaker, drugs are a problem in a downtown urban environment like Toronto, and we are pulling together as a community to try and put a stop to that.

We have the Seaton-Ontario-Berkeley Residents Association, the north Regent Park community organization, the police liaison committee, the Corktown Residents and Business Association and many associations in the downtown core in my part of the riding that are participating in this, and I'd like to recognize the cooperation we've received from 51 Division, Staff-Inspector Ed Hegney, the community relations worker there, Gerrard Jones, and the federal crown attorney, Simon Armstrong, who have participated in allowing community members to give this evidence.

We have volunteers prepared to give evidence in difficult situations numbering 20 to 30 at this point in time. We expect more and we're hoping that we will very soon have our first case where we will let the community give evidence and tell a judge what crime is doing to these downtown communities so that we can send a message to these dealers that it won't be acceptable to deal drugs in downtown Toronto.

HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): As a result of meetings with over 400 members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, it is urgent that I place its president's letter on the record today.

"Dear Mr Hampton:

"It is clear that you intentionally misled OFAH members on more than one occasion. You promised our people one thing and then turned around and did something completely different....

"When we filmed the Angler and Hunter television on January 20, you stated on camera that 'it's not in our mind to create a new series of parks which prohibits hunting, which prohibits the use of outboard motors...we see a continuum of new ways to protect those areas that will allow those activities to continue.'

"On February 25 at our annual meeting and wildlife conference in Windsor in front of approximately 300 people...you told OFAH members that you were not proposing 'to eliminate hunting or to eliminate the use of boats and motors' in the 'protected areas.'

"Then on March 9, you turned around and issued a public news release announcing your proposals for 17 new 'Keep It Wild' protected areas. And, you proposed to ban hunting, even small outboard motors and other motorized access, from over 90% of the 166,000 acres.

"So much for your personal assurances and public statements....

"Your record and your word have been seriously tarnished over this flip-flop. We are sure you will understand if our 70,000 members, our member clubs, our directors, and staff, are much less likely to accept what you say at face value in the future."

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise today to voice my concerns over the recent speech made by the leader of the third party at Bobcaygeon, with his reference to immigrants who are coming to Canada for a free ride.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. Our traditions, our culture and our citizenship originated somewhere else.

Way back, Wilfrid Laurier's immigration campaign complained that Canada was being overtaken by "wasters and criminals, ne'er-do-wells and scalawags" when the European immigrants did not fit into Canada's imperial culture. Likewise, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 was drafted to block their settlement after the railways were completed. Likewise, Jews and blacks were denied entry under

section 38 of the old Immigration Act, which allowed cabinet to refuse entry to immigrants belonging to any nationality or race deemed unsuitable.

I believe Mr Harris uses immigrants as convenient scapegoats for Canada's economic woes. This type of claim will always garner emotional support for any argument. It is a blatant insult to immigrants young and old, and it's a blatant insult to me as an immigrant, who have come to Canada to improve our lives.

The fact that Mr Harris chose to raise this issue during the recent Victoria-Haliburton by-election is all the more disturbing, and I say shame on Mr Harris and shame on the Conservatives for this blatant, blatant misuse.

GARDEN CITY KIWANIS HOCKEY LEAGUE NOVICE TOURNAMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Kiwanis Club of the Garden City is celebrating a very special occasion this week when it marks the silver anniversary of the operation of its minor hockey league at the official opening of the 25th annual Garden City Kiwanis Hockey League novice tournament.

Hundreds of volunteers have given their time, effort and energy to providing for youngsters in St Catharines the opportunity to play hockey in a well-organized and superbly run fashion. Sportsmanship, honest effort and team spirit have dominated the philosophy of those who have operated the league for a quarter of a century.

To the members of the Kiwanis Club of the Garden City who raised the funds that allow girls and boys to participate in a healthy, constructive activity, to the coaches, managers, trainers, timekeepers, convenors and officials, to the parents who support the league and their children, I extend on behalf of the citizens of St Catharines the sincere appreciation of the people of our community, and in particular those who have benefited directly from this dedicated service.

What is particularly to be envied by others and to be commended by all concerned with the development of good young citizens is the motto of the Garden City Kiwanis Hockey League, which reads, "The name of the game is fun."

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Members of community college representatives across Ontario are concerned that their long-established role in recommending for appointment board members who best reflect the local community is being usurped by the Ontario Council of Regents.

The chairperson of Fanshawe College's board stated: "This is a major change away from local autonomy and towards a more centralized system. The community should be very concerned."

A well-researched paper on governance in Ontario's college system by Abram Konrad from the University of Alberta describes how our colleges have flourished since their beginnings in 1965. He defines the difference between a community model and a constituency model of governance:

"In a community model of governance, the individual profiles of board members merge to become a collective profile which includes experiences and expertise that equip the board to function at its greatest level of effectiveness.

"The constituency model maximizes the political nature of board governance where, in its extreme, each board member is perceived as a representative of a power bloc with a vested interest. A board member with a special interest at heart rather than the college interest is likely to do permanent damage to the institution."

In light of the Council of Regents' move to centralize control of community colleges at the expense of local autonomy, we are convinced that the council is more interested in the political correctness of board appointments than in having committed members with experience and expertise.

We urge the minister to take the advice of community college board members, as they worked hard to reflect their diverse communities in their recommendations for board appointments. I would recommend that the minister and the Council of Regents study Abram Konrad's research paper.

JOB CREATION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Job creation remains our government's priority, and I'm pleased today to tell the members of this House that our government is doing just that in my riding of Oxford through Jobs Ontario.

Two weeks ago, I joined with Frances Lankin, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, to announce that the city of Woodstock would receive a $3-million grant from Jobs Ontario Community Action. The grant will be used to construct a new double-pad arena, a 300-seat hall and a 15,000-square-foot gymnastic centre as part of the Woodstock District Community Complex.

The project will create 250 construction jobs as well as five full-time and 12 part-time jobs. In addition to job creation, events such as tournaments and trade shows will generate important income for local businesses. This phase of the $12.5-million project will combine the new facilities with Fanshawe College's campus, soccer and baseball fields, recreation areas and day care centre.

Once complete, the complex will serve as an anchor of the community, with educational, recreational and social services. As deputy mayor Phil Poole said after the announcement, "This is the best news the city has had in 25 years."

The Woodstock District Community Complex is a prime example of the way the Ontario government can work in partnership with municipal governments and residents to help communities take control of their own economic future. More than 3,000 volunteers donated their time and effort, with fund-raising already generating more than $1.5 million. Along with the grant for the renovation of the Southside Pool, this new $3-million grant will ensure that strong recreational facilities will continue to make Woodstock a great place for people to live and work.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AIDE SOCIALE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I rise today to tell members of this House about our plans to step up the fight against welfare fraud.

Our welfare system is one of the best in the world. It is designed to provide help for people in need. We have been working for some time to make sure that only the people who are eligible for social assistance benefits receive them. But there is a group of people who take advantage of a caring system. We are going to pursue these abusers of the system more vigorously.

In 1992, we hired an additional 450 staff to help monitor the system and reduce the number of people who are claiming benefits that they don't deserve.

In December of last year, we announced a new computer system to better manage our social assistance programs. We are already working with municipalities and providing them with funding to help crack down on fraud. As members know, about half of all welfare recipients in Ontario have their cases administered by local municipalities.

Aujourd'hui, j'annonce la prochaine étape de notre plan destiné à prévenir les abus dans le système d'aide sociale. Les mesures que nous allons prendre sont raisonnables et pleines de bon sens, et je peux vous garantir qu'elles seront efficaces. Nous avons depuis toujours enquêté sur les cas suspects. À partir de maintenant, nous commencerons à réexaminer chacun des cas d'aide sociale administré par la province de l'Ontario et les municipalités.

Today, I am announcing the next step in our plan to prevent abuse in our welfare system. It's a commonsense approach, a reasonable approach, and I assure you it will be an effective approach.

We have always investigated suspicious cases. Now we will begin to re-examine every welfare case handled by the province of Ontario and by municipalities.

My ministry will hire 270 new and specially trained staff to conduct our investigation. We are also providing $10 million this year and $10 million next year to help municipalities fight welfare fraud. They will look at every file and make sure that all the information is available and correct.

If information is wrong or missing, clients will be required to come in and provide the necessary proof. We will make sure that every client has declared all their income, just as the law requires.

We will make sure that costs such as accommodation costs are reported accurately. If clients don't live up to those requirements, if they can't provide the evidence, their benefits will be reduced or eliminated.

We will start with the most suspicious cases. Each of these high-risk cases will be examined within the next six months. Our staff will work with their counterparts in municipalities, other provinces, the federal government and the police as necessary to make sure that cheaters aren't claiming social assistance benefits from any other jurisdiction, and where we find evidence of fraud, we will not hesitate to lay charges.

Je tiens à souligner que ces mesures auront très peu de répercussions sur les personnes qui ont fourni les bons documents et satisfont aux critères pour recevoir de l'aide sociale. Ces personnes continueront de recevoir sans interruption les prestations auxquelles elles ont droit.

I want to tell you that these measures will have very little impact on people who have filed the right documents and who meet the requirements for social assistance. They will continue to receive the benefits to which they are entitled, without interruption.

Thousands of people have been forced on to our social assistance rolls. That has had a staggering impact on the system itself, especially during a period when government itself is working hard to manage with less.

In March 1990, about 660,000 people were living on social assistance. By last month that number had jumped to more than 1.3 million people.

During this difficult time we have struggled to keep up as best we can, to provide the service the people of Ontario expect and depend upon.

The job has been made even tougher, first by the Conservative government and now by the Liberal government in Ottawa. While eight provinces get 50 cents of every dollar they spend on social assistance from the federal government, Ontario gets just 28 cents.

The measures I am announcing today are among the toughest in Canada, but they are not unfair.

We expect to save more than $60 million in 1994-95 and $90 million in 1995-96 as a result of these investigations. We will save an additional $49.1 million a year through changes to benefits paid to couples, changes to shelter allowances, basic utility benefits and boarder charges.

In addition, we expect significant savings from measures already in place.

Last April, my colleague the Minister of Finance announced a series of actions that, when combined with other measures my ministry has taken, will result in net savings of some $328 million by the end of this fiscal year. That includes reductions we've already made through more efficient business practices.

Over many years, overpayments have accumulated and now represent approximately $335 million. We have started to recover this money, and it is my intention to recover all overpayments that are legitimately owed to the province.

Just last week our government made clear that there will not be a cut in social assistance payments across the board. We are not going to cut holes in the social safety net; we are making it more effective.

We are working to provide alternatives to social assistance through programs like Jobs Ontario Training and we are continuing to develop new measures in our ongoing program to reform and to make more effective Ontario's social assistance system.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Let me begin my response to the minister with a very clear indication that every person in this Legislature would agree that we need to deal with cases of welfare fraud. All of us who support the need to protect our social security system for those who need it agree that we must indeed make sure that the social assistance dollars are going to support those who truly need them and whose only alternative, unfortunately, is to depend on social assistance.

But that statement does not lead me naturally to a statement of pure congratulations to this minister for the announcement he has made today. There are far too many unanswered questions about the sheer mismanagement of this issue from day one on the part of this government, and there are still unanswered questions.

As the minister puts in place a last-minute response to a growing concern about welfare fraud, he doesn't indicate to us whether he has any idea of indeed how much fraud there might be in the welfare system and what that's costing the system. Even more importantly, this minister gives no indication that he understands why there might be welfare fraud, what might be causing the welfare fraud. How can you deal with fraud in a system if you have no idea what's causing it? How do you know where to begin to look?

Minister, I ask you: What are your new welfare police, your inspectors, going to start to look for? What is your estimate of fraud in the system? Is it 5%, 10%, 20%? Is it really cost-effective? Is it a good use of tax dollars to start to examine every single welfare case, every single record, in order to start to deal with those cases where there may in fact be fraud?

I question the approach the minister is taking. I also find it ironical that this government, three and a half years into its mandate, is beginning to deal with an issue which has become more and more of a concern, because this government in its very first year, with its ideological blinders on, moved to take away any of the kinds of controls and conditions that would ensure that welfare dollars were being given, in the first place, to those who needed it most.

As the minister shakes his head, I take him back to a time of a former minister under his government who said we wouldn't need to have home visits to make sure the welfare recipient was indeed in the living situation they claimed to be. I remind the minister that they decided that a young person of 16 years of age could leave home without a particular reason for leaving home, without having to make the case of the need for social assistance.

I do find it ironical that this government is now taking steps to deal with problems at an end of a process, to deal with the problem it in fact helped to create. But perhaps what gives me the greatest sadness is that there is nothing in the minister's statement which speaks in any real way to real welfare reform, to getting people who are on social assistance back into the workplace. Surely we would all have agreed that the real goal of reform in social assistance, the real way of reducing the cost of social assistance, is to deal with the needs of people and the desire of people who are on social assistance and who would much rather be working to be able to get back into the workplace.

I say to this government and to this minister, as I have said in this House time and time again, that in order to have real social assistance reform, there must be jobs for people to go to, and unless this government really does understand what is needed for real job creation, for real economic recovery, it is going to be difficult to deal with the issue of real social assistance reform.

I find it ironical that once again -- and maybe this is the version of the Rae automatic excuse response coming out again -- in any statement this government makes, any statement of excuse about why it can't do what it would really like to do, it becomes the problem of the federal Liberals who have been in government for all of some six months now. The government really does have to stop blaming the federal government for all the problems it has helped to create and which in fact this government has no commonsense approach to resolving, as the minister tries to present this approach as being.

I ask you, after three and a half years of government under the New Democrats in the province of Ontario, is this all that's left of social assistance reform in Bob Rae's Ontario?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): It's $7 billion a year to feed the debt of this province. It's $6 billion a year to support those on social assistance. There's not one attempt to tackle the deficit, and that's where we should be going: to get these people off social assistance.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I listened intently to the minister's comment, and I listened to the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. If I listened to her carefully, I heard what I've been hearing for the last three and a half years: They still have more questions than they have suggestions, and today on the announcement in terms of welfare fraud, it's no different for the Liberal Party of Ontario.

But we in the Conservative Party have been raising this issue with you and your government now for three and a half years. The evidence across Canada has been very clear, much like the need for you to respond to the social contract in the fashion you did -- late. You are now responding to the issue of welfare fraud when provinces all across Canada have implemented strategic decisions to tighten up the rules to have more accountability in government and to ensure that those who are truly in need received it.

In fact, minister, I'd like to quote briefly from Rory Leishman, national affairs editor with the London Free Press, who suggested that the Ontario government is the principal author of the province's financial misfortunes in this regard.

He says: "Despite the warnings of the federal government, with Ontario already plunging into a recession, what did the Rae government do? In January 1991, it increased welfare benefits, already higher than any other province in Canada." It went on to suggest: "The sad results were predictable: a devastating increase in welfare dependency for the people of Ontario.

The process was well under way with the Peterson Liberals when they raised real welfare benefits and made huge expansions by more than 25%, which helped boost the number of social assistance recipients to over 600,000." It went on to compliment the province of Quebec for having "meaningfully reduced the number of citizens who were seeking dependency on their social systems."

Minister, I'm at least today going to thank you and your government for turning the corner, that you've at least today stopped expanding your social assistance eligibility rules and are at least acknowledging that there is welfare fraud in the system.

In fact, I want to tell you that even though it's three and a half years into your mandate, the Office of the Provincial Auditor, looking at 1991 statistics within your ministry, talked in terms of $140 million to $200 million of taxpayers' money that was deemed to have been given to recipients inappropriately and yet your government had no ability to recover any of those funds.

The auditor went on to tell you that less than 3% of all the moneys that the courts determine are defrauded of the Ontario taxpayers is what your government recovers. Today's announcement talks about a recognition of welfare fraud, but at no point are you suggesting a specific action plan to go out there and determine it other than to hire 270 officers who will then start examining files and making telephone calls.

During the press conference today your answers were very straight, but they were very simplistic with respect to how this is going to actually happen. In fact, you're going to be inspecting the car in a person's driveway and the mortgage on the house, but you're not going to be asking basic questions about the spouse in the house, some of the rules of which you, by your own admission in the press conference today, say are rather unclear and convoluted.

The truth is that most of the fraud cases that are going forward are on this unclear definition of what constitutes a relationship for a person on social assistance.

But your government, with your abolishing home visits, by your increasing access for 16- and 17-year-olds, by your causing direct deposit, not having a home address in order to collect welfare in this province, and putting people who have been on general welfare assistance for two consecutive years automatically into family benefits, these kinds of changes you've suggested have only expanded this system beyond the ability of taxpayers to support it.

To be more direct, we in the Progressive Conservative Party offered you an eight-point plan a year and a half ago. Today's announcement only addresses two of those eight suggestions to tighten up the system. We expect from you some vision as well as ability to manage this system better.

We encourage you to look at the Quebec model to empower our municipalities and our bureaucrats to do a better job. This does not have to be intrusive, but rather supportive of the notion of protecting taxpayers' investment in the finest social assistance system in the world.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In order for this place to work, we have to have some control of what takes place in this chamber. I did not want to rise during the response time and use that time up, but during our party's response, which is five minutes -- I'm sitting this close, and it was very difficult for me to hear -- I counted eight individual --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: See what I mean?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It continues to go on.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: They're still nattering away over there.

Mrs Marland: You see what I mean. I did not count the number of individual conversations on this side of the House because it's more difficult for me to see, but I counted eight across the floor of the House, most of them involving the cabinet. When the cabinet makes an important statement, I think they also want to hear the response.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga South --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The honourable member raises a very good point. Indeed, there were a number of private conversations on both sides of the chamber at the time the honourable member for Burlington South was recognized to have an opportunity to reply to a minister's statement. Indeed, there were private conversations at the time the minister was attempting to make the statement.

It's important that when a time is allotted for statements and for replies, both sides of the House exercise a great deal of quiet to hear both the statements and responses. The honourable member's point is well taken, and all I can do is to ask for the cooperation of all members of this chamber to try and show a bit more courtesy to one another.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I understand, there is a joint news conference being held right now between the union and management of Ontario Hydro. I ask if it would be agreed with unanimous consent that we ask the minister to inform the House of what has taken place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Environment and Energy to make a statement?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will report to the House immediately upon being informed. I'm told there are developments taking place at the moment, but I have not been told exactly what's taking place. I'd be happy to make an announcement for the members as soon as I'm told the --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We want to know what's happening.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, obviously the member doesn't want to know what's happening.

The Speaker: Another point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I would make a point of order that we recess briefly so the minister could update --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: May I finish, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. The minister indicated that if there was something to report, he would ask the House for its unanimous approval to make a statement.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday of last week, the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler) rose in the House on a question of privilege concerning an advertisement that had appeared in certain newspapers in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The advertisement, which takes the form of an open letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, makes certain remarks about Bill 77, remarks which can be interpreted as suggesting that the bill would become law by a specified time even though the bill had only received first reading. The minister says, "The bill will be law well in advance of the official closing date for nominations of October 14, 1994."

I have reviewed the advertisement as it appears in the February 8, 1994, issue of the Ottawa Citizen in light of the parliamentary authorities. I find that the precedent that is closest for the case before me is a 1989 Ottawa ruling concerning government advertising that tended to suggest that certain fiscal measures, which had yet to passed by the House, would become law.

In the course of ruling that there was no case for breach of privilege or for contempt, Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons found that the advertisements were essentially informational in nature and that there was no intention to infringe the privileges of the House. Members will find this important ruling at pages 4,457 to 4,461 of the House of Commons Hansard for October 10, 1989.

To this I will add that in the course of the 34th Parliament, a member of our own House had alleged that disrespect had been shown to the chamber by reason of public servants acting in a way that disregarded the legislative process on a bill. In the course of finding that a prima facie case had not been made out, Speaker Edighoffer made the following remarks at page 273 of the Journals for December 20, 1989:

"I must come to the conclusion that what we are dealing with here is an administrative error and not a contempt for this chamber. It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly, once that bill becomes law."

Finally, only last year the member for St George-St David, Mr Murphy, raised a question of privilege alleging that the government was acting as if Bill 38, which had only been given first reading at that time, had already received royal assent. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case of privilege had not been made out in that instance.

In view of these rulings, and after careful consideration of the present circumstances, I find that a prima facie case has not been made out.

However, I want to say to the minister that this action has come very close to contempt, and in the future the minister should exercise more caution and exhibit greater respect for the proprieties of this House.

I thank the member for Nepean for bringing this matter to my attention.

On a point of order, the member for Nepean and then the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the ruling that you've just given and the time you have taken to analyse the point. I also appreciate the warning that you have issued to the minister and I fully expect the minister, as requested from me, will issue a public apology.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the point made by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Mr Eves: On the point made by the member for Etobicoke West, I believe the member asked for unanimous consent that the House recess for 10 minutes until the Minister of Environment and Energy is apprised as to what the developments with Ontario Hydro are.

As many members, and I'm sure the public, are aware, there are questions that every member of the Ontario public has, and rightfully so, I think, with respect to this thing. I didn't hear you ask whether or not unanimous consent in fact would be in order.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound raises a valid point of order. Indeed, I will ask if there is unanimous consent for this House to recess for 10 minutes. Agreed? I heard at least one negative voice. The government House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before you called for the unanimous consent I was going to rise on the point that the House leader for the third party raised.

If we in fact with some certainty knew that there was something to announce that might well be a part of today's question period, you might consider that option, but we do have a legislative

schedule to proceed with and we don't know the moment at which we might be able to make any announcements. As the members across the way know full well, the clock is a rather important factor to any government in its decisions around the timing of the events that happen here in this House.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Very briefly, I think it's fair to say that, as far as the province of Ontario is concerned today, there really is only one overriding question, and that is the situation at Ontario Hydro.

I understand what the minister responsible for Hydro and others have said. I just assume then that we have an agreement, given the urgency of this question, that the moment the government knows something, particularly in terms of a settlement, there will be an agreement on all sides to revert to statements and the minister will advise the House. That's what I understand we have agreed to.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): With respect, Mr Speaker, I said clearly to the House that there are developments taking place as we speak, and as soon as I can make a final statement, I will be happy to rise and ask for unanimous consent. I thought everyone understood that.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Renfrew North, indeed there would appear to be a general consensus that if there is something to be announced, there would be a request. The request requires unanimous consent in order for the minister to make a statement. We will deal with the matter at that time, whenever that should occur.

It is now time for oral questions and the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question will be to the Minister of Environment and Energy, and I suggest in posing this question that we would have been much happier if the minister had been prepared to at least take the opportunity we were trying to create to give the public some first word of assurance that this government is going to do whatever is necessary to keep the lights on in this province.

This minister, this Premier and this government have given the public nothing but vague hopes that there will be a settlement and some vague threats about what they might do if in fact there is not a settlement at the table. The public deserves more than that.

I consider it absolutely irresponsible that this government is playing the kind of brinkmanship that it is on this most critical of issues and that it could justify letting the public concern build to this point, giving the public no answer whatsoever.

The minister receives notes; we can only hope that there will finally be some word from this government that will be reassuring to the public. We are now facing a strike deadline which should have required that the government start to shut its nuclear plants down. The hour is getting later and later even as we wait for the minister to tell us what recent note has been presented.

I ask the minister to tell the people of this province that indeed the lights are going to stay on.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Yes.

Mrs McLeod: I cannot believe the flippancy with which the minister has responded to that question.

Hon Mr Wildman: You asked me if they would stay on and I said they will. You can't take yes for an answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the leader take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: We were all aware that at the past midnight it was intended to begin to shut down the nuclear plants of this province. We were well aware that this could begin to result in the loss of electricity. We also know or should know that this very possibility was causing enormous concern for businesses, for major power users, for people in their homes, for people in hospitals. It really is irresponsible that when I asked the minister, this many hours after that deadline had passed, whether or not he can assure the public that the lights will stay on, he gives a flippant response.

We knew that when the government delayed the shutdown of the nuclear reactors at midnight they had to have some assurance that they were not going to permit a strike to take place in the province of Ontario. I ask the minister, and again I give him a serious opportunity, to tell us what guarantee he can now give us at this moment in time that there will not be a strike and the lights will stay on.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's a different question. I'm happy to report to the House that because considerable progress has been made subsequent to the Premier meeting with members of the union and the management of Ontario Hydro yesterday and because of the tremendous amount of work that has been done in the intervening hours, along with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour conciliation branch, significant progress has been made and, as a result of that, Ontario Hydro has postponed any orderly shutdown that it originally had planned for earlier today.

Mrs McLeod: The public needs some assurance as to what this government is going to do if there is not an agreement at the negotiating table. From the answer the minister has just provided, we have no guarantee that there is a settlement at hand at the negotiating table. We still have the hope of the settlement. I'm going to assume that if the minister has news of a settlement he would have shared that news not only with the members of this Legislature but in fact with the people of this province.

In the absence of any news of a settlement, recognizing the fact that with a strike deadline which is this Thursday and the fact that you had to begin shutting the nuclear plants down at the past midnight in order to do that in a safe and orderly way, you have recognized and Hydro has recognized that we cannot shut the nuclear plants down and keep the lights on.

My question to the minister is: Firstly, do you have an absolute guarantee that there will be a settlement at the table? Secondly, failing an absolute guarantee that there will be a settlement at the table, tell us, tell the public, exactly what you are prepared to do in the event of a breakdown at the negotiating table.

Do you have back-to-work legislation ready? Are you prepared to bring in back-to-work legislation to make sure that there is no strike that would turn the lights out in the province of Ontario? Give us the assurance of what you're prepared to do today, Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: We all recognize the seriousness of the situation, the importance of the electrical power system in this province for the economy of the province and for the health and safety of the people of this province. Both the management of Ontario Hydro and the members of the Power Workers' Union recognize their responsibilities, as does the government, in that regard.

I would hope the member would understand that if Ontario Hydro has decided to postpone the orderly shutdown of the nuclear plants that it had proposed should proceed today, this is an indiction that significant progress has been made.

"Collective bargaining has worked very effectively. We have not had power disruptions to a large degree in Ontario. There has only been one strike in recent memory. I think that was in recognition that good collective bargaining is the good route to labour-management relationships."

What I just read is a quote from the then Minister of Energy, almost four years ago to the day, in the Globe and Mail, the member who sits opposite. She, at that time, was in support of collective bargaining to reach an agreement. It's unfortunate that for some reason now she's unwilling to let the parties work to come to an agreement and ensure lights will stay on in the province.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege prior to placing my second question? I do believe that it is a point of personal privilege that in citing responses that have been given by previous ministers in the House, they be recited in their full context. Since I raise an issue and continue to raise an issue --

Hon Mr Wildman: Do you want me to read the whole thing? I'd be happy to read the whole thing.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I want to make the point that while indeed we support collective bargaining, and continue to, and hope there will be a settlement at the table, as a former Minister of Energy, while I made those commitments and would continue to make those commitments, I was also prepared to tell the public exactly what contingency plans were being put in place. There was communication with the major power users and the local municipal utilities and there was some effort made to assure the public that the government would do what was necessary to keep the lights on.

Mr Speaker, I recognize that you may not acknowledge that's a point of privilege, but I will proceed to my second question.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just point out that in that same quote, since the member didn't want it quoted out of context, she said, "We have to deal with the reality that there could be power outages." That was in 1990.

The Speaker: Before every member decides to start quoting Hansard verbatim, the member does not have a point of privilege and I would ask the leader to place her second question, please.

Mrs McLeod: All we ask of this government is that it begin to deal with the realities. That's all we are asking.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to turn, in my second question, to another very serious issue and address my question to the Solicitor General.

Minister, as we all know too well, yesterday a woman and her son struggled to escape a basement fire. The woman died and her six-day-old is in critical condition. As we're also only too well aware, yesterday's tragedy was the second fatal basement apartment fire this year.

In response to the concerns that are being raised about the safety of basement apartments, the Housing minister has suggested that Bill 120, which is before the House, will prevent these kinds of tragedies by making basement apartments legal. I say to you today that Bill 120 does nothing to make basement apartments safe.

I ask you, as the minister response for fire safety, do you not agree that Bill 120 has no provisions that will ensure the safety of people who live in basement apartments? I ask you what you will do to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening again.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): The government, like all members of this House, takes tragedies like this very seriously, and we offer our condolences to all family members who are affected by these and similar tragedies.

Let me say very directly to the honourable member that the regulations that go hand in hand with Bill 120 will indeed address the major fire safety issues that arise as a result of tragedies such as we've seen today and others like them.

Mrs McLeod: It really is simply not a sufficient response for the government to say that at some point in time there will be regulations to deal with the issue of how basement apartments, which this government proposes to make legal, can in fact be made safe. I direct the minister to the fact that municipalities have expressed their concerns that Bill 120 gives them no control to make sure that basement apartments will meet safety standards.

It is a fact that during the committee discussions of Bill 120, our caucus placed an amendment that would require that basement apartments become registered. Under that amendment, as a condition of becoming registered, municipalities could ensure through inspections that local safety and fire requirements would be met.

We have also proposed, through amendment to the legislation itself, not through regulation, that apartment owners who did not register would face stiff fines so that indeed this could be enforced.

Minister, I ask whether you will support our amendments to require safety inspections as a condition of registering basement apartments.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me answer this way: There was a committee that was put together under the leadership of the fire marshal of Ontario to review what type of regulations should accompany Bill 120, and as a result of participants, including fire chiefs and other experts across the province, there were a series of recommendations made. The government has adopted all of those recommendations and they will be enacted along with Bill 120, and the fire marshal is satisfied that this indeed will provide the kind of protection that he believes should be in place for the people of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I am well aware of recommendations that have been made and in fact endorsed by the association of municipalities, by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and indeed by the Mississauga fire chief, Cyril Hare. But the proposals that had been agreed to, that fit with the amendments we have made to the legislation, are proposals which we believe would give real teeth to the need to inspect basement apartments. They include the proposal that Bill 120 should contain provisions to require owners of accessory apartments to register the properties with the municipality in which those properties are located.

It is my understanding that the response the minister has just given, that there has been agreement to incorporate recommendations of a report, does not commit to the registering of basement apartments and therefore would not allow for that inspection and that assurance that safety requirements are being met.

I will ask the minister very directly to clarify what he has said: It will be under regulations, or in fact what has been agreed to; whether or not he will commit and whether his government will commit to supporting the amendments which we have proposed directly to the legislation; and why his government has refused, and if it continues to refuse, to take the very simple step of ensuring that all basement apartments be registered so that we can ensure the safety of basement apartments.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The role of the fire marshal in my ministry and in this government is to provide the kind of expert advice governments need when they're dealing with fire protection and fire prevention in the public interest. We are not experts in that role, none of us in this House. That is why we have experts such as this.

The fire marshal's advice at this time is that the recommendations of his committee are quite sufficient to meet the needs of upholding Bill 120 and providing the type of fire protection that the public should have, and the government is responding and concurring with the recommendations of the Ontario fire marshal.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, you're responsible for housing in this province. You're also responsible for Bill 120. I have a very real concern on behalf of everyone in this House who has a responsibility in dealing with your legislation.

You have now been in possession for more than two weeks of the recommendations from the coroner's inquest from the first fire tragedy in Mississauga. We now, as you know, have had the second. Would you tell this House what actions you have taken to respond to those recommendations from the coroner's inquest?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member, as a member of the committee which has been reviewing Bill 120, has had access to the regulations which will be proclaimed under the fire code and also the changes that have been made to the building code to be enacted with Bill 120.

She will be aware that many of the recommendations that were made by the jury in the inquest are already addressed by the measures that have been proposed both within the fire code and within the building code, and those will meet most of the recommendations that have been suggested by the inquest jury.

The one matter which remains is a matter which was raised by the leader of the official opposition in questioning of the Solicitor General, and that has to do with the registration process. The situation under Bill 120 is that all new apartments in houses will only be legal if they have a building permit and are thus certified by the building inspection branch that they meet the safety code, the Fire Marshals Act and the building code. Therefore, we think that registration will be unnecessary in these cases.

Mrs Marland: Minister, it's almost scary to listen to your answers, quite frankly. We have 100,000 existing units, at least, in this province. We already have a bylaw in Mississauga that requires smoke alarms to be installed in every home. The point that you're missing, and the point that you obviously haven't taken yet from the coroner's inquest recommendations, is that it doesn't matter how many laws you have; you cannot enforce them without the right of entry.

What Fire Chief Cyril Hare told you, your staff and the committee was that without the right of entry, without a search warrant, he is powerless to enforce any laws that come as a result of Bill 120, your fire department or the city of Mississauga bylaws. What are you willing to do to make it a reality and save these tragedies?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member attributes to Fire Chief Hare things that he did not say in the committee. Can I read for your benefit, Mr Speaker, and members of the House,

section 18 of the Fire Marshals Act, which says:

"Subject to the regulations, the fire marshal, deputy fire marshal, a district deputy fire marshal, an inspector or an assistant to the fire marshal may, upon the complaint of a person interested, or when he or she considers it necessary so to do, without such complaint, inspect all buildings and premises within his or her jurisdiction, and for the purpose may at all reasonable hours enter into and upon the buildings and premises for the purpose of examination, taking with him or her, if necessary, a constable or other police officer or the other assistants that he or she considers proper."

This

section of the Fire Marshals Act gives full authority to the officials of the fire department to undertake the inspections they feel necessary.

Mrs Marland: You know, Minister, you are pathetic. I'm sorry, but you know what? It's very sad about what's happening in this House. We have two tragedies --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): For the honourable member, as I know her, that's surprising. I would ask the honourable member to rephrase her question.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. The answers are pathetic.

If we weren't standing in this House asking these questions today on the heels of two tragedies, two tragedies that my fire chief, Cyril Hare, warned would happen again, and unfortunately have happened again, if we weren't dealing with that fact, I could sit here and listen to the minister read something out which is actually not appropriate in respect to the question that I've asked.

Yes, as she says, upon receiving a complaint, they may investigate or they may inspect. But the part this minister doesn't read is the fact that the person whose property may, upon receiving a complaint, be inspected may also refuse. When the fire chief comes to this House and says to our committee, "This is what you need," he is not doing it because he's trying to make a partisan statement, Minister. He's doing it because he's trying to save lives. I wish you would do the same thing, and I wish you would listen to the fact that they cannot get a search warrant on request from a justice of the peace unless they have evidence, and they cannot enter without a search warrant.

The Speaker: Would the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Marland: Will you make the amendments that are necessary to facilitate the inspection and do what the chief says for the right of entry?

Hon Ms Gigantes: There are two kinds of inspections which can happen in residential premises. One is property standards inspection, meeting matters under the code and under municipal bylaws --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If you would just be quiet for a moment, I'll explain it for your benefit. Bill 120 provides new powers for a property standards inspector, on behalf of the municipality, to make sure that the building code is being met, and it provides access to a permit to inspect from a justice of the peace.

I think it is important for the member for Mississauga South not to confuse that question with the question of fire safety which, as I indicated by reading directly from the Fire Marshals Act, already provides that any authorized person can, within the fire officials group of the municipality, enter a premise in order to make sure, with or without a complaint. Where the authority, the fire office of the municipality, feels that there is a need to inspect, entry is authorized under the existing Fire Marshals Act. In truth, Hare never tried to suggest that was not the case.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I heard your response earlier to the leader of the official opposition. You suggested that they're very close to a settlement.

I would like to take your mind back a couple of days in time to when the Premier announced his ultimatum about settling the dispute. I would ask you to fill this House in on exactly what that ultimatum is, what that ultimatum meant and when that ultimatum was supposed to take place.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think it's a matter of public record. As a matter of fact, I heard Mr Murphy, the president of the Power Workers' Union, explain what was said clearly in the media. That is that the Premier called both sides together and indicated that the government is in favour of collective bargaining and wishes that the two parties work diligently, with the help of the Ministry of Labour officials, to reach a voluntarily negotiated settlement by today.

In the words of Mr Murphy, as I recall, if that did not happen, then the government would take measures to ensure the integrity of the system and to protect the health and safety of the people of the province that might have ramifications that neither Hydro management nor the members of the union would prefer, and I think Mr Murphy's reaction was that they'd better get down to work.

I'm glad to say that both sides have worked diligently and appear very close to a deal as a result of the hours of work that have taken place since that meeting.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I guess that's a new definition for the socialist party in this province of what negotiated settlements should be when the Premier then starts issuing ultimatums.

I will say to the minister, this doesn't sound like a negotiated settlement when the Premier says, "You've got to settle by 9 o'clock." It's now after 9 and that was the ultimatum: after 9 o'clock.

Hon Mr Wildman: He didn't say 9.

Mr Stockwell: Well, then it's after noon. You people gave the time and you gave the date. As I understand it, that time was supposed to be 9 o'clock this morning, and if it's not, then you can correct that period of time, because I understand it was extended from 8 o'clock till 9 o'clock and now till noon.

I ask you, as Minister of Energy, if there is not a negotiated settlement today, if they are still negotiating for who knows how long, when may we expect this ultimatum to kick in? When will the people of this province know, once and for all, that the lights will not go out, that there will be a settlement either agreed to by the two parties or the settlement that Bob Rae talks about of writing the contract himself and simply implementing it? When will we know, as the taxpayers in this province, when this settlement will take place and when this crisis will end?

Hon Mr Wildman: The comments of the member remind me of the words of Sir Winston Churchill at Westminster when he said that another member was engaging in "terminological" --

Mr Stockwell: It's "inexactitude," Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: The fact is, the Premier did not set a time. He said "by today," and I think the member should be very clear that progress has been made, that as late as only a few minutes ago I was in touch with Ministry of Labour officials who are involved in the talks. They were very, very optimistic and said that the two sides appeared to be very close to a deal.

I will be reporting to my policy and priorities committee colleagues of the cabinet this afternoon, and I would look forward to a deal being arrived at very soon. The Minister of Energy and the Premier are clear that we will do what is necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of this province.

Mr Stockwell: You said he didn't give a time or a period when it must be settled other than today. What is today? It's a time. It's a deadline. The question I ask you, Mr Minister, is very clear. If they haven't reached a settlement on the deadline which the Premier set, which is today, can the people of this province be assured that the ultimatum given by the Premier, "either settle or I'll write the contract," will be enforced tomorrow?

It's very simple. The question the people are asking in this province is, when will this be settled? Your Premier has said, "It must be today or I'll settle it myself." Does that stand? Was that time definite? Was it etched in stone? Is that it? Can we expect a settlement today? If not, will the Premier set the rules himself, sign the contract himself, order everybody back to work and make the deal himself?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member opposite characterizes the position taken by the Premier as an ultimatum. I would rather use the American term of "jawboning." In fact, the Premier was encouraging both sides to move as quickly as possible today to a settlement. The Premier made it very clear that we would do everything possible to ensure that the power required by the people of this province will be provided, and we're confident that that will be the case.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister responsible for Hydro. Government ministers have taken pains today to tell the House that Hydro has agreed to postpone the shutdown of any of its nuclear reactors until later today. That was clearly the impression given earlier this afternoon. I checked a few moments ago with Hydro officials and they confirmed that three hours ago at Bruce, Hydro began to shut down part of its nuclear power program. That was three hours ago.

What is different about this situation in the spring of 1994 than at any other time are the two following facts: Today Ontario Hydro depends on the nuclear power program for substantially more of the electricity than ever before; some two thirds of the grid is fed from those nuclear power plants. Secondly, because of a significant attrition at the utility, Hydro has not the manpower that it had previously to move in to man these plants. Those are two critical differences now as opposed to 1990 or 1987 or 1982.

Can the minister confirm, contrary to earlier indications from the government, that at noon today an orderly shutdown of the nuclear power program began, and it began at Bruce?

Hon Mr Wildman: The information that Ontario Hydro has provided to me is that because of the progress being made, the orderly shutdown which was planned has been slowed and postponed. It is correct --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously, Ontario Hydro will comply with the AECB's requirements. That is their responsibility in terms of ensuring the safety of the system. However, as I indicated, the progress that has been made at Bruce is much slower than it would have been had progress not been made in the negotiations.

Mr Conway: A minute ago the House was clearly told that the entire shutdown had been postponed. Now, I know the minister; he's an honourable man. But I'm telling you, the public has a right to some answers. Within 24 hours this entire system goes critical, and there are hospital patients, there are industries and there are farms in this Easter week that will want to know what the hell is going on and what you are doing to ensure that this critical, vital, essential service is going to be maintained.

I ask you yet again: What is the government's contingency plan in the event that hours from now these talks are not successful and that within 24 hours from now we really start to lose a very, very large part of the nuclear power program, without which there will be brownouts and blackouts before Easter weekend?

Hon Mr Wildman: I know that the member is very concerned. Without getting as apoplectic as he, I would simply say that we all recognize the seriousness of this situation; we recognize the importance of maintaining the electrical power upon which the residents of this province depend. The government is committed to doing that, as is Ontario Hydro and, I believe, the workers at Ontario Hydro.

That's why it is important that we all -- all of us in this House as well as over at the hotel -- work as hard as we can to bring about a settlement so that we don't have the terrible situations that the member alludes to.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Solicitor General. Last week, the Ontario Provincial Police announced the closure of the Stayner OPP detachment office. The mayor of the township of Clearview, Mrs Carol Currie, the council, local citizens and I feel betrayed because it is now clear that the OPP and your government made this decision prior to any real consultation taking place.

In 1986, the Liberals cut 24-hour policing in that area of the province. Now you come along and close the OPP detachment at a time when criminal activity within the area is on the rise. Minister, when break and enters, thefts and the crime rate are all dramatically rising, how can you assure the people of the Stayner area that they will be safe and secure in their own homes and businesses while at the same time you're closing the local OPP detachment office?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I appreciate the question from the member because it gives me an opportunity to address a couple of issues that are out there with regard to the amalgamation.

First of all, it's my understanding that there indeed was a high degree of consultation with the public, with community representatives, with local leadership, and that no one should have been caught unawares that we were close to making this type of decision.

Second, let me also say that in all the amalgamations that took place, there is at least the same level of service and in most cases an enhanced level of service as a result of the decisions that were made.

I would just say to the honourable member that the concerns he has raised as to whether or not service has been dropped or whether the residents in this area he represents should feel that they're getting less service should be alleviated by the response that he is getting very directly from me on behalf of the OPP that this is not the case, that we have at least the same level of service and that in most cases it is indeed enhanced.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like, with the indulgence of my colleagues in the House, unanimous consent to make a brief statement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent to revert to statements? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO HYDRO

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On behalf of the government, I am pleased to announce that a tentative agreement has been reached between the Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro.

Applause.

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously, the parties will want the opportunity to make the provisions of the agreement clear to their constituencies. I would just add that it addresses the key issues and that the executive board of the Power Workers' Union will be recommending it to its membership.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): What we did was revert to statements, so it's appropriate to allow up to five minutes for each opposition party to make a statement.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We share in the applause, because we're all immensely relieved that there has been an agreement reached.

It would have been very helpful to all of us if the minister had been more forthcoming during his earlier answers and if in fact we could have simply had a recess until the minister could bring back what are the first words of assurance to the public that he was indeed going to be able to ensure that the lights would stay on in the province of Ontario.

We have said all along that we hoped there would be a resolution at the collective bargaining table and we congratulate the parties involved for having resolved this at the collective bargaining table.

I say that sincerely, but I say it without excusing what I suggested earlier today was brinkmanship on the part of the government. I cannot accept the fact that the government had to let public concern on this vital issue reach such heights with no response from the government, nothing except the hope that there would be an agreement reached at the bargaining table, until yesterday we finally had some indication, a vague threat from the Premier that if they did not reach an agreement at the table, he would do something nobody would like.

Interjection.

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

Mrs McLeod: We don't know what subsequent details of the agreement have been reached or what pressures were brought to bear, but I say to this minister and to his government that his silence throughout the period of time while the questions were being asked, questions directed towards this government about its plans, about its responsibility, not its responsibility to get a settlement at the bargaining table -- we all hoped there would be a settlement at the bargaining table -- but some assurance from this government that it was in fact planning for a contingency if no settlement was reached -- there has been no effort on the part of this government throughout this process to communicate with the public.

There was only a belated effort on the part of Ontario Hydro to communicate with municipal utilities, which would have been the ones involved in ensuring that reduced power needs could be met.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: There was no attempt until late last week to communicate with the major power users, and that's why we were all flooded with letters of concern from people who wondered what this government was prepared to do to keep the lights on and to avoid the public safety and economic consequences if no agreement was reached.

Since there will undoubtedly not be an opportunity to reflect back on what can be learned --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to some time in order to make a statement. I ask the government benches to please come to order and allow her the opportunity to make a statement.

Mrs McLeod: The way in which the government has dealt with this issue has done absolutely nothing for public confidence and it certainly has done nothing for business confidence. It has sent a very poor signal to any investors that the response of government and of Ontario Hydro to a pending crisis was simply to write letters to them saying that they can expect the lights would go out.

Two months ago we asked this government to tell the public what it would do to deal with something we've never faced before, and that was the possibility of a strike which could cause serious public safety concerns under the provisions of Bill 40. We have never had a response from the government on that issue. This government must go back and say, "If we ever face a situation like this in Hydro or any other sector again, how will we deal with the problems we have created with the Bill 40 legislation in place?"

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Just a couple of quick observations: Like everyone, I'm pleased at the news of a tentative settlement, though perhaps this time more than other times I will really, really want to see this agreement, because I have a feeling that it will be a very interesting agreement.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: But no, I'm pleased to know that there's a tentative agreement.

I want to say something else, and particularly to people in the House who are much more knowledgeable about the collective bargaining process than I am. I want to just make this point: We now have a situation, and we may as well now be frank and candid about it, at Ontario Hydro, a mammoth public sector monopoly, where largely because of a very substantial nuclear power component, both sides, labour and management, know, and they knew from the very beginning, that we cannot have a strike, because we can no longer take a strike.

For people who prattle on about the collective bargaining process, and we all pay due homage to that, it must be now said that in terms of Ontario Hydro today, everyone who knows anything about the utility knows that we simply cannot tolerate a strike. When you get a situation like that, we all know that certainly colours the bargaining.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I will offer --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry; I'm interrupting the woodman. I would offer congratulations to the government. A little bit of investigation needs to be taken before we can offer wholly our endorsement of this deal.

Clearly, there are a couple of things I would like to get on the record. Firstly, there must be a review of this collective agreement to see exactly what was given away and what was negotiated out. I think everyone would agree that any party on the opposition benches would be given the opportunity to read the contract before it gives a stamp of approval.

We're glad the lights aren't going out. We are equally glad, if it's a good agreement for the taxpayers in the province of Ontario, that there was an agreement take place.

I want to just cover a couple of other issues. Firstly, I think any party that goes across the floor in the future elections will at least now have a little bit of an easier time dealing with negotiations and collective agreements, because now we know that if we are in government, as part of a collective agreement process the Premier of the day may load a gun, hold it against their head and say, "Settle." That's okay.

If that party goes into opposition and we are lucky enough to be elected and we are in a situation, I say to the minister, where it's going to be a difficult negotiation, you will stand wholly behind us as part of the collective process, and you may help us load that gun, hold it to their heads and say, "Isn't this collective process in this province wonderful?" I want to get that on the record first.

I thirdly want to say that there were some key issues debated during this negotiation, very key issues this government has taken a position on, which means the key issue was job security. If they negotiated job security out of this contract, I think it's important for this party to know that, because we are going to be faced with some serious and difficult negotiations in the future. As in the past, when you argued about job security being an important agreement in any negotiated settlement, you must accept the fact that we may negotiate those kinds of things out.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the Minister of Labour heckling. I doubt very much, sir, if you were in opposition, you would have accepted the ultimatum handed down by your Premier by any other Premier in this province when he said, "Settle or else." I don't think you would have accepted it.

Finally, when we do get an opportunity to review this, I want to know on this floor of the Legislature what the new socialists in Ontario believe and agree with, with the new spin, the tough Bob Rae spin they're putting on this particular issue. The new Bob Rae believes in holding guns to people's heads to negotiate a settlement. The new Bob Rae believes that you can take away job security and you don't negotiate those things in contracts, and I say to you that when we form the next government, we believe in those kinds of things as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. We revert to questions. The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville had the floor with a supplementary to the Solicitor General. There are 22 minutes and 24 seconds remaining on the clock.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Just to remind everyone, the member for Simcoe West was expressing his concerns about the OPP decision to close the detachment in Stayner. In response, the Solicitor General said that there was full and open consultation and that he was quite pleased with the process.

I want to say once again that the Solicitor General is operating from bad information, very bad information indeed. In fact, the member and the mayor of Clearview and all the officials in the affected area were informed through media reports: not by the OPP, not by your ministry, but through the media.

It's not only Stayner that's closing; it's also detachments in Elmvale, Bradford and Welland. Four communities will lose their OPP detachments and more closures are expected later this week.

Between 1988 and 1992, the OPP's uniformed force increased by 63 people. In the same time period, reported criminal offences increased by over 36,000 incidents, almost 100 per day. I know the minister's going to tell us he's been hiring more officers, but clearly that won't approach the level of officers required, and the minister is closing detachments and supporting those closures and giving his assurances.

I'd like to have the minister indicate to the House and to the people of Stayner and of many other areas across this province just how they can measure the assurances that he's giving them today. Are we going to see reductions in the significant increases in crime levels in those areas? What yardstick are we going to use to be assured that the minister's promises are in fact going to occur, or are they simply empty assurances?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I believe, and I think there are a great many other Ontarians who also believe, that the OPP is indeed one of the finest police services in the entire world. In fact, when I was recently meeting with RCMP officers at their training academy as they showed me their process of training new officers, they were very supportive and very congratulatory towards the work that the OPP do.

When somebody says, "How do we decide whether or not police are doing a good job?" when we look to police leadership like Commissioner O'Grady and the other chiefs across the province, when they're saying, as the commissioner is, that a measure like this is not going to affect service and is good for the force, is good for the communities we service, as well as being good for the Ontario taxpayer, I believe Ontarians are going to stand by that and believe it.

I point out to him that the whole concept of amalgamating detachments is nothing new. It's happened for decades with the OPP as it has learned how to make the service more efficient as technology has improved, particularly communications. I would also point out to him that I'm advised by the RCMP that they're going through the same kind of process. Is he going to suggest that the RCMP as well as the OPP aren't meeting his level of safety standards, or is he going to stand by the rest of us and support the professionals who lead the policing services in this province?

COMMUNITY PLANNING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A recent OMB decision has allowed the possibility of a Price Club superstore being established in Scarborough. This has generated widespread controversy in the community. I'm concerned about the effects that such superstores have on the local economy, and I would add that this is really a widespread issue, as I read media from the US and Britain; they're having to deal with that as well.

As you know, local businesses are a vital part of every community, but they are unable to compete with the mass merchandising and pricing of such superstores. What is your ministry doing to protect the viability of local communities and their economies?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The member for Scarborough East raises an extremely important point. We should all be concerned about maintaining the viability of local business districts. Recently, my ministry initiated a study to look at ways of controlling the negative impacts of the superstores while ensuring the viability of local business areas. Ultimately, of course, as you know, it will be the consumer who decides the fate of what happens to the retailing industry.

Mr Frankford: On this topic of planning, I'm very supportive of the recommendations made by the recent Sewell commission and I believe they are very welcome among residents' groups in my riding. I understand that we are moving forward on reforms to the planning process.

Can I tell my constituents that these reforms provide them the opportunity to deal with planning and the future of their communities in a more proactive manner? When are we going to see changes being made to the planning process that will allow for effective and comprehensive planning to occur in communities across the province?

Hon Mr Philip: As the member is aware, the Sewell commission was initiated in response to widespread concerns about Ontario's planning process, which was certainly in a mess from any point of view. A number of useful recommendations to improve the process have emerged. My ministry has also just completed its consultation with the stakeholders and is in the process of finalizing the planning reform package. I expect to bring this to the Legislature shortly.

Reform of Ontario's planning process will not only result in improved efficiencies but also in improved ability of ordinary people and communities to understand what is happening and to participate in the process which ultimately has tremendous impacts on their lives and on their businesses.

I believe that good planning involves people in the decision-making process and ensures that their concerns will be dealt with, and that's precisely what we intend to do in the legislation.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister will be aware that both of the fire tragedies that have been referred to by my leader and the member for Mississauga South have occurred in my riding. These tragedies have got a lot of folks upset, obviously, not only here but right across the province.

My concern is with regard to the tone, I guess, of the debate and your response and your answers with regard to safety regulations in Bill 120. We see none. We've asked for them. The mayor of Mississauga asked for them and you dismissed her as being simply supportive of snob zoning, instead of showing serious concern for the safety of her residents.

The mayor has indicated that whether you bring in legislation or regulations to deal with safety or not, she's not going to sit around and wait. She is going to commence inspections in these basement apartments wherever they can be determined they exist.

The report that was referred to by the Solicitor General from the fire marshal's office, and our fire chief sat on it, made a number of recommendations, not the least of which was that where a basement exists with no access to the outside and they want to rent it out as a basement apartment, which is in effect a business, then they must install sprinklers to ensure the safety of the occupants.

Are you prepared to instruct your people today to draft regulations to support the report that was submitted to you and suppressed by you, that was submitted to you by the fire marshal, to ensure the safety of our citizens in this province today?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): There has been no suppression of any report regarding matters affecting fire safety, especially as they touch on the operation of Bill 120.

Can I point out to the second member from Mississauga who has raised these issues, which are of wide concern and which are in fact a key reason we have introduced Bill 120, that you can't have a situation where there are standards which are enforceable when municipalities say that the apartments are illegal because of zoning. You won't have either owners of properties or tenants in those properties coming forward to get the necessary information and make sure there is adequate safety provision within apartments in houses when municipalities say they are illegal because of zoning, for no other reason but zoning.

When we have a situation where those apartments are legal, then both property owners, whose goodwill I don't doubt, and also tenants can raise the questions that need to be raised and make sure the standards are being put in place. We are fully confident that with the changes to the building code -- and it's not accurate to say these have not been made available. Of course they're not in the legislation; they are attached to the legislation.

The building code amendments and also the new fire code regulations affecting apartments in houses are very much part of the legislative commitment that's been undertaken by this government, and it is out of concern for the safety of the people who will be living in apartments in houses.

Mr Mahoney: I guess the thing that's difficult for us to understand is why the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, why Hazel McCallion, why none of the people who sat through the committee hearings agree with you. Mayor McCallion does not have a particular axe to grind.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Oh, no.

Mr Mahoney: Well, she doesn't. Mayor McCallion, I say to the former mayor from Oshawa, is concerned about the safety of the residents who exist in her community. I will admit that some time ago many members of the municipal councils were opposed to them simply based on zoning, but that's changed. They've recognized that during the debate that went on in our time in government and subsequently your time in government.

They have so, Minister. The mayor of Mississauga has said that the number one priority is safety in these situations. You continue to make this some kind of battle between you and the mayors over zoning. That's not the issue. The issue is that they exist; they exist illegally. Bill 120 will rectify that, but it does nothing to deal with the safety matters.

I asked you specifically if you would agree with the report by the fire marshals wherein they recommend that if access is not granted -- let's just be clear on this. We're not talking about stairs up into another dwelling, into the kitchen or the hallway upstairs. You will know from the media reports that in the latest tragedy, the mother tried to get out of the basement window with her baby and was overcome and unable to do it. We can't have these people crawling through small windows, Minister --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- at a time when they're in a panic and running for their lives. Either we have access out to the backyard or the side yard or the street, or we have some safety precautions such as sprinklers. You would insist on this for any commercial operation in this province. They would not be allowed to open their business --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- without these fire protections. Will you insist today that these very, very important fire protections be put in place in this province, give clear direction to the municipalities of what they can expect from you, and provide safety for these people in our communities?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I want to underline once more, in the hope that the member will understand, that we can write every rule in the world that requires safety standards but we can't get those rules acted upon when those apartments are ruled illegal because of zoning. We have to have a change in the status of the apartments in order to get safety regulations in place.

The member will be interested to learn, and he might actually want to take a look at the proposed regulations which have been tabled, the changes to the Fire Marshals Act --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- which will mean that for situations where there is no access to the outside from an apartment in the house, either one of two things has to happen: There has to be a specially designed exit, a window which meets certain kinds of pull-in standards, or there has to be a sprinkler system. I wish the member would take the time, if he has all this passionate concern, to read the proposed changes which were tabled in the committee as we're discussing Bill 120.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, based on his comments at his press conference this morning about his government's finally recognizing the existence of welfare fraud in the province of Ontario.

Minister, Ontario is recognized across Canada as having one of the most loosely administered welfare systems in the country. So it was with some concern that when you purported to suggest you were announcing some of the toughest measures in Canada today, when we look at the recommendations we can't find an example.

You were, however, asked by a member of the media about the Quebec legislation, which was raised by myself and my caucus a year and a half ago with you, that empowered more of these eligibility review officers so that while they do this work they have access to information which will assist them.

In Quebec, 70% of the files that were examined with the assistance of this legislation resulted in refunds, reductions or rejections. In fact, it caused a huge influx of Quebec residents drawing welfare in Ontario in communities along our eastern borders.

The fact is that you offered no assurances to the media or to members of this House that anything you have announced today is going to strengthen the ability of eligibility review officers to do their job to investigate properly all the 1.3 million cases in Ontario. Minister, why did you avoid responding even to some of the changes that are set out but would be required by legislation from the Quebec model?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): While the member opposite chooses to colour the announcement today as the government finally recognizing the existence of fraud, he knows we in fact have not only acknowledged the existence of fraud for some time but have been taking steps during that time to curb the level of fraud in the system.

The indication I was able to give today of some $120 million to $150 million that has been saved in the course of the last year and a half as a result of the measures we've put in place is an indication of our having come down on the issue of fraud and abuse and overpayments in the system. And what I announced today was a heightened process of getting at some of that abuse in the system in a very consistent way.

I do not believe we need to have the kind of sweeping powers given to our workers as exist in the Quebec situation. I am concerned, quite frankly, about what some of those powers have led to. I believe the measures we are putting in place not only respond to the need that's out there; they also happen to respond to the kinds of things that many of the workers in our system have been saying to us need to be done. The kind of systematic review and investigation of every file in the system, with an initial emphasis on the files that we believe are among the highest risk --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- will give us the answers we need.

Mr Jackson: Minister, your best estimate is around $50 million, yet in Quebec they've saved hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. The city of Thunder Bay, by council resolution, is requesting that you look into these kinds of issues, because within their own municipality, the property tax department can't even talk to the people who are administering heat and hydro to cross-reference information to help them because of Ontario's privacy laws.

The other issue I want to raise comes from Thunder Bay: Again, in today's press conference you were asked a very straight question about the cohabitation policy. Most provinces in Canada have clarified this issue. You refused to in the press conference. Concerns were raised in the media and you gave them no straight answer.

In a recent welfare fraud case in Thunder Bay, a Judge Stanley Kurisko asked for an expert from your ministry to come and attend court to explain how the cohabitation policy works. The judge asked if someone collecting mother's allowance can legally live with a partner less than three years, the minimum for a common-law relationship. The case involved a woman living with her landlord in the same house. She was subsequently found guilty of fraud in the amount of $38,500. This is what Judge Kurisko had to say about your regulations: "If this is a loophole" -- which is what your expert testified -- "it's as big as the Grand Canyon."

All of your announcements today talk about your intention to tighten up the system. We got no evidence that you were providing clarity for these review officers so they could go out and do that job. My question to you is simply this: Will you review the cohabitation policy and give a straight answer to the workers in Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: Very directly to the question, as opposed to the

preamble, that is an issue we are reviewing; that is not an issue I'm able to give the member an answer to today in terms of whether any changes will happen. But that is an issue, because for changes to happen to that issue there would have to be legislative changes, and he knows that. That is on the list of things we are looking at with respect to the issue of potential changes in the legislation, so we may have more to say about that.

I also want to go back to the earlier point the member made and to be very clear with him and others who may be concerned about this that nothing I have said should be construed as anything but support from me for us to continue the work we need to do around the sharing of information between government ministries, between levels of government, between municipalities and the provincial government, and that is also work that is under way.

In fact, we are making significant progress towards the signing of agreements with various levels of government that will allow us to share in a much better way that information, which will also help us to address the question of abuse and overpayments in the system.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, last week you announced that the provincial and federal governments had approved the development of 2,074 non-profit homes which will be built in Ontario over the next two years in 28 municipalities, creating accessible and affordable housing and much-needed jobs in construction and in other industries.

Unfortunately, I understand your announcement was less than the positive event it seemed, because it signalled the end of Canada's national housing program. The federal government should be taking a leadership role in housing now more than ever. Social housing makes good economic sense. It creates jobs. It provides decent, affordable housing that lasts for generations. Can you tell me the impact that the cancellation of the federal-provincial non-profit housing program will have in Ontario and what you're doing to try to convince the federal government to maintain its involvement in a national housing program?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The issue that's been raised by the member is a very important one. For decades in this country, we have had a program which has been supported by the federal government, which was a combination of provincial and federal efforts to produce new units of affordable, non-profit housing in communities across Canada.

During last year's, this is 1993's, federal budget, the Conservative administration at that time announced that, having gradually backed out of this program to create new affordable housing, it was now shutting it down completely and that the allocations to be made in the 1993 program would be the last.

For many provinces, this is an enormous loss of assistance at a time when housing assistance is critical to Canadians, who have been through a tough period over the last two years. We know that here in Ontario, as we wind down the federal-provincial government program, it will mean that we will lose a program that at its peak in 1987 was generating about 6,700 units of new and affordable housing for use by Ontarians, which we very much regret.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Chiarelli and Mr Ruprecht exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 23 petitions here with 320 signatures from the Catholic Women's League, women's institutes and business and professional women's clubs, and I would like to read this petition into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount;

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

These petitions are signed by women from Windsor, Wallaceburg, Chatham, Corunna, Ridgetown, Tilbury, Dresden and Thamesville, and I'm very proud to attach my signature to them.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government should not interfere in business in any way; and

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged solely on his or her abilities and experience; and

"Whereas their colour, religion, race or gender or other such characteristics should not enter into the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system by hiring by race, colour, sex or other physical characteristics; and

"Whereas employers should be allowed and required to judge each person as a person and hire them on merit;

"We demand that the government withdraw Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act."

I've signed that, and that's signed by over 1,200 people from Oakville South.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency service to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners -- Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties, and approximately 18,000 people living in small towns and villages in rural sections of this area; and

"Whereas the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis; and

"Whereas if the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period, and the nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away;

"We, the residents of the hospital's service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and call on the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately."

We have attached the names and signatures on the petition, and I affix my name to this petition.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE CENTRE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to maintain the operation of the MNR service centre located on Ghost Lake Road in Dryden. We feel this service is vital to our community, our mills, local businesses and our forests. Closure of this centre will affect a total of 17 jobs in the area and cause an increased cost to Ontario taxpayers in shipping and upgrading Thunder Bay's centre, when a state-of-the-art service presently exists here in Dryden. We can't afford to lose it."

I attach my name to that petition as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 426 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the 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 this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed to the Premier of the province, Bob Rae, the Solicitor General, Dave Christopherson, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition deals with a firearms acquisition certification course. It says:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Premier, Bob Rae, the Solicitor General, David Christopherson, and the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

On behalf of those constituents, I present this petition.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario is planning to implement photo-radar systems to penalize speeding drivers; and

"Whereas the provincial freedom of information commissioner has ruled that the NDP's photo-radar system violates the province's protection of privacy legislation; and

"Whereas there may be a number of legal and constitutional challenges to the NDP's dreaded photo-radar legislation; and

"Whereas the photo-radar system will cost millions of dollars to set up and implement; and

"Whereas the photo-radar fines involve no demerit points" -- thank goodness, I say -- "which the Minister of Transportation has said are the only way to force the public to obey other highway safety regulations, such as the use of seatbelts; and

"Whereas the photo-radar legislation penalizes the owner of the vehicle" -- if you can believe that -- "even if they are not responsible for the violation; and

"Whereas there have been concerns raised as to whether the photo-radar technology will accurately measure the speed of all vehicles;" -- imagine that -- "and

"Whereas a government newsletter quotes a ministry staff person who admits that photo-radar is only being implemented to bring in new revenue to the province;" -- there's the secret -- "and

"Whereas the NDP government is already wasting too much of the revenue that it already brings in,

"We, the undersigned, demand" -- they're demanding this, and I agree with them -- "that the NDP government cancel its plans to implement photo-radar and cancel its photo-radar legislation."

Wouldn't that be a good idea? I'm signing this petition because I agree with its contents.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto; and

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment; and

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse; and

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed my name on this petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I am presenting a petition today on behalf of 33 citizens of my city of Niagara Falls. It says:

"We earnestly desire that the NDP government delay any decision regarding approval of a gambling casino until the Try Another Way Committee addresses Niagara Falls city council on Monday evening, March 28. We are requesting of city council a referendum in this fall's election."

I submit this to the Legislature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Bill 55 would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religions which do not condone homosexuality: Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our rights to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from the position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

This has been signed by 25 of my constituents, and I will also sign the petition.

PSYCHOTHERAPY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition, signed by over several hundred residents of Ontario, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the profession of psychotherapy is currently unregulated; and

"Whereas many former psychotherapy patients have expressed concerns related to patient abuse, professional incompetence and negligence; and

"Whereas these former patients have nowhere to turn to have their complaints or concerns heard;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to institute regulations for the profession of psychotherapy, including defined procedures, professional qualifications and ethical standards and an avenue for client complaints and retribution."

In support of this petition, I'm affixing my signature.

LAP DANCING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have another petition which was forwarded to me by a number of constituents of mine:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the ruling on lap dancing in strip bars. We feel that it violates any code of morality or decency. We want steps taken to overturn this decision."

On behalf of those constituents, I present their petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Ontario Premier, Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination;

"Whereas you 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; and

"Whereas 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 we have no desire to own,

"I/we, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, sex and age, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I support this petition.

TUITION FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP promised, throughout many election campaigns, to eliminate tuition fees for college and university students; and

"Whereas the NDP broke this election promise in its first year in office; and

"Whereas since the NDP took office, they have already raise tuition fees by 22% and are planning to raise tuition fees by an additional 20% over the next two years; and

"Whereas the NDP government has cut over $250 million in funding to colleges and universities, forcing many institutions to raise non-tuition student fees to make up the missing revenue; and

"Whereas the government has cut the student grants program for post-secondary students and replaced it with a smaller loan program; and

"Whereas everyone agrees that we need to encourage students to become more highly trained and skilled through post-secondary education to ensure that our province can compete in the changing economy; and

"Whereas student unemployment is at an all-time high, double-digit levels already, leaving further education as the only hope for real jobs for many of our young people,

I will affix my signature to this petition because I am wholeheartedly in agreement with it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NORTH TORONTO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUB ACT, 1994

On motion by Ms Poole, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr104,

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Carleton had the floor.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Last Thursday I was speaking on this Bill 143, which supersedes Bill 77. Just to bring people up to date, Bill 143 restructures local and regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. The most important parts of Bill 77 are the creation of a regional police force and the fact that the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton, if Bill 143 passes, will in fact mean that local mayors of the 11 municipalities will be kicked off regional council where they now sit.

One of the issues I wanted to raise today was the newspaper ad which this minister took out, I believe two or three months ago. I was interested in the Speaker saying that the ad put in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs was close to contempt. I have never heard that in this House before. In the 16 years I've been here, I've never heard a minister of any government be accused of being close to contempt in terms of what he tried to do with government money in terms of putting forward the arrogance of this government in dealing with Bill 77 and Bill 143.

That's what drew the Speaker's mind to that ruling, the fact that this minister said that this bill will be law on a certain day in the future, totally disrespecting the rights of every member of this Legislature in dealing with this bill, the opportunity to debate this bill and convince the minister, convince the government, convince the other members of this Legislature that Bill 143 is bad law and should not be carried.

It also throws into the face of all of those people we hopefully will be hearing down in Ottawa in public hearings on Bill 143 to determine whether or not they will have some say in moving this minister from his very arrogant stand on this bill -- and that arrogance has been proven by the Speaker's ruling today in this Legislature at an earlier time.

Although our standing orders do not provide an opportunity for a standing committee of this Legislature to travel away from Toronto during the time a session is in, I want to make it clear that my party will waive any kind of necessary consent required to have hearings take place in and around the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. We deem it as absolutely essential that there be hearings in that place because this bill deals primarily with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

I want to make it clear that the government cannot hide behind the standing orders in terms of saying, "We can't travel to Ottawa to have public hearings," as far as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned. I believe you will also get that assurance from the opposition party, but I will let them speak for themselves.

I dealt with a number of issues on Thursday. One was the proportional representation argument that this minister has used: rep by pop. This has been his excuse for not allowing local mayors to sit on regional council, because in Ottawa-Carleton, of the 11 municipalities that we have, we have the city of Ottawa with some 350,000 people, approximately speaking, and it goes down to municipalities with 14,000 or 15,000, and there is one very, very small municipality, that of the village of Rockcliffe with 2,500 people.

The argument that the minister has put forward time and time again to the public because it's popular, people seem to understand it or think they understand it, is this rep-by-pop argument.

What happened was, as I said before, the municipalities came in and said, "Well, let's have a weighted voting system." The minister says, "This is too complicated." Yet the minister himself, his own ministry last fall approved the weighted voting system in the county of Hastings which allowed five different levels of voting, depending upon the population of the various areas in the county of Hastings.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): How many mayors in the county of Hastings?

Mr Sterling: Lots of reeves sit on the county council and they're elected in the same municipalities as the mayors are sitting, in answer to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe a lot of the people in the county system of government would be quite willing to entertain the idea of having mayors sit on county council, but reeves are elected in the same areas as mayors and are the representatives of those areas on it.

I also referred to the 1990 election returns for our province because the minister likes to put out the fact that rep by pop is very, very important. It's a