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

November 21, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ESTIMATES

CRIME PREVENTION

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

TOWNSHIP OF ERNESTOWN

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

CHILD DAY

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

VISITORS

WATER QUALITY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HEALTH CARDS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

HYDRO PROJECTS

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

OLDER WORKERS

GO RAIL EXPANSION

NORTHERN ECONOMY

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

APOLOGY

QUESTION PERIOD

CORRECTION

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (FIREFIGHTERS), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS)

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

COUNTY OF KENT LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994

BOARD OF PAROLE DECISIONS AND VICTIMS' INFORMATION ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES DÉCISIONS DE LA COMMISSION DES LIBÉRATIONS CONDITIONNELLES ET SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS DESTINÉS AUX VICTIMES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

LUNG ASSOCIATION, OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION ACT, 1994

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Standing order 62(

a) provides that, "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries and offices on Thursday, 17 November 1994, as required by the standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(

b) the estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Ministry of Natural Resources are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I rise today to address the issue of crime prevention and safety both at home and in the workplace. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to meet with acting Staff Superintendent Joe Hunter and with Sergeant Pat Tallon of 41 division in my riding of Scarborough North. He was kind enough to give me a tour of the division and explain its workings.

Sergeant Tallon is also responsible for media and public relations for 4 district headquarters and district community services.

I had occasion to utilize the expertise and resources of 41 division recently when I was compiling information for my booklet, Crime Prevention and Personal Safety Guide, published for my constituents. For anyone, of course, wishing a copy of this guide, it's available free of charge through my office.

I am pleased to report to members today that violent crime is down in my area and all across Scarborough by 5.4%. Clearly, the initiatives that the police and community organizations have implemented in raising public cooperation and awareness have contributed to this decrease. There is still much work to do, and the involvement of everyone is crucial in addressing this issue.

I was very impressed with the fact of the lack of funds and lack of support that are given to the police from time to time for such an excellent job. I'd like to acknowledge also the participation of numerous community groups and organizations that have done a tremendous job.

Again, thanks to those wonderful men and women who enforce the law and thanks also to the community.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This afternoon, I plan to introduce a private member's bill that would amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow volunteer firefighters the use of a green flashing light on or in their vehicles while they travel to an emergency call. We need this because volunteer firefighters use their own personal vehicles when responding to an emergency call. The flashing green light would alert motorists that emergency personnel are on their way so that time is saved and safety is enhanced. The lights would not allow firefighters to disregard the rules of the road.

Many municipal councils in Wellington have written to me to express support for this important safety device. I have also a letter of support from the firefighters' association of Ontario. On September 10, 1992, I wrote the first of nine letters to the former Minister of Transportation requesting that the government amend legislation to allow for green flashing lights. The minister promised in each of his replies -- nine replies -- that his government would actively pursue this issue, and I believe he said at the earliest possible opportunity.

This past June, I asked the minister in the Legislature why the government had not yet acted. He responded that the Liberal caucus was responsible for the delay but that the government would act on this item as soon as possible. However, eight days later he indicated to me by letter that the government would not proceed with amending the legislation in the near future.

For more than two years, the government has been promising volunteer firefighters that the law would be changed to allow them to use flashing lights. I believe now that there is broad consensus between all three parties on this initiative. I encourage all parties to put their partisan feelings aside and work together to ensure that this private member's bill, which would allow volunteer firefighters the use of a flashing green light, is made into law before the House recesses at Christmas.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am pleased to take this opportunity today to tell everyone about a project in Niagara-on-the-Lake which has the potential to radically change the way we treat waste water. It's called the SWAMP, or sewage waste amendment marsh process, and it involves using marsh plants like cattails and bulrushes to treat waste water without the use of chemicals. If proven effective, everyone in Canada and the US will have an inexpensive, environmentally friendly way to treat waste water.

Constructed wetlands clean up sewage effluent year-round without the use of harmful chemicals while providing a wildlife sanctuary in a natural setting. The experiment has been going on at a "swamp" in Niagara-on-the-Lake under the watchful eye of Dr Edgar Lemon from the Friends of Fort George organization for over three years, with great results. I'm pleased that the Ministry of Environment and Energy has assisted this research project by providing funding and technical support totalling over $65,000.

Recently, I attended a ceremony where the federal government and the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced they would also contribute funds to the experiment. The SWAMP method of treating sewage waste is not only environmentally friendly; it's much cheaper than our current practice of using chemical treatment plants. In fact, it would cost about $2 million to construct a swamp purification plant or system which could do the job of the $7.5-million plant just opened in Niagara.

I highly recommend this system and I hope all members will consider this for their ridings.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Earlier today, members from all three parties attended the annual lobby of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, more commonly known as OAITH. During the course of the meeting, the names of all of the abused women who have been murdered by their spouse or partner during the past year, some 119 women and children, were read out.

I do not for a moment question the desire among all members to bring forward legislation, regulations, programs, whatever is necessary to end this devastating toll, and yet we must as legislators recognize that while we have made tremendous strides in dealing with the issue of abused women and their children, we clearly have not yet done enough.

The concerns raised today covered a whole host of issues: concerns around the implementation of the social contract and expenditure control plans of this government; concerns around social assistance reform at both the provincial and federal levels; concerns about pay equity, employment equity; many concerns affecting the provision of children's services, of more supervised access centres, and concerns for a real attack on child poverty; concerns that despite progress in the judicial system there is still a lack of sensitivity to racial, cultural and sexual diversity; concerns about how effectively our family court system understands the nature of abuse issues and concern about the cuts to legal aid plan funding; and finally, real concern over the cancellation of training of anti-racism and anti-oppression work.

At the end of their session with each of the caucuses, the representatives from OAITH gave us roses and asked us to place them at each member's desk. Let us today recognize the progress we have made, but let us equally recognize what remains to be done and pledge to do it.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On Monday, November 14, I had the privilege of speaking in recognition of the installation of the Merchant Navy Book of Remembrance at Queen's Park and to greet and pay tribute to the many naval veterans and associations that attended.

Today I wish to acknowledge with pride that the Royal Canadian Naval Association, Burlington branch, has won the national honour of RCNA club of the year. Nelson Larche, the president of the association, received the high honour of becoming RCNA member of the year for all of Canada. I would like to publicly congratulate the RCNA, Burlington, and President Nelson Larche on their significant achievements which assist us all, and especially our youth, to keep forever alive the timeless call, "We shall remember them."

This is why it is so hard to reconcile that the NDP government now wishes to remove smoking privileges in some of our veterans hospitals. On November 3, I wrote to Health minister Grier asking her to investigate this matter and to reconsider it. To date the minister has not responded.

On Friday, November 18, I visited Parkwood Hospital in London, home to almost 500 veterans, and met with Bob Eggleton, a non-smoker and president of the veterans' residents' council, concerned about the no-smoking ban in the designated lounge areas.

A smoke-free society is clearly a health promotion goal. However, Canadian veterans who have made so many sacrifices for our freedoms should not have the simple pleasures which comfort them in their last days removed. On their behalf, I again ask the Health minister to reconsider this ill-advised decision.

TOWNSHIP OF ERNESTOWN

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I want to tell you where it's hot in Ontario with respect to manufacturing and industrial growth and where it's happening. In Ernestown township, that's where.

Located in the eastern end of the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, just west of Kingston, Ernestown township is an ideal place to live and work and play. Recent significant investments by the Ontario government through the Jobs Ontario program, investments by the township, Ontario and Canada through the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program, and most importantly, investments by private sector industries mean investments totalling almost $1 billion in the township in the past year according to David Cash of the Kingston and Area Economic Development Commission.

I would like to share some specifics with respect to these considerable investments. Celanese Canada Inc recently announced an investment of $160 million to upgrade its plant to ensure that the present 360 jobs will be maintained. This happened directly as a result of the soon-to-be built Destec cogeneration steam electricity plant, which will reduce operating costs for Celanese.

The Bombardier-UTDC plant has a contract for $600 million to build vehicles for an urban transit rail line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which means employment for over 300 workers.

Ernestown township has over 770 acres of land planned and prepared for industrial use. Situated on Lake Ontario, it has excellent rail and highway service, and air service at Kingston airport. It will soon have an abundant supply of steam available for industry requiring it.

Much credit goes to Ian Wilson, immediate past reeve of the township, for his continued efforts to ensure the township is a leader in growth and development and also a wonderful place to live.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This weekend the Conservative boss got yet another makeover: The same American image maker who tried to transform Ollie North from a convicted liar and thief into a law-abiding politician has been working with his new prize student. Like a new car, the image makers unveiled yet another model of Mike Harris.

Gone is the tough exterior. Gone is the man who enjoyed the nickname Atilla the Un just a few months ago. The new Mike Harris is going to be a sensitive guy of the 1990s. He says he cares, he bleeds, he even hurts. The problem for Ontarians is that while Mike Harris wants to be a warm and sensitive guy of the 1990s, his ideas and attitudes firmly remain anchored in the 1950s.

Mr Sensitive thinks children on welfare are getting too much to eat, and so he's going to cut, cut, cut. Mr Sensitive says natives are just sitting on their reserves being lazy. And Mr Sensitive said of immigrants, "We're getting too many, not just blacks, we're getting too many from other countries too."

One thing hasn't changed: Atilla is still a member of a party that dares not speak its name. In his sensitive-style speech on Saturday, there were lots of words: nouns, adjectives, verbs. Even "Liberal" and "NDP" were mentioned four times. But the words "Progressive" and "Conservative" were never mentioned once.

Don't be fooled. The Conservative Party is the dangling participle of Ontario politics. A zebra can't change its stripes, and Mike Harris's stars and stripes are red, white and blue.

CHILD DAY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yesterday, November 20, was national Child Day, a date which was proclaimed last year by the federal government to coincide with the anniversary date of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In my community of Kitchener-Waterloo, close to 50 different organizations joined forces to plan a week of activities to raise public awareness about this day, to increase the community sensitivity to the special care and nurturing that all children need, and to encourage families to participate in celebrating this important day. I would like to congratulate the regional community health department for taking the lead in organizing this important campaign.

However, as we talk about national Child Day, it is important to remember that some 681,000 Ontario families live in poverty, and this morning, when my colleagues and I met with the representatives of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, they impressed upon us the need for urgent action by the provincial government to assist in meeting the goal of eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. This Thursday, Campaign 2000 will be releasing its fifth annual report card on child poverty, and it's expected that it will show that the number of families living in poverty in Canada has increased.

We are all concerned about the plight of children who live in poverty. I urge everyone to make an increased commitment to helping those children.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I stand in my place today to talk about the revolution, partly, in London.

A neighbour of mine in Orono is, believe it or not, the daughter of Eric Liddell. Eric Liddell is that fine humanitarian who did more for civilization than a thousand Tories would attempt to do. He served the poor; he gave his life for the poor. He served in China; he gave his life in China. His life story was the essence for the movie Chariots of Fire, and that movie went on to win the best picture of the year and all kinds of Oscars.

I just want to say on the record that for the Tories to use the march, the theme music from that wonderful movie Chariots of Fire, in London on the weekend as they fought like frenzied crocodiles to bid for the bill to destroy Bill 40 that means so much to the working people of this country is absolutely diabolical. It's not only an affront to all the working people, but more than that, to use the theme music from Chariots of Fire is an affront to Eric Liddell, the man who stood for the working and the underdogs in this country and in China. You're a disgrace, the whole blinking lot of you. You should be shot, the lot of you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 21. I have two matters to bring to your attention.

It is reported in the morning's Globe and Mail that the Progressive Conservative Party, presumably with the knowledge of the leader, sent a camera crew to the biennial convention of the Ontario New Democratic Party. This camera crew, firstly, lied to convention officials with respect to their identity and shot clips of the Premier for broadcast to the Conservative convention.

This is not the substance of my point of privilege, although I note that those kinds of dirty tricks had no place in Canadian political life until now. They are more associated with the antics of Oliver North and his ilk. But I do want to call to your attention that the imposter camera crew got the television clips broadcast to the Conservative convention, in the words of the Globe and Mail, "to poke fun at NDP leader Bob Rae by engineering the sound track to give him a stutter."

Mr Speaker, we have seen this kind of disgraceful behaviour before, when the Conservative Party of Canada tried to ridicule the facial expression of the Honourable Jean Chrétien during the 1993 general election.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Oxford please take his seat. The member for Oxford, please come to order. He will know that he does not have a point of order. He speaks of matters which occurred outside of the chamber and are not subject to the standing rules of this House.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: How can the opposition conduct question period with none of the government people here? About two thirds of them are not here.

The Speaker: The member will know that he does not have a point of order.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to join me in welcoming to our assembly and indeed to our country, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the honourable Ishmael Roett, Speaker of the House of Assembly, Barbados, and Ms Delores Watson from the Barbados consulate. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy and it has to do with the report of the Provincial Auditor of last week. The minister will be aware that the Provincial Auditor revealed last week that there are communities in the province that are being exposed to discharges of untreated or raw sewage. Their sewage treatment plants are not complying with health and environmental guidelines set by you.

The Provincial Auditor reviewed the performance of 27 treatment plants and almost one third of these plants were found to be in non-compliance for one or more of the following reasons: They did not have the equipment to monitor the discharge of untreated sewage; they did not measure or report the discharge of untreated sewage, or they had significant delays in reporting these discharge occurrences to your ministry.

Will the minister today commit to releasing the list of sewage treatment plants as identified by the auditor that breached your guidelines for discharging untreated waste into our lakes, rivers and streams, our potential sources for drinking water?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Yes.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, the auditor revealed only 27 sewage treatment plants in his report, and of that, almost a third were in non-compliance with your guidelines regarding the discharge of untreated sewage.

As you've committed today, you should be aware that there are 415 sewage treatment plants in the province, and if the auditor's report is any indication, there could be as many as 125 sewage treatment plants in the province today that are not meeting proper treatment and discharge requirements. Thousands of people across this province are potentially at risk.

The auditor stated, and I quote, "To date, little action has been taken by the ministry to address these concerns." Minister, what action have you taken to inform the people in the province who are currently at risk? What action will you take to ensure that filth is not being dumped into our lakes, rivers and streams?

Hon Mr Wildman: I hope the member will not attempt to describe the situation as any more serious than it is. He will know that the auditor's report was dealing with a situation as he identified in 1992. It was based on the dischargers report of 1991, which he knows I'm sure is an annual report that is required by law from all of the dischargers which we compile and then release. Not only do we release it, we share it internationally because of our obligations to our neighbours around the Great Lakes. So all of this information is available publicly and has been.

The auditor's report, as I said, dealt with a situation in 1992 based on the 1991 discharges report. The number of communities actually involved was not 91 as the auditor indicated but 96 that were out of compliance. I'm happy to say, based on the information we are currently compiling from the 1993 dischargers reports, which we will be releasing soon, all but 15 are in compliance. Only four operated by OCWA and 11 by municipalities are currently out of compliance.

We are working with those municipalities to ensure that they will in fact come into compliance. Some of those involve capital expenditures and a number of those municipalities have applied for assistance. Some have gotten approval for assistance for new sewage treatment plants or whatever. Some of the non-compliance matters, of course, are very minor and don't require a great deal of capital work.

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

Hon Mr Wildman: So let's be very frank here. This is an important matter, but we have in fact taken action and have responded and the matter is being dealt with.

Mr Offer: It's very interesting. I'm glad that the minister has brought forward the annual reports that he is supposed to release. The auditor did refer to an annual report published by your ministry on discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants in Ontario and the auditor did make note that the most recent edition is the report on discharges occurring in 1991. But it was released by your ministry in September 1993 -- one and a half years to release this report.

When we take a look at that 1991 report, it reveals that fully 91 sewage treatment plants in the province failed to meet the compliance guidelines of your government. The report also lists that of the 10 worst-performing sewage treatment plants in Ontario, seven are operated by you, the provincial government.

So the question remains, Minister: Why was there a delay in releasing the results of the 1991 report, and will you provide an update on the status of the compliance of the 91 sewage treatment plants identified in your own report?

Hon Mr Wildman: I think it's unfortunate the member didn't hear my answer to the previous question before he wrote the question for his third, because I just answered all of that in my answer to his second question. In fact, I did give an update and I indicated how we had responded and I pointed out that the information the auditor had was based on the 1991 report. I indicated to the member that it was not the latest material available to the public or available, for that matter, internationally. In fact the latest is 1992.

I indicated what the current status is based on the matters that we are compiling from the 1993 dischargers report which we are currently bringing together, to which we will respond.

As I said, I am prepared to table the information the member has requested and I indicated to him that of the 96 communities that the auditor was considering -- not 91, as he said in his report -- only 15 remain out of compliance. So the member mustn't have heard what I said in answer to his second question or he wouldn't have repeated it in his third question.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): My question is to the Solicitor General. The response of people across this province to the release of Wray Budreo this weekend underlined the lack of faith people have in the criminal justice system. This weekend people demonstrated and marched to express their rage and frustration with a system that they think no longer protects their children. In fact, it's a system that seems to give more rights to the criminal than to the victim.

I think the police and local communities did a good job this weekend with inadequate tools. We've asked the Attorney General what action she could take and we saw her shrug her shoulders. We asked the Health minister and we saw her shrug her shoulders. I want to ask the Solicitor General what specific and concrete action he has taken, every possible measure he's taken, to ensure that children in communities across this province are protected, and I want to see more than a shrug of his shoulders.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As the honourable member knows, the issue he's raising is a federal one. It was the federal system that the individual was released from. That's not trying to pass the buck, but merely to make sure that we're stating the facts and putting things in their proper context.

In terms of the police, which is my direct responsibility, and I would assume that's what the member was striving to hear from me on, I've been working with the corrections community both provincially and federally as well as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, in particular to work on a set of guidelines that would assist police in dealing with the question of release of names. What types of measures should they take and when would it be appropriate, and how do they balance the rights of the individual in terms of their rights under the law as well as the rights of communities?

I agree with him that the police in this case have handled this exceptionally well, with great sensitivity for the rights of the individual, but also recognizing the importance to communities. We're down to the final stretch on this. The police are a part of developing the guideline. We've got just a few more issues to work through and then I expect to be issuing a directive from my office to all police services giving them the kind of direction that they need.

I would say to him very directly it will very much resemble the types of responses we've seen from police on this particular issue and also if you look at what the police service in Hamilton-Wentworth, my own community, has been doing with its own type of local release-of-names process.

Mr Murphy: To blame this issue on the federal government shows the Solicitor General does not understand this issue. The Attorney General's own deputy pointed to her government and his government as having the appropriate field for action, so it's clear that he doesn't understand what's going on. It's just not good enough. If the government doesn't have the tools to do the job, it should create them. That's what I hear and people in ridings all across this province hear. The police will tell them they don't have the adequate tools to do the job.

Last week my colleague urged the government to act on the laws to keep sexual predators locked up. All your colleagues the Attorney General and the Minister of Health could say was that they would continue to have meetings to discuss it.

Today I will be introducing two bills which are designed to make the parole system work for victims and not just for offenders.

A year ago we raised in this House the issue of Clinton Suzack. We have not heard a single report back from the Solicitor General on that issue yet despite a year's passing. He could have acted in the interim.

I'm asking the Solicitor General, will you undertake to work with me to ensure that legislation to implement victims' rights and to make the parole system more accountable to the people of Ontario can be passed? I've provided you with copies of those bills, and I hope you'll support them.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It's disappointing to see this particular member play those kinds of misinformation games and try to twist things around. That's not usually his style; he's usually very straightforward. The fact is that he asked me questions about my area of responsibility with regard to this issue and issues like it. I answered very directly and very up front about where we were and what we had done and what we're continuing to do to work with the police.

I would remind him, if we're going to talk about who's responsible for what, that it's his Liberal cousins who run the national government. Why don't you talk to them about what they ought to be doing? They're the ones who said they can't do anything. Why do you pop up here and then say, "No, I'm not trying to play any games"? That's very much unlike you. I'm very shocked to hear you like that.

On the issue of his legislation, I've had a chance to look at the two documents. I think there are two different pieces of legislation he's proposing. I had a little bit of time before the House to look at them. I think that he will know that Bill C-45, which the federal government now has in the House, deals with parts of this. In fact, much of it is word for word what the Liberals have proposed. We are indeed very interested in what they're doing. As you know, they've had first reading. Now it's gone to committee. As I understand it, in fact the committee process starts this week.

I would think he and I and the rest of us here would want the benefit of those committee hearings and the community groups that are going to have input.

With the issue of victims' rights, we have done a great deal in that area. We continue to work in that area. We are not finished in the area of victims' rights. We will continue to make it a priority. He will see that as the balance of our mandate unfolds.

Mr Murphy: Again the Solicitor General shows his misunderstanding of the issue. It's his own government that said his government should act and not the federal government. He should talk to his compatriot the Attorney General and get her to explain it to him, although she's -- well, I won't say that.

I do want to say that what people were concerned about and protesting about this weekend was their sense that their governments are complacent and unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to make our cities and towns safe. They see their governments stand by and watch human tragedies take place and then say there was nothing they could do. People are tired of hearing that nothing can be done.

I'd like to get together and act now and find a way to do something. We've worked with you before on other things, and I'm asking you to do it again and not to put it off. As I said, I'll be introducing these two bills this afternoon.

Interjections.

Mr Murphy: I hear heckling from the third party, and I hope they join with me and I hope the critic from the Progressive Conservative Party will join with me to meet today and determine whether there is support to pass these bills this session. Are you prepared to even take this one small step?

Hon Mr Christopherson: As I've already indicated to the honourable member, much of what he is suggesting here is contained in Bill C-45 that the federal government has tabled. They are interested in receiving community input and hearing what the experts have to say before they enact it, and I would strongly suggest that it makes for good lawmaking for us to do exactly the same thing.

With regard to the other piece of legislation that he has suggested, I would remind him, of course, that much of this is already done. Granted, it's done by policy, but that was policies -- to give credit to the previous government, it was done in 1989. So if there's a real need to make them mandatory, you could have done it at that time.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at it, and we will and we are and we're working closely with the federal government with regard to their changes because, as the member knows -- I think he is a lawyer; he understands this better than I -- indeed much of the legislation we have with regard to correctional release and probation and parole is set by the federal government. In fact, the federal government and the federal national parole system is the parole system in most provinces. We're one of the few that has our own. We consider this -- I consider this -- to be of the utmost importance and I can assure him that we've already been on top of this and will continue to stay on top of it.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Attorney General. For a year now the Attorney General has had sitting on her desk a dozen excellent suggestions from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD proposes several legislative changes to reduce the tragic problem of drinking and driving which takes hundreds of lives in Ontario every year. In fact, alcohol is a factor in 81% of all highway deaths. Two months ago the Drinking/Driving Countermeasures Office released a statistical report which showed that after a decade of decline, drunk driving is now on the increase.

By this minister's own report, there were 30,000 drunk driving convictions in 1992. A shocking 59% of those were repeat offenders; 18,000 drivers drunk and caught. We don't know how many were out there in that one year.

I ask the Attorney General, why have you not acted on the excellent suggestions that were put forward by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and why have you done nothing to fight drunk driving?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Well, the member is quite wrong that we have done nothing at all to combat the problem of drunk driving. In fact, she needs to be very much aware that we see the drunk driving problem together with the other problem drivers, aggressive drivers, where we're working in terms of the photo-radar and some stepped-up stances against speeders and against aggressive drivers, the graduated licence program where there's a zero tolerance of alcohol for young or new drivers, and we are gradually working at that.

We made a conscious decision that for some of the changes in licensing that would be required under her bill and the suggestions that had come forward around an automatic suspension until trial for drunk drivers, we needed the opportunity to see the effect of some of these other areas of licence change, particularly the graduated licence.

This government has continued to support the RIDE program, we've continued to fast-track impaired driving courts so that we can get some of these cases through the courts, get our convictions earlier, and it just simply is incorrect to say that because we haven't followed a certain number of recommendations from an advocacy group, we have done nothing. That is not to say we're not interested in those recommendations and that we don't consider them as actions that we may be able to take in future years.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I'd like you to go today and knock on the door of a family of victims of drunk drivers and tell them that photo-radar is doing something to stop that killing. That's insulting. You cut your budget $2 million and you say you're doing something.

Today I will introduce a bill that will get tough with drunk drivers. I have provided you with an advance copy. Under my bill people convicted of drunk driving more than once will lose their licences for life. Before getting those licences back, first-time offenders will have to take education and rehabilitation programs. Drivers charged with impaired driving will have their licences suspended automatically for 90 days after the charge is laid. I point out that that is the case today in Manitoba, it's gone all the way to the Supreme Court and it's been challenged twice and upheld.

Vehicles of people who drive while disqualified would be impounded and, if the driver is guilty, sold by auction and the money used for education programs.

My bill would also make it an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment to knowingly lend a vehicle to a disqualified driver.

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

Mrs Marland: Minister, if I as a private member could come up with this kind of legislation, why hasn't your government come up with tougher legislation when, by your own report, drunk driving is on the increase --

The Speaker: Could the member complete her question.

Mrs Marland: -- so what you're doing is not working?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There are some real problems with what the member suggests, and these are problems with which we are trying to work before taking the kind of drastic action she's suggesting.

For example, we know that the largest number of those who are drunk drivers are repeat drunk drivers, and they often are driving while their licence is suspended. There is great concern among those who know a great deal about this and are specialists in this field that the effect of a lifetime suspension, which this member suggests, would simply fuel the problem of people driving while their licence is suspended. Similarly, there is clear evidence that when people's cars are seized or they haven't got the access to the car in which they were driving at the time they were stopped, they simply get another one. We need to find ways to resolve those problems, and we will do so.

Similarly, on the vehicle seizure issue, there are real problems, and certainly our police forces have advised us of the real problem of the kind of warehousing of vehicles that would occur with the seizure of vehicles while this process is going on. The member says, "Just sell them," and there are some real problems around the private property issues for people under those circumstances.

Mrs Marland: I can't believe that you're standing in this House talking about a problem being warehousing vehicles. Is the problem not putting bodies in the ground that are killed by drunk drivers? I ask you, is that not the problem?

The real problem is you. If you cared and you wanted to do something, you could do something, instead of standing in this House and making excuses about why this bill wouldn't work. I simply say to you again that if you wanted to act on this bill in a non-partisan manner, you could, the same as you did the bullet bill. In two days we passed a bill controlling the sale of ammunition in this province.

I say to you again, if you were sincere about doing something about people being killed by drunk drivers, you wouldn't worry about what you would do with their vehicles when their vehicles were impounded --

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

Mrs Marland: -- for driving without a licence.

I ask this minister again for a commitment to the people who are victims in this province by their family members and friends being killed by drunk drivers. Don't stand there and defend them, the fact that they wouldn't have a car to drive --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mrs Marland: -- or where you would store it.

I ask you finally, once more, will you once and for all take a strong stand against drunk driving and take away the licences of people who drink twice and are caught for impaired driving twice?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The members on this side of the House empathize as much as the member opposite about the problems that are faced by victims and by families of victims of drunk drivers, and we are very concerned about the issues that have been raised and very much admiring of the kind of work that advocacy groups like MADD have done.

But what we are saying to the member is that there are issues that our caucus has looked at that we as a group of people believe need to be straightened out before we take some of the actions she has suggested. We are not convinced that the actions she suggests are the ones that are going to be the greatest deterrent, particularly the lifetime suspension issue.

I do not have any empathy with people who drink and drive. In fact, I feel just as strongly as the member does. But the problem with us in making laws is to make laws that work and have the effect that we expect them to have. We have real concerns that the measures which the member is suggesting would have the effect that she wishes they would have.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. I have a series of very simple questions with respect to your new health card system. I want to know whether it's true that over the last year you committed to the people of Ontario that you would have a province-wide telephone verification system in place to check the validity of new health cards.

I also want to know whether it's true that only 10 hospitals to date have a telephone or IVR system in place. Also, can you tell me whether or not it's true that, of those physicians and staff at those 10 hospitals now that are checking health cards, about 25% of the health cards have been reported back over the telephone system as either being invalid or having major, major problems? One in four cards being checked currently in this province have major problems. Can you confirm that, Minister?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): No, I'm sorry, I can't, but I will certainly try to get that information and confirm or deny the member's allegation. I can say to him that the validation pilot projects are up and running and that in fact a growing number of providers have the capacity to use the validation, the verification system to make sure that the cards with which they are presented are in fact still current. We have made enormous progress on improving the system, improving the efficiency of the system, and we continue to work on the preparation of Ontario's new photo health card.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's astonishing that when you're spending all this money on trying to put your new photo health card system in place you're not aware of the day-to-day happenings out there with respect to the implementation of the system.

Minister, last May you announced that all Ontarians would have a new photo OHIP card within three years and that the registration process would begin in February 1995. I want to ask you, Minister, is it true that only a small segment of the population, about 10,000 people, will actually receive new photo health cards in year one of your process, and is it true that the registration process will now take much, much longer than the three years you said the process would take? Are either of those true, Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in response to the first question, work is continuing on both the design of the project and the implementation. It is extremely complex. We are working with my colleague the Minister of Transportation in order to ensure the most appropriate way of delivering the health card across the province.

But what is fundamental for us is not to repeat the mistakes that were made the last time, when health cards were issued to anybody who applied and there were in this House, day after day, instances of double health cards, ineligible people getting health cards. This is a health care system that our government cherishes, protects and is going to protect even more by eradicating fraud, duplication and cheating in our health care system.

Mr Jim Wilson: That was a very interesting response, because when I first raised this issue a couple of years ago in the House, we had about 12 million health cards in the province of Ontario for a population of 10 million. Today we have close to 15 million health cards for about the same population base.

I've also been informed that the reason that only a few thousand Ontarian residents will receive cards in your first year of registration is that the cost to produce the new green and white cards with a trillium on them is about three times the original estimate of $90 million, that the new figure is about $180 million.

I want to ask the minister a couple more very, very important questions. Is it true, Minister, that you have a report from experts that advise you not to implement the photo health card system that you're planning to implement? Is it true that the costs for your system have risen and that officials in your ministry now estimate that it could cost three times more than your original estimate? And is it true that after your system is in place, after you've spent the $180 million, your system will cost $30 million per year just to operate and it will be $30 million for ever and ever and ever, year over year over year? Is that true, Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me remind the House that when the Conservatives were in government, there were 25 million health numbers out there in the province. When the Liberals issued the new card, there were, I think, 15 million or 16 million issued. There are now 11.1 million active health cards in Ontario. That is exactly, or almost exactly, the population of this province.

I have made it clear from the beginning that we regard the implementation of a new photo health card for the province of Ontario as very important to the future protection of the system. We are doing it, we are doing the work and we intend to get it right.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. On August 18, 1994, last summer, your director of long-term care told care providers who appeared at public hearings into Bill 173 that, and I'd just like to quote from Hansard:

"The costs associated with the severance of that individual would obviously be a government responsibility, given that you" -- the service providers -- "don't have the resources to pay for it otherwise and it's our policy that has required you to take that action."

I'd like the Minister of Health to confirm that it is still her policy to protect existing long-term-care employers such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, Red Cross homemaking, the Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association, Meals on Wheels and so on, from severance costs for those employees who are not hired by your new MSAs.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As the member well knows, we have made amendments to the long-term-care legislation to provide that the MSAs will be successor employers. We have protected the rights of those who are working in the system so that they will have a mandatory job offer. As I've said time and time again, this is an area of health care that is expanding as we bring long-term care into part of the health care system.

I am confident that in fact the vast majority of those people providing care will continue to provide care, albeit in some cases for a different employer. Part of our reason for doing that is not just because we want to protect the people who work in the system, but we know that by protecting those people and making the transition smooth, we're protecting the people that this reform is all about: the seniors and the disabled of this province who will get continuity of care.

Mrs Sullivan: I'd just like to point out that the mandatory job offer that the minister refers to as a headline, that really is a reasonable offer, which is the requirement of the employer, and that reasonable offer is made to union workers over non-union workers under the terms of the New Democratic Party amendments to the bill.

But recently, in meetings with service providers, Ministry of Health representatives indicated that existing providers may have to dispose of all of their assets before the government can make severance payments through the labour adjustment fund. In other words, the Victorian Order of Nurses, Red Cross homemaking, Meals on Wheels and many, many other agencies would necessarily, and in consequence, be forced on the road to bankruptcy.

Is bankruptcy for these agencies which provide exemplary care how you guarantee severance payments to workers you are putting out of a job?

Hon Mrs Grier: There are no lengths to which the member will not go in order to portray reorganization of long-term care as a disaster about to fall on this province. In fact, we had in this House last week 300 representatives of a vast variety of seniors' organizations saying to this House, "Get on with your legislation, because we've been waiting for it for 10 years and we like the way you intend to protect seniors, to protect the disabled, to protect volunteers, to protect ethnocultural groups that are already providing services and to protect the workers in the system." That's what our legislation is doing and maybe that's why the member opposite doesn't like it.

HYDRO PROJECTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Environment and Energy, last week the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Sun revealed that Ontario Hydro had commissioned a study on manipulating the gas emissions from ruminating cattle. You've had a sex survey; you now have a farmyard gas survey. If Ontario Hydro wasn't so deep in debt, this would be an absolute joke. What did this cost Ontario Hydro?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The member I'm sure will be glad to know that the reports in the press regarding Ontario Hydro investing in such a study were nothing more than hot air.

Mr Villeneuve: If the real truth were known, methane gas from garbage dumps is 100 times more than the emissions from our ruminating livestock. If Ontario Hydro and the government doesn't know this, go to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture tonight and ask a few farmers just where these emissions really come from.

Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, do you have control on the expenditures of Ontario Hydro or do you let them run amok?

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess I shouldn't have used such colourful language. Obviously the member who comes from rural Ontario is not aware of what I meant. The fact is that Ontario Hydro is not investing in, nor is it considering investing in, cattle-diet modification projects in Canada or internationally or anywhere.

The fact is that Ontario Hydro is very much aware of the fact that methane gas coming from landfill is a potential serious problem for greenhouse gases and also is a potential source of energy. As the member knows, Ontario Hydro announced last week $110 million to be invested in alternative energy technologies, one of which will perhaps involve studies of methane gas escaping from landfill sites as a source of energy both to deal with the need for alternative energy sources and to avoid pollution in the future.

But I just want to make very clear, as clear as I can, that the member's concerns about the possibility of cattle flatulence being subject to Ontario Hydro investment and study is incorrect.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a reply to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Renfrew North.

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I am pleased to respond to the question asked by my good friend the member from Renfrew North. I watched the tape and I'm well aware of the issue and the question.

In response to what the ministry and the government is doing to coordinate efforts to try to solve this indeed serious problem, we in fact have been the first jurisdiction in North America -- because this problem exists right across North America -- to take action whatsoever, and those other jurisdictions are now turning to us to see how they can deal with it.

The first thing we did as a consumer ministry is put out some consumer alerts. We placed ads in newspapers across the province, and we also directed the utilities to inform their customers and indeed to conduct inspections and to inform our ministry of the defects that they were finding out there.

We have also been working with the Ministry of Housing in terms of the problems within the housing that we're responsible for as a government and have come up with a compensation fund for our own housing to help with that. In the meantime, the industry has been working with our government to come up with a solution, and perhaps on the supplementary I can tell the member about that.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I appreciate the minister's timely response. She'll know that last week the Ontario Home Builders' Association wrote to her colleague the Minister of Housing. I think a copy of the letter went to herself and to the Premier. In that letter the Ontario Home Builders' Association indicated that the problem was serious and it was urgent. In fact in that letter dated last week the representation was made to the Ontario government that action needed to be taken within days, if not within hours.

I'm wondering, Minister, what you can tell the 10,000-plus Ontarians who face this potential and serious hazard, what specific action the Ontario government is prepared to assist with in the immediate future so that people across the province faced with this potential hazard will know what they can do as the winter of 1994 bears down on them.

Hon Ms Churley: The industry has been working hard to come up with a solution to this and it does have what it believes to be a problem-free product. This will be able to be used. It's not for the long term. It too will have to be tested, but they believe that it is a problem-free product, and the utilities are out there working with their customers to make sure that these replacements are done and the inspections are done. This is all happening at this time.

I should add that the product in question that the member referred to was banned for sale in Ontario. That was done right away when we first heard about this problem. The industry does believe that this replacement is problem-free and we will be monitoring that very, very closely.

OLDER WORKERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, last week you expressed great concern for workers in the Uniroyal plant in Waterloo who are caught in the bureaucratic nightmare of the program for older worker adjustment.

I want the minister to be aware that over 1,300 workers from all across the province, from Mathews Conveyor in Cobourg, from Cooper Tools in Port Hope, from SteelFabCo in Paris, from Campbell Red Lake mine in northern Ontario, from McDonnell Douglas in Mississauga, are all affected. In fact, the member from Quinte, Hugh O'Neil, has informed me of three plants -- Murata Erie, Field Aviation and Corby Distilleries -- where older workers are awaiting help. Some of these workers have been waiting since 1991. Some of them have even died while they waited.

Five provinces in Canada participate, as you know, in this joint federal-provincial program. All provinces except for Ontario have signed the annual memorandum of agreement for 1994. Since March, your officials have been dragging their heels and dragging out the negotiations with the federal government, which paid for 70%. Minister, can you tell us what is the status of your negotiations with regard to the program for older worker adjustment?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): The negotiations are still going on between the province and the federal government. As the member has said, the program is funded 70% by the federal government, 30% by the provincial government.

Ontario was hit the worst by this recession that we have lived through for the last four to five years already, with many plant closures, many people being put out of work, and the funding for the program was almost exhausted. As we speak, those negotiations are still going on. We are hoping for a conclusion of them in the next couple of weeks. We will be looking at all of the workers, evaluating which workers will receive their money, as soon as possible, and we should have that done by the end of the year.

I am very sorry, like the member, that this has gone on so long, but he has to remind himself how deeply Ontario was into the recession, and with limited amounts of money, how difficult it is to fund this program.

Mr Mahoney: That may be the first time I've heard the minister admit that they are not prepared or have not been prepared to fund the program. Did I just hear you say, "There is not money available to fund this program?"

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): That's not what she said.

Mr Mahoney: That's what I just heard you say.

Minister, you talk about the recession. The provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Columbia have seen fit to sign this program designed to help older workers who have been laid off and who have run out of their unemployment insurance benefits. Only the province of Ontario has refused to sign. Only your ministry has been holding back, so laid-off older workers who are entitled to these funds and have been entitled to them in the past are not being serviced. These people are desperate. Don't remind me about the depth of the recession. They can remind you. They are feeling and reeling under the recession because they've been laid off.

Minister, can you please tell us in this House today and those older workers across this province who have been affected by your government's mishandling of these negotiations exactly when they can expect to start seeing the money rolling in? These people are desperate. They need your help and they need your commitment. Give us a firm date today.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I feel the member is being totally unfair by saying that we are stalling the negotiations. We are not stalling them. We're working in cooperation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Coppen: You notice no blame on my part being put on the federal government. This is a very difficult project that we're undertaking. I am not putting blame on any other level of government. I am looking forward to the conclusion of these negotiations so that they will help the workers here in Ontario, and with that type of attitude I hope we will be able to resolve this problem very soon and be able to address the problem.

GO RAIL EXPANSION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. It concerns the Go Transit rail expansion program in the Richmond Hill corridor, which passes through my riding of Willowdale. The expansion will increase service from the current eight trains per day to a total of 34 trains. These trains will literally be travelling through my constituents' backyards.

Minister, for over a year and a half I have been asking you to commit to an individual environmental assessment to ensure that my constituents' concerns are addressed. Are you willing to make that commitment today?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The member knows that there is a process for determining whether or not there should be a bump-up for an individual environmental assessment. Currently the environmental assessment branch is analysing the request and the evidence that might substantiate such a bump-up and will be advising me, at which time I will make a decision, and the member will be the first to know.

Mr Harnick: Minister, my constituents feel that they have not been properly consulted on this issue and that the proposed expansion will have a negative impact on their neighbourhood. The recommendations from the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee were sent to you last March. I have heard unofficially that you have approved this project and that you will be making an announcement before this House rises in December. Minister, can you confirm that you have made this decision?

Hon Mr Wildman: Again, I can confirm that the member will be the first to know when the announcement is made publicly.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, a member of this Legislature with deep roots in northern Ontario, having spent a number of years working in the mines of our special part of the province, indeed having spent a number of years working in the mines and plants of northern Manitoba; also a member who understands the politics of northern Ontario, having served for a number of years as reeve of the wonderful community of Manitouwadge.

My question, Minister, is about the impact of the Conservative Party's Common Sense Revolution. Is it for real or is it just the first and most serious of a series of pranks designed for purely political purposes, to distract us from the serious work at hand? What impact would this proposed program have on we who live and work in northern Ontario?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to a question in the House, where it's been over two years since the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has been the recipient of such an opportunity. The Tories and the Liberals haven't asked one single question in over two years. Do they care about the north? Have they forgotten about the north?

The Common Sense Revolution? There's really nothing commonsensical about the Common Sense Revolution. It's a nonsense revolution. The Tories promise to cut spending by 20% and yet not impact on health care. It simply means to the north that jobs by the thousand will be eliminated. Programs for municipalities, transfer payments and different boards of agencies will all be gone. That's what 20% cuts for the people of the north mean, nothing short of that. It will kill the initiative in the north.

Mr Martin: Very frightening indeed. I'd like to be a little bit more specific with you. If you look at the 20% cut and the budget of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and compute that to be $50 million, could you tell me specifically what $50 million will mean to your ministry and your ability to deliver programs of any consequence to the people of Sault Ste Marie, Manitouwadge, Atikokan and all the places that contribute so much to the economy of this province?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Simply put, it means $30 million in the heritage fund. We're looking at 10,500 jobs gone, cancelled. We're looking at $14 million to renovate old schools. The Conservatives would have them collapsed.

We're looking at $500,000 for wife assault. That's the human dimension. Those are real people in need of services. What is it that's being said here? "Go back to the closet and stop complaining. Your problems never existed," because you have no funding for those clients in dire need. "Cancel the aid to prospectors, to minor developers, people who are creating real wealth." It does not make sense, no common sense whatsoever. Let's do it progressively --

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- let's put people first, let's inject some compassion where it's needed the most, in that special part of Ontario, namely, northern Ontario. Shame on you.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Pouliot: How can one party, when all is said and done, take --

The Speaker: The minister has answered the question. New question.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it has to do with the plans the province may have for dealing with some of the major issues facing Metropolitan Toronto, particularly in the areas where the province I think has a major role. The minister knows that Metro Toronto has lost about 200,000 jobs since 1989. We've lost about 15% of the jobs in Metro Toronto, as the minister knows. I think the tax base in Metro Toronto, as he knows, is eroding.

In the municipal election, clearly there was a signal, at least from the city of Toronto voters and I think from others, about their concern about the complexity of government in Metropolitan Toronto. The board of trade, as we all know, has indicated its concerns about the governance of Metropolitan Toronto.

I wonder if the minister might tell the House today what the province's plans are for resolving some of these issues with Metropolitan Toronto where the province has the key role to play.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think a number of people have a key role to play. The member is quite right. The referendum in the city of Toronto gave a clear indication that people had concerns about governance. It also had a clear indication that they were concerned about such questions as leadership at the municipal, local, lower-tier level.

What is fairly clear is that this is not a new problem, but it is an increasingly disconcerting problem. If we do not bring together the taxation questions, the governance questions and the economic development questions, a coordinated approach to this, we could well be, as American cities are, the centre of, the hole in the doughnut, with economic development taking place around, and the inner city being in a very unfortunate position, the inner city being Metropolitan Toronto, or even worse perhaps, the city of Toronto. I can tell you that we take this seriously. We're working with Metro in its study. We're working with the GTA mayors, and I'm meeting with them on a regular basis.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his reply, please?

Hon Mr Philip: We are putting all of the pieces together. We are not going to allow Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto to be the same as US cities. But maybe the honourable member --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Philip: -- would tell me what the position is of the Liberal Party on this issue, since we've called its research department and they tell us --

The Speaker: Could the minister please take his seat. The question has been answered. Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: If I heard the minister correctly, he was saying there is the need for the province to take action, that the problem was bad and getting worse and that there is a need for a coordinated approach. So I think the minister is saying the province needs to take action, but I gather the minister has no action he's planning to take.

I would say that it's quite clear that what is required is indeed a comprehensive study of the problem and a proposal on the solutions. You can call it a commission, you can call it a comprehensive review, but it is clear that the government should and must act very quickly to establish that body that will do that study very quickly -- I think it is urgent -- and to bring forward the recommendations.

Now, there's a specific recommendation to the minister. That's our recommendation. If you're going to do something different, tell the House today. If you have nothing else you want to do, you can't figure out what to do, then take that recommendation and act on it.

Hon Mr Philip: I take the member's recommendation seriously. Indeed it's a recommendation that has been given to me by such people as Bill Davis and other people who I think are concerned about Metropolitan --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Don't listen to him. See what happened to us.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Stockwell says, "Don't listen to Bill Davis." I'd rather listen to Mr Davis, who was the leader of a Progressive Conservative Party, than to the reform party members who are on that side of the House today. I tell you, Bill Davis is so happy because we gave him a job, he looks 10 years younger, and he's going to do a great job for us.

With regard to the suggestion the member has made, certainly that will be one of the considerations that we will be taking into account. I will be meeting with the new chairman of Metro, whenever that person is appointed, or reappointed as the case may be, and we'll of course be meeting with the lower-tier mayors.

But I wonder if the member would clarify whether it in fact is true that the position of the Liberal Party, or one of the positions it was considering, was the abolition of Metro. If they think that is a simple solution, maybe they'd tell us and come clean with it.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health, and it concerns Bill 173 and long-term care. Minister, with your government's closure motion, you've closed down, as of 6 o'clock today, committee debate on this very important piece of legislation, and we are left in committee with quite a mess with respect to the amendments that are on the table.

Minister, your last-minute labour adjustment

section 15 amendments very clearly favour only unionized nurses and home care workers in the sector today. The ad hoc coalition concerned with Bill 173 has put forward new

section 15 amendments to bring some fairness to the bill so that both non-unionized and unionized employees will be able to apply for jobs in the new multiservice agencies. Will you accept the new

section 15 amendments today and bring some fairness back to the labour adjustment provisions of bill 173?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): We made it clear from the introduction of Bill 173 that it was our intention to protect those people currently employed in the system. If they have a collective agreement, then that is protected; if they don't have a collective agreement, then they have a job offer of a comparable job. That's what our amendments manage to do, and that's what will be part of the bill when the committee votes on it.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, that is not what your amendments say. That may be what your briefing notes say, but that is not what the legal text that is on the table downstairs right now says. It very clearly gives jobs to unionized workers and says, "The rest of you are out of luck."

Minister, because thousands of nurses and home care workers who currently work for VON and Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses will lose their jobs under your MSA program, will you today commit to paying the severance costs for those thousands of workers who are non-unionized who will clearly lose their jobs in this sector? You've left an awful mess down there with respect to amendments, and right now you're stinging the VON and the Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth and dozens of other provider agencies --

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

Mr Jim Wilson: -- with the severance costs, once you steal their employees.

Hon Mrs Grier: We have laws in this province that protect workers. We have always had laws in this province and our government is very proud of the way in which those laws have been implemented for the protection of workers, organized and unorganized, within this province and within the workplace.

The district health councils, which are doing the planning for long-term care, were requested from the very beginning to prepare human resource plans so that the transition for people already employed in the system to new employers would be as smooth and as trouble-free and as effective as possible.

In response to many of the submissions heard by the committee we have clarified what we have meant in our directions to DHCs, we have clarified how workers can be protected and we have ensured that for the people who matter, the seniors and the disabled, the transition to a new system will be as smooth and as seamless as possible. That's what matters to us.

APOLOGY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier this afternoon, in my statement, I used a British colloquialism that might even suggest a violent act. I'm not a violent person and I wish to withdraw that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I don't know precisely what the member was referring to, but it sounds like a good thing that he's doing.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for your direction. This morning, attending the infrastructure program out in my riding, the Minister of Municipal Affairs related having observed William Davis in the House when he was Premier and how he could spin out the answer to a question over a considerable period of time in order to limit the number of questions that might be asked in the House.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated that he admired that and did his best in each answer to spin it out as long as possible in order to limit the number of questions that might be asked during question period in this House. I ask for your direction as to whether or not that contravenes the orders.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that each member who utilizes a considerable amount of time causes some frustration for the Chair and for other members, and I simply ask all members to try and keep their questions and replies as brief as possible.

CORRECTION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to correct my record from question period today. I used the figure $180 million in reference to the new estimated costs of the NDP's photo health care plan. It should be three times $90 million, which, as everyone knows, is $270 million, if I could correct the record, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It's good to correct arithmetic.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (FIREFIGHTERS), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS)

Mr Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 192,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters / Projet de loi 192, Loi modifiant de Code de la route en ce qui a trait aux pompiers.

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

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The intent of this bill is something I talked about in a statement earlier this afternoon, and that's to give legislative approval to allow volunteer firefighters to attach a green flashing light to their vehicles when they're going to an emergency. I think this bill is needed in rural Ontario. I think all members of the Legislature pretty well support this concept and I would urge all members to give it their support when it comes for second and third readings.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 193,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 193, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.

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

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is the bill that I said last Thursday I would be introducing unless the government introduced its legislation first. This is the last week that bills can be introduced. It's my hope that the government will introduce similar legislation by Thursday so that we can ensure that small mall retailers will be protected from the huge increases that they are facing.

COUNTY OF KENT LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994

Mr Hayes moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr159,

An Act respecting the county of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it.

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

BOARD OF PAROLE DECISIONS AND VICTIMS' INFORMATION ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES DÉCISIONS DE LA COMMISSION DES LIBÉRATIONS CONDITIONNELLES ET SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS DESTINÉS AUX VICTIMES

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 194,

An Act to provide for Procedures in respect to Decisions of the Board of Parole and for Provision of Certain Information to Victims / Projet de loi 194, Loi établissant des procédures à l'égard des décisions de la Commission des libérations conditionnelles et prévoyant les renseignements que peuvent obtenir les victimes.

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

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Briefly, this bill sets out information that the board of parole must consider in making decisions on parole, the rights of a victim to be notified of a parole hearing, to make oral statements at parole hearings in certain cases and to be notified of the date of an inmate's release, and information concerning inmates available on request to victims and others, as well as other procedural matters.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mrs Marland moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 195,

An act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 195, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Today I have the pleasure of introducing my private member's bill entitled

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, 1994.

The purpose of this bill is to legislate several tough new measures aimed at reducing drunk driving. Chief among these measures is the permanent revocation of driving privileges for repeat drunk driving offenders. It is my hope that the threat of a lifetime ban on driving will be the deterrent drunk drivers need to change their behaviour.

My bill also provides that when a person is charged with impaired driving his or her licence would be suspended until the charge is heard in court or for 90 days after the laying of the charge, whichever occurs first.

Upon a first conviction, the driver's licence would be suspended for one year. The suspended driver would be required to complete mandatory educational and rehabilitation programs prior to reacquiring his or her licence.

Some people predict that a lifetime ban on driving will result in more people driving without a licence. My bill has responded to this potential problem in two ways. First, my bill would enable police officers to impound the vehicles of people who drive while disqualified. If the driver is found to be guilty, the vehicle would become the property of the crown and would be sold by auction. Moneys raised by the auction would be paid into a new drinking and driving trust fund for programs to prevent drinking and driving. Secondly, my bill would make it an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment to knowingly lend a motor vehicle to a disqualified driver.

My decision to draft this bill resulted from the Attorney General's inaction on this issue and the sad fact that I have heard from too many people about the loved ones they have lost as the result of a drunk driver. Earlier this afternoon I outlined the shocking statistics. The fact that the incidence of drunk driving is on the rise is unacceptable and alarming.

The Acting Speaker: Could the honourable member please summarize?

Mrs Marland: I will just complete one paragraph, Mr Speaker. I hope that all the members of the Legislature who read this bill will recognize that drinking and driving is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of justice and human compassion. I urge the government to take action to ensure the passage of this legislation.

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES CORRECTIONNELS

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 196,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act / Projet de loi 196, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Briefly, the proposed amendment authorizes the chair of the Ontario Board of Parole to recommend to the Minister of Correctional Services that an inquiry be conducted by a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) to determine whether a board member should be subject to disciplinary measures. It increases the accountability in the system and ensures that a decision like that made with reference to Clinton Suzack be accountable to people within the judicial system and not to political figures.

LUNG ASSOCIATION, OTTAWA-CARLETON REGION ACT, 1994

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr137,

An Act respecting the Lung Association, Ottawa-Carleton Region.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of, Bill 187,

An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses / Projet de loi 187, Loi portant réforme du droit réglementant les entreprises.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I believe, Mr Speaker, that at the end of the debate on this bill some days ago, the last speaker was a member of the Conservative Party.

Usually, the rotation would have come to this side, but you'll also recall that the critic for the third party, the member for Parry Sound, had stood down his opening remarks. I believe he will pick up his opening remarks at this point and then the rotation should proceed as normal from there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): According to the government House leader, do we have agreement? Agreed.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm sure the government will be happy to know, as will other members of the Legislature, that I don't intend on taking my full 90 minutes this afternoon; in fact, far less.

Applause.

Mr Eves: I see that's already meeting with an overwhelming chorus of enthusiasm on the government benches.

I would like to get a few comments on the record with respect to regulatory reform and this bill, Bill 187, the bill being introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations as a part of the Clearing the Path initiative which was launched by the government to respond to small business concerns about red tape and the high cost of compliance with government regulations.

After more than a year of study, including several interministerial working groups, the government I think has achieved three things, but only three things:

Firstly, computer business registration workstations will allow entrepreneurs to electronically complete four of the most commonly required forms for an unincorporated business startup.

Secondly, this unified reporting will make it possible for businesses to receive consolidated monthly statements and remit taxes in a single payment. The objective set forth by the government is to combine retail sales tax and employers' health tax in 1995, and it professes or proposes to add Ontario corporate tax at a later date.

The third thing is that new business registrants will be given a single federal business number. That is another initiative the government is proposing through Bill 187.

Having completed these three, albeit necessary but I would submit somewhat less than revolutionary, changes, no doubt the government will then go out on the election trail in the next provincial election next year and claim that it has responded to the concerns of the business community. I think nothing could be further from the truth.

The government will undoubtedly try to make the electorate believe that it has made significant progress towards reducing the barriers to business growth in this province. However, I would submit that Bill 187 is really about an elaborate PR campaign by the government, since the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is only dealing with four out of 43,164 registered forms currently required by the government of Ontario. I think the public should be aware of that and I'm sure the business community is aware of that fact. We are dealing with only four out of 43,164 forms.

That leaves another 43,160 to be dealt with. This is a small step indeed to regulatory reform in the province of Ontario.

In May 1992, the government's final report from its interministerial committee on plain language reported that over 50% of Ontario government communication is done through forms. This followed the February 1992 publication Improving Service Quality in the Ontario Government, which reported that some of the barriers to service quality improvement included lack of clear language in documents and forms, poor form design and, most importantly, in block letters, too many forms.

The committee reported that the number of registered forms in the Ontario government is 43,164, as I mentioned earlier, and that it costs $21 million a year to print all these forms. This figure does not include another estimated 42,000 unregistered forms floating around in the bureaucracy of government. So what we have here is in excess of some 85,000 forms annually required in one form or another, using a pun on words, by the province of Ontario, and Bill 187 purports to deal with four out of 85,000, a small, small, small step indeed, if it could be described as a step at all.

An outside consultant, the Gartner Group, estimated that the cost of processing these 43,164 legitimate forms by the government is an estimated $1.47 billion -- not $1.47 million -- a year. If you add the other forms, the unregistered forms, which number about 42,000, we have a figure in the neighbourhood of $3 billion a year that the government spends processing forms itself. This is just the cost to the province of Ontario: $3 billion a year. This doesn't even begin to recognize, doesn't talk about the expense to business and single entrepreneurs out there of filling out the forms themselves.

As a result of this study, the committee observed that if the government improved 5% on the legitimate forms' processing costs of $1.47 billion, the province of Ontario would save $73 million a year. That's just improving 5%. Their savings would be $73 million a year, a very significant figure indeed.

In response to these reports, this government is making, I would submit, a less than dramatic advance or move on four of the forms out of 43,164, if you want to take just legitimate forms that are required, and four out of in excess of 85,000 if you want to include interbureaucracy forms floating around in individual ministries.

However, even though the government claims to be cutting red tape, we discovered that the government will only be streamlining compliance. There will not be a reduction in the regulatory burden. They're just going to streamline four forms as to how you comply with the regulatory burden. They're not really going to the crux of the problem or the root of the problem.

The whole area of government regulation, paper burden and red tape needs to be examined carefully to ensure that unnecessary duplication or requests for information are eliminated. Regulatory reform is needed to reduce the impact and cost of unnecessary requirements of government.

The province of Ontario alone passes in the neighbourhood of 750 to 1,000 new regulations every single year. Just think about that for a minute: 750 to 1,000 every year. The cumulative effect of this is mind-boggling. How the average Ontarian or average businessperson is expected to keep track of these is almost impossible. It's not as if every person in the province of Ontario reads the Ontario Gazette every day like they read the Toronto Star or their weekly newspaper.

It is estimated that employers in this province have to devote the equivalent of one month's work every year to completing forms and complying with government regulation. One month out of 12 is devoted to nothing but red tape requirements of government. I find that figure rather appalling, but the government doesn't seem to be too concerned about it, if Bill 187 is any indication. This is what we get after well over a year of consultation and some two years to think about it.

As a result of the consultation with small businesses and entrepreneurs, our party has had task forces on creating jobs through small business. We know the regulatory burden is indeed a matter of genuine and growing concern throughout the province of Ontario.

Our document The Common Sense Revolution recommends the appointment of an arm's-length commission to review all current regulations affecting businesses in the province of Ontario. Any regulation that could not be justified would be eliminated within 12 months of a Harris government taking office. The commission would have as part of its mandate the responsibility to review all existing regulatory initiatives for their impact on private sector job creation.

Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells has committed himself to a complete and full review of all regulations that impact on business by introducing a sunset provision which comes into effect in April 1995. Regulations in that province are currently being examined by bureaucrats and an arm's-length committee, as we suggest, under the auspices of the Economic Recovery Commission to ensure that only appropriate regulations will survive that sunset date of April 1995.

Surely, if this government were as committed as is Mr Wells in the province of Newfoundland to reducing the regulatory burden and reforming the system, it would be introducing some similar legislation after having in excess of four years to look at the problem. Currently the province has no formal policy whatsoever towards governing the development of regulation. There is no formal planning process that would warn the government and the public that a new regulation may be introduced and no mandatory requirement for public consultation or notification unless it is explicitly provided for under the act authorizing the regulation itself.

The Legislature, as I'm sure many members will know, has no direct input at all into developing regulation. The government does not evaluate regulations that are in place and the economic impact of regulations are not done prior to their implementation. Having been the past chair of the standing committee on regulations and private bills of the Ontario Legislature, I can certainly assure you that this is the case. That committee merely looks at regulations after they've been passed to see if any of them might be ultra vires of the government's authority to pass such regulations.

I'm sure that the minister will know that, partaking in the cabinet committee on regulation herself, there really is no great public consultation process. I have served on that committee in cabinet as well, and the process that we go through is quite antiquated indeed. There is not a great deal, if any in some cases, of public consultation and feedback as to what the government of the day is purporting by way of regulation.

Personally speaking, I find government by regulation to be somewhat undemocratic and autocratic, to say the least. I think that, where possible, things that are done should be done aboveboard and in this chamber. That's what we have a parliamentary system of government for.

Even the NDP government of Saskatchewan has introduced a code of conduct, called the Regulatory Code of Conduct, to ensure that businesses and citizens have better access, understanding and input into the regulatory process. That code requires, before implementation of regulatory measures, that departments, agencies and the crown will examine non-regulatory alternatives and identify the potential costs and benefits to businesses and individuals resulting from proposed regulations.

The code goes on to outline characteristics for the regulatory process. For example:

(1) advance information and notice of proposed regulatory initiatives and amendments, where not part of the budget process, to the sectors most affected by them;

(2) opportunity for affected sectors to provide input into statutes and regulations;

(3) regular review of statutes and regulations and their objectives to ensure continued relevancy;

(4) efforts to minimize regulatory conflicts and differences both within the Saskatchewan government and among other government jurisdictions in the province of Saskatchewan;

(5) drafting by professional draftspersons who are subject to clearly identified and uniform drafting styles and standards.

As happens here, as I'm sure most members are hopefully aware, the bureaucrats in the legal departments of various ministries are responsible for drafting their own legislation and regulations. There is no uniform system of doing it.

(6) A detailed review of proposed legislation and regulations by elected officials; and

(7) regulatory requirements communicated in an understandable language -- more user-friendly, in other words -- a suggestion that the government's own interministerial committee has recommended to it but which to date it has so far chosen not to pursue.

In the United States, the Paperwork Reduction Act gives every citizen the opportunity to comment on any form of government that they have to fill out. The address for comments is clearly identified on the form. The user of the form is therefore given the ability to comment directly on its use or its relevancy.

Again, given what other jurisdictions have introduced, it is surprising that the government of Ontario seems content to deal with four out of 43,164 forms. Successive governments throughout Canada have continually added to the regulatory burden for decades. As a result, we now need a fundamental review of government regulations, not just mere tinkering around the edges, I would suggest to you.

Regulation is important to Ontario's competitiveness and a critical factor in the decision of many businesses to invest or not to invest in this province. Legislative and regulatory initiatives have imposed significant administrative and financial costs on employers. Although individual legislation may have merit, the cumulative effect of our onerous legislative environment has made Ontario a less and less attractive jurisdiction for investment.

Ontario has the highest minimum wage in North America. Bill 40 introduced the most comprehensive labour laws in North America, a fact of which this government is abundantly proud. At the time of Bill 79's introduction, Ms Ziemba stated that the bill was the foremost employment equity law in all of North America and perhaps in all of the world. Yet the government has made no attempt to harmonize standards with the federal government or other governments of the ever-increasing costs to business in this province.

In Bill 162 the former Liberal government's WCB reforms added over $1 billion to the unfunded liability in this province and resulted in even higher assessment rates. The current government is now compounding that problem by introducing Bill 165, which will add to the $11 billion unfunded liability of the workers' compensation scheme in this province of Ontario.

On January 12 of this year the Financial Executives Institute Canada released a report comparing the financial position of workers' compensation boards across Canada. Here in Ontario our board is responsible for 70.25% of the accumulated $11.8 billion of the national WCB debt, just in excess of 70% when Ontario workers only make up 39% of the nation's workforce.

Those figures don't compute. How can we be responsible for 70% of the entire accumulated unfunded liability in Canada through workers' compensation boards when we only have 39% of the workforce? It's almost twice as much as we should be responsible and liable for in this province.

The report goes on to conclude:

"It is clear that the rising cost of workers' compensation cannot continue simply to be passed on to employers through ever higher assessment rates. Corporate competitiveness is crucial to maintaining our Canadian standard of living and this is one program in urgent need of repair. There is a danger of affecting both current and future jobs."

This is what that independent body and report found, yet we don't seem to be doing anything about that. We're going to address a problem of four forms out of 43,164.

The report goes on to recommend that in those provinces where the Workers' Compensation Board is fiscally weak -- and it names them: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta -- it urges those provinces to follow the leadership shown by the provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. "The latter provinces enacted legislation that reduced costs significantly but still maintained an effective safety net for injured workers." Ontario has not seen fit to act on this recommendation either.

When the previous Liberal government was in power, it passed Bill 208. It amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require health and safety committees in all workplaces. The small business advisory committee to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has found certification training requirements outrageously expensive and totally unrelated to small business workplaces across the province.

Then we have the issue of the $50 corporate filing fee. We have debated this issue in this Legislature on numerous occasions. Our party's dissenting opinion to the report on the underground economy recommended that the government eliminate the corporate filing fee, as compliance costs would appear to be far greater than the fees themselves.

This government has added continually to the cost of doing business in the province of Ontario. I see Bill 187, Clearing the Path legislation, as nothing more than a very simple PR exercise by the current government to try to convince businesses in Ontario that it has responded to their concerns.

Businesses in the province of Ontario are buried under a mountain of regulatory reform, although there's nothing detrimental to say about Bill 187 per se, except that it doesn't say very much and doesn't even begin to deal with the problem. This bill purporting to deal with the problem of regulatory reform and burden in the province of Ontario is equivalent to giving businesses a Q-Tip to dig themselves out from the bottom of this avalanche.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? Does the minister want a question or comment?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: This is now further debate. The honourable member for Norfolk.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Do you want to carry on with debate or are you asking for questions right now?

The Acting Speaker: I did ask for questions or comments. No one rose. However, I now see the member for Downsview. Is it the pleasure of the House that we revert back to questions or comments on the member for Parry Sound's participation? Agreed.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I simply want to take a minute or two to speak to some of the issues raised by the member opposite. I just want to say I couldn't agree more with many, many of the things that he has talked about in terms of the paper burden and some of the regulations that we apply and in fact require business, and small business in particular, to have to deal with in order to carry on their affairs.

It's very important and incumbent on us to change a lot of that and to introduce reforms that would reduce a lot of the paper burden and a lot of the regulations that we apply to businesses. I think that can be done quite easily.

One of the processes which the government has undertaken and has initiated in order to do that is the whole process of what's being called on the government side, and many of the opposition members will know the name of it, the Clearing the Path initiatives, where you come to house a lot of the applications and a lot of the forms that small business has to fill out sort of in one area.

Now, as you will know, Mr Speaker, particularly in that area, if someone wants to start up an enterprise, they have to go to a whole bunch of places and fill out forms and so on. That I think goes a long way to helping many of our small business people in eliminating some of the paperwork and some of the red tape they're required to go through. So I'd make that as an alternative and supplementary suggestion to the member's arguments.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Wellington.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Nothing further.

The Acting Speaker: You don't have questions or comments. Any further questions or comments?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I appreciate the words from the member for Parry Sound but, as he well knows, what this particular bill will do is set a whole chain of events into place so we'll be able to offer some long-term service expansion in this whole area. He is quite correct: to most taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and small businesses in this country, all levels of government are the same, no matter what it is -- provincial, municipal, regional or federal.

What this bill will do is allow, in the long run, the amalgamation of all the registration, be it municipal, federal or provincial and it will allow us to create a single, one-stop shopping and master licensing system for businesses in this province. Negotiations are already under way with the federal government to adopt the single business registration number, and hopefully that will begin to deal with that process.

What this bill does is give the government departments the authority to go ahead and move in that particular direction and deal with some of the questions around freedom of information and protection of privacy as well, which is posing a problem. This bill begins that process and hopefully, within a couple of years, we will have single-window shopping for businesses in this province. So when a business walks into a small business office, it will be able to complete all the necessary forms and licensing systems for its business.

I've taken a look at what's happened out in Washington state, for example, where they have over 700 licences for business in that particular state. They have it all down into one master licensing system. Hopefully, that's what this bill will ultimately be able to do.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'd like to briefly relate a little bit of history behind this bill. At least three years ago, a committee of parliamentary assistants was set up to look at how we could help small business and we did meet with various groups such as the chambers of commerce and the small business federation. It was a difficult task, let me tell you. First of all, I told my government colleagues that I wanted to be on this committee because I represented the city of Niagara Falls and, I would say, compared with many other cities, we have more small business than probably anywhere else.

The difficulty was with getting several different ministries together, the bureaucracies, to work together and realize that, in order to help small business, they had to simplify and they had to work together. This took quite a while, to make sure they understood what they had to do and to make them go back and do it. I'd like to give some credit to my colleague Norm Jamison from Norfolk, because he was the one who chaired that committee and he was the one who insisted that it continue and that it be done, and finally we have it here before us.

I would like to say that small business is going to be very important in the next few years to getting more jobs in this province; not the large companies, but the small companies. My husband just opened a small business over the last year and it is now expanding so I know what he has gone through to get to this position and I would encourage others to look at small business in this province.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the member for Parry Sound has two minutes in response.

Mr Eves: I appreciate the comments made by the members for Downsview, Halton North and Niagara Falls. I commend them on their basic thought. However, I still would like to point out that the government has been in place for well in excess of four years now. It's had its own interministerial report since 1992. It's had some time to respond to its own report.

I would have hoped that after that period of time -- I'm not belittling, believe me, the efforts of the members who have just spoken, but I would like to think that, having had this period of time in which to contemplate and deal with this problem, they would have come up with a more all-encompassing -- some call it a step; I would call it an inching forward along a road that's perhaps as wide as the province of Ontario itself.

I think there could have been more dramatic solutions and more reform solutions such as the ones that Premier Wells in the province of Newfoundland has implemented. Provide sunset legislation. I understand the problems that the member for Niagara Falls relates to with respect to different ministries and getting it through to them but, believe me, if you passed a sunset law that said, "One year from now all your regulations will cease to exist unless you can justify them to me," that would certainly get their attention and they would certainly be able to respond.

I think if you make them justify their own existence and why they're there, surely that would be one small step down the path towards regulatory reform in the province.

Mr Jamison: It's a pleasure to stand in the House and speak to Bill 187, a bill that I believe is very important in an area of major concern to most business people in this province -- and in any other jurisdiction, for that matter -- and that is the ability to allow businesses to do business with their governments, at whatever level, in a more efficient way, therefore allowing businesses to do business.

As members of the House will recall, my honourable colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations introduced this bill for first reading on November 3 of this year. I am delighted to say that this bill reflects the government's commitments to cutting red tape for business in Ontario. The bill also acknowledges the vital role played by small business in the revitalization of this province's economy.

Many members have stood in this House and extolled the virtues of small business and its job creation efforts over the last number of years, and certainly I will echo those by saying that what has been said about the numbers of jobs created in the small business community is true.

You know, business confidence is coming back. Investment is up and businesses are making investments in capital spending. In fact, some economists are now predicting that Ontario will be one of the leading industrialized sectors in economic growth in the next few years. We might say, "What does that have directly to do with the bill?" This bill ensures that those businesses will be doing business with their governments in a more efficient, streamlined fashion.

This is not a tiny step. This is a large leap forward. Let me explain that we're not talking about streamlining and combining four forms; we're talking about a piece of legislation that we can call umbrella legislation that will allow for much, much more streamlining than that to take place.

Small business is a big reason behind the recent upswing in this province's economy, business that helps spur the economy and business that creates jobs. However, as regulations and standards have changed and increased, businesses have found themselves forced to spend more and more time filling out forms, responding to inquiries from various levels of government and so on.

Paperwork: Small business people will tell you, time and time again, beyond taxes it's paperwork. I listened to the last speaker on this issue. There we have a representative of a government that was here in power in this very place for some 42 years that kept adding and adding and adding to that paperwork burden. This government is committed to reduce that paperwork burden. We're doing so by the initiation, by the implementation, by the introduction of Bill 187 here in this House, as introduced November 3.

We talk about the regulations. Those regulations have changed and increased somewhat over the years. Businesses have found themselves forced to spend more and more time filling out those forms and responding to inquiries from various levels of government. I can tell you that giving a unified number to businesses, a unified number that potentially will work right across the scale, right across the scope of governments at every level, is a large step forward.

The Business Regulation Reform Act is designed specifically to streamline and simplify the business registration reporting process, thereby lessening the paper burden. The act will overcome hurdles in specific program legislation, and that's why I call that an umbrella piece of legislation. It will provide the way and the means to lessen the number of forms -- forms that may be mentioned specifically in other pieces of legislation and forms that, up until this time, governments have refused to recognize as not needed in some cases. They've always been there, regardless.

We are also going to introduce and pave the way for electronic registration, using the technology that we have at our fingertips today to enhance the ability of doing business with business in this province. I can tell you it will also provide the authority for registration and reporting, all of those services, and the expansion of the ability of that system to be used to reduce the red tape in this province. The regulatory burden placed on small business in Ontario has grown over a long period of time. Opposition parties, while they were in power, took no initiative to reduce that burden -- no initiative.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): None.

Mr Jamison: None. We have. Today, we're talking about a bill that will mean a significant amount to the small business community in its ability to be doing business rather than be doing paperwork. We're dealing with this problem head on. It's not a roundabout approach. We're talking clearly about the reduction of the paper burden that small businesses have felt in this province.

This government has shown initiative by introducing this legislation to streamline the number of processes involved in starting up a small business. Our government takes its regulatory responsibilities very seriously. This bill will ensure regulations necessary to maintain a fair, safe and informed marketplace that supports a competitive economy and that it will be administered in the most efficient and the most effective manner and cause the least amount of work for businesses.

One might say, "Well, why the legislation?" We were able to introduce these initial improvements without legislation because they are an overlay on the existing process. I want to make that clear: They are an overlay on the existing process. However, we cannot reach an optimum level of service to our business clients without clear legislative authority to do a number of things, and this legislation will do that.

This legislation will provide clear authority for such things as combined registration forms, overcome roadblocks to consolidate requirements in individual program areas and provide authority for anticipated service expansion, such as links with the federal government. The single registration number is very important in that light.

When we look at this particular issue, it's a long-standing issue. It's not an issue that just came about over the last few years. I agree with many of the members who have spoken in this house: Governments have traditionally layered the red tape upon the business community. Let's understand that this is not a small step forward. This is a piece of legislation that will allow us to go a long, long way in reducing that red tape.

Can you imagine creating a single-window, one-step service that will integrate registration and reporting requirements for all three levels of government -- municipal, provincial and federal? That will be a first. Just imagine being able to walk into one government office where a businessperson can electronically complete all the forms required by the municipal, provincial and federal regulations. Just think about the advantages of being able to remit business taxes with a single payment. These are not insignificant steps; this is leaping forward. I'll tell you, that's the way it should be described.

The government is committed to providing equal access to services across Ontario. That means businesses throughout the province will have access to the level of service that up until now has been available only for those living in or around the Toronto area.

We're also committed to reducing the regulatory overlap and the duplication that currently exists among Ontario, Canada and other jurisdictions, thereby providing taxpayers with more cost-efficient and effective government. Informing the governments only once about any change in information, instead of going to many different ministries to advise them of the same change, is a significant step forward. I believe that to be true; other members don't.

While we're talking about client feedback, we had a parliamentary assistants' committee working diligently, looking at what we could do in and around this issue. I personally would like to express my thanks to those people who really sacrificed of their time and put forward such a commitment to seeing this through, and today it's in bill form.

I found it humorous listening to some of the previous speakers. One speaker would get up and say, "You know, this bill is only eight pages long." Then the same speaker would get up and talk about reducing the amount of regulation in government. I found myself almost lost for words at that point, but I was able to respond somewhat on that occasion.

The issue is that what we're introducing here is an umbrella piece of legislation, one that allows us to deal with and cut through the hordes of legislation that's out there, that reflects directly on small business, and it allows us to do it very directly and very clearly.

Interjections.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has just addressed us as "neo-Fascists." I would request that he withdraw that immediately.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable minister please --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): With sincere apologies I will withdraw both "neo" and "Fascist," Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Jamison: Mr Speaker, it's been said in this House that this bill combines only four forms. We can combine those four forms without legislation. This legislation is enabling legislation that will allow us to go forward and combine and streamline the many hundreds of forms that are out there now relating to small business.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Norfolk has the floor very legitimately.

Mr Jamison: It will also provide a single system to file information under designated acts. This bill will provide a single system for handling applications, registrations, renewals, cancellations and all other changes under the designated acts. It will provide a single financial and statistical reporting system for businesses.

Clearing the Path will standardize dates and combine processes for filing information and making payments. Clearing the Path will provide the streamlined forms to replace the multitude of forms under designated acts -- not four forms; the multitude of forms.

Bill 187 will allow us, again, to adopt a single business identification system to assist businesses to deal with many government programs. As we often do in this House, we hear the rhetoric, and of course this is an adversarial place, or can be from time to time, but I can tell you that we had an advisory committee that worked very hard along the way on this issue. That advisory committee clearly represented the business community, and they are extremely interested in seeing this bill go forward. This is a bill that's important not only to the business community but to the whole economic fabric of this province in the future.

We're using, as I said earlier, the technology that we have available. If you're starting a small business in this province, for example, rather than having to go or send forms off to seven, eight, nine, 10 different ministries, you go to one location and you can do all your filing there. You can do the business name search at the same location.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Really?

Mr Jamison: This is something that -- again members across the floor are indicating, "Really?" I have to say, well, really, why didn't you do it? Really. We hear the rhetoric from across the floor. The question is, why didn't you do it?

It took an awful lot of work to put this together and it was one that we had to go forward and make sure that what we were doing was going to be done correctly. But when I hear the opposition parties over there shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Oh, really?" -- well, really, why wasn't this done before? You were the governments that laid on top, page after page, the regulations and the paperwork in this province. You had an opportunity to move earlier, and my question would be very simple. Why wasn't this you doing this? Why?

The program itself, yes, there are short-term benefits and there are long-term benefits in this program. The legislation will provide specific, immediate solutions to small business concerns and issues, including combined business registration forms and electronic filing in a number of key areas. Completed registrations and workstations will take more or less just a one-stop-shopping aspect to this, and that in itself goes a long way to creating confidence in starting and maintaining a business in this province or, for that matter, anywhere else.

I can tell you that when we look at the client feedback, and I'm sure we all agree that small businesses are one of the found