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

June 8, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

BELLE RIVER MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

TOURISM

GREY-SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

INSURANCE TAX

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

TOURISM

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

EMERGENCY SERVICES

WASTE DISPOSAL

GASOLINE PRICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

TOBACCO PACKAGING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

HEALTH INSURANCE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise this afternoon to speak about an issue of concern to all Ontarians and especially people in my riding: crime.

I want to draw the attention of this House to one initiative which speaks not only to how to eliminate crime in our streets but also to how we as citizens, neighbours and friends can work together to restore safety to our streets. This initiative is the community witness program.

This morning I accompanied a great many people from my riding to the district courthouse to attend the first sentencing hearing arranged through my office under the guise of the community witness program. We arranged to have a witness testify on the impact of crime in the community but, as an indication of the impact witnesses have on influencing a judge's sentencing decision, the defence counsel used every argument he could to have the case adjourned to another date and was successful, this time. The adjournment of this case has strengthened the resolve of the community witnesses to strive even harder to attend more hearings.

I want to underscore one fact: 80% of the crimes committed in the Regent Park area are done by people who live outside the neighbourhood. That is why this program means so much to residents who live there. It gives them a way to claim their streets and their neighbourhoods as their own and provides a way to influence a justice system that so often seems to ignore them.

I would like also to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses and the community residents who came out in support of the initiative. Your work is sending a strong message to criminals, and even though not all of your neighbours realize it, your neighbourhood is a better place today because of it.

I hope that through a program like this one other members can encourage their communities to get involved in a similar initiative.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The board of education and the parents in my riding have recommended that any implementation of junior kindergarten be put on hold. They object very strongly to the cost of the program and find it unacceptable and irresponsible that the government would force the board of education to find the space, the teachers and the funding for this program. There are no funds to administer the present curriculum, and the facilities for the students currently enrolled are strained.

To implement junior kindergarten at this time is totally unrealistic. Where will the money come from? Will taxes be raised again? The total cost of this program is expected to be $4.9 million and the operational costs would be in the neighbourhood of $8 million. Minister of Education and Training, there is no money for this optional luxury. Why are you forcing it on the people of my riding?

BELLE RIVER MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): On behalf of my constituents I'd like to bring to the House's attention the terrific achievement of the Belle River Minor Hockey Association.

The Belle River Minor Hockey Association has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, which is an achievement in itself when one considers all the voluntary hours that parents, coaches, trainers and managers give.

However, the Belle River Minor Hockey Association has more to celebrate than 25 years of teaching children the great Canadian game of hockey. The Peewee Minor Travel Team has a list of remarkable achievements that I'd like to share with the members of the House.

In 1992 the Peewee Minor Travel Team became the All-Ontario Champions. In 1993 the Peewee Minor Travel Team became the All-Ontario finalists and the North American Silver Stick Champions. In 1994 the Peewee Minor Travel Team became the All-Ontario Champions and the North American Silver Stick Champions again.

I believe that the players of this team deserve a special mention: Scott Nadalin, Christopher Bauer, Jason St Pierre, Ryan Klokman, Jeffrey Bialkowski, Mike Quinn, Stephen Hildenbrand, Ian Leavoy, Dave Poisson, Neil Barrette, Michael Reimneitz, Brandon Tootill, Craig Mahon, Joel Cecile, Ryan Decker, Jesse Fowler, Kevin Rivest, Steve Farrer and Kyle Raymond.

Also, the Belle River Canadians Junior C Team became the All-Ontario Champions in 1994 for the third time in 10 years.

More, the Belle River Minor Hockey Association has had two players go on to play in the NHL: Mike Natyshak, who unfortunately had to retire due to injury, and Tie Domi, who currently plays for Winnipeg.

I'm proud that the community of Belle River gives such tremendous support to its minor hockey association. The whole community shares in the work of running the association and shares the upset of defeat and shares in the glory of championship. Well done, Belle River Minor Hockey Association.

TOURISM

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): As the past Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I'd like to talk today about some of the wonderful tourism attractions that we have in the province of Ontario and encourage our many citizens and those from around the world to come and visit us.

First, I'd like to touch on the Stratford Festival. People from all parts of the world visit Stratford to attend the plays put on by a cast of experts, and I encourage all those listening today to order their brochures. They have a beautiful brochure to pick up. Visit that area and take in some of the plays.

In the same area we have the Blyth Festival, the Elora Festival, the Grand Bend Festival in Huron county and the Drayton Festival Theatre. Another place that we really like to visit each year is Niagara-on-the-Lake, the Shaw Festival, with some great attractions there, great places to visit.

I'd be remiss if I didn't talk a little bit about the Quinte area. We have coming up on June 25 and 26 at Canadian Forces Base Trenton the spectacular Quinte International Air Show. Again, that brochure is available for anyone who would like to order it. I encourage them to get hold of my office or somebody in the Trenton area. It's a great air show, one of the best in the province.

We also have many other great attractions in the Quinte area, stretching from Picton, the Trenton-Belleville area, with a waterfront festival on July 8, 9 and 10 in Belleville and, in the latter part of July, the Trenton bathtub races.

Let's support our tourism industry in the province of Ontario. Let's get out and visit all these great communities.

GREY-SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week I sent a letter to the minister on behalf of the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority. In it I outlined the necessity of speeding up approval of the authority's application for fill, construction and alteration to waterways regulations. Without these regulations, the authority has no control over the filling or alteration of wetlands within its jurisdiction.

Grey-Sauble prepared the required maps and schedules and submitted them to the ministry for approval before Christmas last year. To date, they are one of the last authorities in the province waiting for approval. Both neighbouring authorities in Grey county -- Nottawasaga and Saugeen -- and also the Grand Valley have enforceable regulations for the protection of significant wetlands.

I realize only one week has passed since I wrote the minister. However, these regulations are extremely important due to the potential illegal situation in Collingwood township. There is currently an individual filling a wetland within this Grey-Sauble watershed. If the filling is illegal, the authority needs the regulations in order to prevent it from continuing.

Will the minister please look into this matter today. Approval of the regulations must be expedited to give the Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority the power to protect its jurisdiction from illegal fill, construction or alteration of significant wetlands.

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The 19th annual Carrousel of the Nations, Windsor's multicultural festival presented by the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County, will be held this Friday to Sunday, June 10 to 12, and the following weekend as well.

This year Carrousel will pay tribute to the United Nations International Year of the Family and will feature 29 ethnocultural villages, including British, Caribbean, Chinese, Filipino, German, Greek, two Hungarian villages, Indian, Irish, Israeli, Islamic, Italian, Japanese, Lebanese, Macedonian, Maltese, Polish, Scottish, two Serbian villages, two Slovak villages, three Ukrainian villages and Vietnamese. I want to welcome three new villages this year: Korean, Pakistani and Portuguese.

Most of these villages are located in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville and all will be presenting the best in traditional cuisine, entertainment and arts and crafts, and the best

part is, admission is free.

I want to recognize and express my thanks to CBC, the sponsors of this year's Carrousel, and also say thank you to the hundreds of volunteers who make this event a success. At a time when there is violent conflict in many areas of the world, I'm proud to say that I represent a city where different cultures can not only coexist but can also celebrate together.

I invite all who are watching and who are listening to come to Windsor, tour the world, and celebrate Carrousel.

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): While the world is quickly coming up with concerns about water, a current edition of the local municipal magazine, Municipal World, has a headline story called Water: Waste Not, Want Not.

In November of last year I introduced my Bill 126, which would deal with water extraction agreements and which provided for local municipalities a means for them to participate in decisions about water extraction. It also provided a very much more broadly based consultation process where the local citizens around the water-taking sites could be included in some of the determinations about what the extraction programs would do to the supply of water in their area.

There are, of course, other provisions associated with it, but all are based on the fact that the Ministry of Environment and Energy will continue to deal with the issues of quality and quantity of water.

I urge all of those people who in this House voted in support of this bill on second reading and ultimately sent it to committee of the whole House to bring this bill back on so that we can complete at least one step in a process in this Legislative Assembly to assist people locally to take charge of their local resource and one of the most important resources for all of us, that being water.

It won't take that much time, but it will be, for all of us who expect water to continue to become a growing and much more important issue, the most important first step that this Legislative Assembly could take in guarding and protecting our water resources.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the government's continued abuse of the traditional democratic process in the province of Ontario.

Example 1: The government scheduled a free vote at 5:45 pm today on second reading of Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, and the vote has been cancelled. That's not democracy in action. I suspect the government discovered it needed more time to do some arm-twisting of NDP backbenchers rather than facing the embarrassment of a failed vote.

Example 2: The government has scheduled a time allocation motion today to cut off debate on Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act. The government must invoke closure because it knows this legislation is seriously flawed. It is so flawed in fact that there are 25 amendments and 28 pages on which the government will allow only one hour of consideration in committee of the whole House. Why the rush? What are you hiding? Perhaps you should refer to the Common Sense Revolution, which clearly contains no cuts to agriculture.

Example 3: The government let the Sewell commission wander around the province for two years and then directs municipalities to respond within 90 days. I understand you plan to rush Bill 163 to public hearings this summer before any logical review and response can be prepared by the Ontario municipalities.

This government clearly shows little respect for the people of Ontario. Perhaps it's time for this government to step back from its partisan political agenda and start listening to the people rather than shutting them out.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I appreciate the member for Quinte mentioning the Stratford Festival. As a matter of fact, it was on Monday that we just opened the festival. We were able to see a wonderful performance of Twelfth Night directed by Richard Monette. It was a rich performance, well directed, with a lot of comedic highlights.

Also, this last Friday I attended the opening of Cyrano de Bergerac starring Colm Feore, another wonderful, wonderful production. It's one of the most engaging performances I have ever seen and I think this is one of his finest performances.

In between, we also had the opening of The Pirates of Penzance, again with Colm Feore, another wonderful musical that I am recommending to everyone that they take time to see.

We have three theatres in Stratford. We have the Avon Theatre, the Tom Patterson Theatre and the main stage, all of them with many performances scheduled for this year.

The Stratford Festival is one of the most prestigious cultural performing arts centres in Ontario --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Agreed.

Mrs Haslam: I'm glad you agree. Thank you to the member for Mississauga South.

I encourage everybody across the floor and on this side to come to Stratford. We are ready for you. We have wonderful cultural shows for you to see. We have many antique stores in the surrounding areas. We are in the midst of a wonderful agricultural area. Come to Stratford and enjoy the culture that we offer.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE TAX

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I'm waiting for the Minister of Finance to take his seat.

Minister, yesterday we brought to the public's attention that your government's pledge not to introduce any new taxes had been broken. It turns out that you were unable to resist the temptation to find a new way to tax consumers and that you had decided to tax the deductible on insurance premiums.

This is a mystifying turn of events. The insurance industries didn't ask for it and have said they don't want it. It's going to hurt their customers, and they don't think it's fair.

I have a very simple question to the Treasurer: Will you retract this policy and repeal the tax that you had indicated you would not impose in the first place?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Take a little stroll while you're thinking about the answer. The mike will follow you.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the suggestions from across the floor as to how I should prepare myself for these kinds of difficult questions.

I appreciate the member raising this issue yesterday. Since he did that, I've had some preliminary meetings with people in the ministry, particularly the revenue

section of the ministry, from whence the memo came.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Is there another section?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: There is?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes.

If I could get back to the question, Mr Speaker, the member asked about the sales tax on deductible for insurance policies. I just wanted to assure him that I have been meeting with the people in the ministry and we've established some preliminary consultations already with the industry.

I just want to assure the member that this is not a new tax. There is no new tax here. It's not a tax that was in the budget from 1993; it's not a new tax that was in the budget from 1994, although there has been a shift in the collection of the tax, but it does not bring in one --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: It does not bring in one new nickel to the Ontario treasury.

Mr Offer: This is a new tax, and not only that, this is a matter of your credibility, because a tax is a tax is a tax. The insurance companies say that your new policy violates every single policy of insurance in this province. A deductible is not a deductible plus tax; it is just a deductible. No matter what spin you may want to put on it, consumers are now facing a tax where they didn't face one before.

Minister, in your last budget, the third-last line that you read in this place stated there are "no new taxes and no tax increases." In your memo of May 16, two weeks after this budget -- the ink had not yet dried -- you are imposing a new tax on consumers on their deductibles in insurance.

How can you justify slapping another tax on insurance and consumers when you said you would not increase the tax burden faced by the people of this province? How can you justify the position you took in your budget with the memo of your own ministry two weeks later?

Applause.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the applause. But I can tell you that what was stated in that budget, that there are "no new taxes and no tax increases," is absolutely and 100% correct. That tax was buried before and now is more evident, more visible, and I appreciate that, but that tax does not bring in one new nickel, not one nickel to the Ontario treasury. How can the member opposite say that this is a new tax, when it doesn't bring a nickel more into the treasury of the province of Ontario -- not a nickel?

Mr Offer: Let me try to explain to the minister how his new tax is a tax. A few months ago, if someone suffered damage to, let's say, their home -- their home was broken into or there was a fire in their home and damage occurred -- in the event that they had an insurance policy to which there was a deductible of, for example, $250, two months ago they would have paid the $250 and the insurance company would have looked after the terms of the policy and replaced the loss.

Now, under your new tax, that person doesn't pay just $250; they pay $250 plus 8%, or $270. Minister, maybe not you, but for every other person in this province, they are paying a tax on their deductible. This was an amount which previously was paid by the insurance company. Your policy has now changed it so that we, as consumers, are going to have to pay a new tax.

My question remains: Your budget stated there are "no new taxes and no tax increases." As far as the people of this province are concerned, there is a new tax: on their deductible. My question remains, why did you abandon your promise and why don't you just simply retract this tax burden which you have imposed on the people of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm very pleased and I want to thank the member opposite for clarifying his own previous comments, because what he's just said is that this tax was already there. It was buried; that's the difference. The member said it himself and knows full well that there's no new tax being imposed by the government to increase the revenues of the province in this regard. The member opposite said so himself.

Mr Offer: Consumers are paying the tax.

Hon Mr Laughren: Now he's tripping over his own explanation, because there is no increase in taxes to the treasury of this province. The fact remains that the tax was buried before and now it's not.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Late yesterday afternoon, your government filed a time allocation motion on Bill 91, the farm unionization legislation, to force it through committee without giving a chance to the public, and especially our farmers, of even the remotest possibility of being heard. After months of controversy, and with farmers across the province angry and upset with your unionization agenda, you have decided that you will not allow the public to have their say. Minister, why have you decided to refuse public hearings on Bill 91? What are you afraid of hearing?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm not the least bit afraid of hearings. We went through a year and a half --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: They don't want to listen to it, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Fawcett: You say that the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee accepts this legislation, but what you don't say is that you didn't really offer the farm community any alternatives. First, you take away the agricultural exemption and make farmers face the full unionization provisions of Bill 40. Then you said that farmers wouldn't have to face the full strike provisions of Bill 40 if they only agreed to the more moderate unionization provisions of Bill 91. Of course farmers prefer Bill 91 after you hog-tied them to Bill 40, but it is not accurate at all to say that any farmer wants Bill 91.

This is purely a figment of your labour-saturated imagination. Minister, what farmer has asked for this legislation, or were you downtown in Hamilton on a main street corner taking your survey?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me, if I'm remembering my

schedule correctly, that I spoke at an OFA farmers' convention just a matter of months ago and I think we had two people in the audience, and there was quite a large audience, who raised questions about the bill, but I certainly didn't get chased out of that hall by the farmers at all when we raised it.

I might also say that we've gone through two sessions, the best part of a year, and we reached a consensus between farm groups, between the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the labour movement, and we got a consensus recommendation on this legislation. I don't know where the member across the way is coming from.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Minister, if you are intent on forcing your anti-business and anti-farm agenda on the province, why don't you at least allow farmers to have their say in public hearings on Bill 91? Farmers in Ontario need help in understanding how this will help them to be more competitive, more productive and how it will help them to be more profitable.

I have been speaking to farmers in S-D-G & East Grenville, Prescott and Russell, Renfrew, Middlesex, St Catharines-Brock, Welland-Thorold, Huron, Lincoln, Carleton, Prince Edward-Lennox, Victoria-Haliburton, Bruce and Grey and many others, and I haven't had one farmer tell me that he supports your plan in Bill 91. Minister, your agenda for agriculture is about as helpful as a late spring frost or a flood.

Minister, why don't you start to listen? The farmers don't want your Bill 91. Who wants Bill 91? Please answer the question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I take it that the member across the way is writing off totally the OFA and the people who sat on that committee for the best part of a year and reached the consensus that was reached. I have to admit I'm not a farmer, but I can tell you that I've had a fair number of discussions on this and I suspect I'm as close to some of the farm communities as the member across the way who asked me about what I knew about farming. I've sat down with my kid brother, who is a full-time farmer, and discussed many of these issues.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Come on boys, let's go.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West. The honourable leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too have a question for the Minister of Labour. Following up on the question of the member for Northumberland, let me say that I thought it was an excellent question, very well put. I was a little disappointed that the farmers of Nipissing were not mentioned in the supplementary, but I can assure the member for Cornwall that not one farmer in Nipissing has told me that they support this legislation -- not one.

I wonder if the minister could stand in this Legislature and, other than his family -- I was surprised there are some in farming; I thought most of them worked for the government -- put on the record the name of one farmer in Ontario who wants this legislation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The usual process, when you're looking at a new bill, is to go through a consultation process. This particular bill went through two consultation processes and reached a consensus. There were representatives there from the farm community as well as the ministry and as well as the labour community, and they reached a consensus on the bill. There wasn't a division; there was consensus on the legislation.

Mr Harris: I take from the minister's answer and from the lack of notes coming in that neither you nor your colleagues, nor your researchers nor any of your staff know one farmer -- probably not even your brother -- who believes that this legislation is better than no legislation.

Minister, I want clearly on the record that one of the first things we will do, along with scrapping Bill 40, is to scrap Bill 91, which you are ramming roughshod through this Legislature and through the agricultural community of Ontario.

I would ask you this: Rather than have a piece of legislation that we're going to scrap at the very first opportunity, would you not suggest, and think about this, that it would be far better, for the next six months, year, or however long you last over there, for the farmers of Ontario, for agriculture in this province, if you simply withdrew this bill, stop this nonsense, instead of jamming it down the throat of every farmer in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You would almost think it was something new that the leader of the third party was raising.

When we went through the Bill 40 debate, which is long over now -- and which, incidentally, is working; something else he wants to scrap -- we put in place two stakeholders that said we were going to proceed with a construction labour bill and an agricultural labour bill. That's been out in the public agenda for two, three years. We then went through the process of consultation, we reached an agreement on this legislation and that's what we're proceeding with.

Mr Harris: I tell you, Bill 40 is working all right. It's working to sell memberships in our party. That's the only area where I've seen it working. Not only that, it's working to sell memberships in our party from union members all across this province, because the bill is not working for them either. It is costing them jobs. It is costing them decision-making power. It has put power in the hands of a very few, élite, vested-interest few, not the working men and women of this province. That's why, time after time, somebody has to stand up in this Legislature and speak on behalf of the brothers and the sisters who want jobs in this province.

I am standing in this Legislature, along with the member for Northumberland, along with the member for Cornwall, along with every single member of our caucus on behalf of every farmer in this province. Since you can't name one -- you cannot name one -- who wants this piece of legislation, will you withdraw this legislation and listen once and for all to what the people of Ontario are telling you?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I guess if I was a Tory, then I might be willing to take a look at withdrawing legislation that protects workers in the province of Ontario. I'm glad that every time the leader of the third party gets up and makes it clear to workers across the province of Ontario, "If you elect us, you're going to see the legislation that's there to protect workers" -- and is doing a good job of it -- "destroyed in the province of Ontario" -- I'm not sure that's what workers in the province of Ontario want.

If it came to naming farmers, I think that's a con game, but we've got one right in our own caucus who supports this legislation.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Attorney General, and I think I should also emphasize the minister responsible for women's issues.

The minister will be familiar with press reports today related to an appearance by Gabrielle Lavallee -- I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly -- who appeared before the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Toronto and "told how Roch Theriault used pliers to pull out eight of her teeth, severed her arm with a dull knife and used welding equipment to 'cauterize the wound.'"

Many Ontarians know about these incidents. What they don't know is that the OPP catalogued another 84 atrocities and that your ministry cut a plea bargain covering up this monster's additional crimes. Minister, how could this happen? How could you agree to a deal with the devil?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): What the member neglects to say is that on the charges on which the perpetrator was convicted, he was sentenced to a life term. We have in Canadian law a practice where you can't get longer than a life term. It's not like in some of the states in the United States where you can pile up life term after life term and get 340 years or whatever the total is. There are sentencing principles in this country that prevent that, and it is not unusual for the strongest cases to come forward for convictions to be registered. In this case, there was more than one conviction registered against this person.

I would say to the member that indeed this was vigorously prosecuted. This person was sentenced to a life term and, contrary to press reports, a 15-year wait for parole, which is the top amount that's allowed.

Mr Runciman: It's 10 years.

Hon Mrs Boyd: That's what the press says, but that's not what my notes tell me.

Mr Runciman: That's a simply despicable response. With all due respect, I want to say that this minister is standing here today defending the decision. She doesn't even talk about the fact that the OPP were preparing a dangerous offender application. If anyone should qualify for the status of dangerous offender, it's this particular individual.

In the preliminary hearing five former cult members testified against Mr Theriault. They were prepared to do so at a trial and at a dangerous offender hearing. There are medical records on file that illustrate the injuries inflicted to cult members. We're talking about women victims here, at least nine women victims: one murdered, one with her arm cut off, and the rest with disfiguring mutilations. And this minister can get up and stand here today and defend the actions of her crown and her ministry in this respect.

I once again ask you, how in the world can you allow this individual, five years from now, to walk the streets of Ontario? How can you justify that?

Hon Mrs Boyd: First of all, it is crown attorneys who apply for a dangerous offender application. If that was not done at the time of conviction -- they do that in conjunction with the police, obviously, and bring together all the evidence. I would remind the member that if he looks at my record as Attorney General, I have been considered extraordinarily vigorous in terms of dangerous offender applications.

I agree with him that in very serious cases, and we have instructed crowns on this, they must consider dangerous offender applications, and where the tests are met -- there are four tests that need to be met -- indeed those will be seriously considered. If the tests are met, they will be applied for. That is the policy I have applied as Attorney General.

I must say to the member that his gratuitous attacks on crown attorneys are very difficult to defend when I don't have the full facts in front of me as to the prosecutability of these things. There are 4.5 million charges in this province and no crown attorney shares all those details with an Attorney General. It is extremely important for this member to understand that the facts of the particular case are the facts that are gone on in this situation, and it is extremely important for us to recognize that crowns have both have strong encouragement --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Burlington South, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and indeed direction to prosecute vigorously in these very serious matters.

Mr Runciman: Indeed they are serious matters, and the Attorney General did not respond in a like manner in terms of the responsibilities she has as the Attorney General. It's her role to review what all crowns in this province are doing, and she's not admitting to reviewing this particular situation. She's also the minister responsible for women's issues. I talked about how nine of the 11 people involved in this were women.

We talked about burning breasts with a welding torch, using vise grips to squeeze two women's nipples until they bled, using acetylene torches to roast a woman's flesh, cutting off a woman's finger with wire cutters; nine mind-numbing atrocities, including a murder, cutting off an arm. Those are the kinds of things where this minister is standing up and saying, "The crown did well."

No one in Ontario accepts the fact that you swept these 84 additional charges under the rug. You tried to hide them from the public. That is the reality. You had a dangerous offender application being prepared by the OPP. That as well was swept under the rug.

I ask you today, at the very least, to commit to turning over the crown's files on these additional charges to the federal parole board so that this animal is kept behind bars and does not further jeopardize public safety.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would remind the member that the sentencing in this case occurred in January 1993, which was before I became Attorney General, and the conviction was registered well before I became Attorney General.

I would also tell the member that I agree with him. In terms of the issues that have been uncovered by the police in the investigation and so on, I believe there ought to be some way for the federal parole board to take that into account when the time comes to consider parole. We have pledged ourselves to work with the federal government on how to deal with those kinds of high-risk offenders and how to deal more effectively with exactly the issue he's raising. We are also very concerned and have expressed that concern, as have our colleagues in other provinces, about the need to deal with those matters a bit more effectively.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Another success story is undergoing serious cutbacks, a program which supports families as they meet ongoing challenges. Members of the Special Services at Home Family Alliance, representing 9,000 families with chapters right across this province, many of whom are here today, requested a meeting with you, Minister, in November 1993. Since April, they have called your office every day for a three-week period, calls placed time and time again. These families have already saved this province and your ministry millions of dollars. These families want me to ask you why you will not meet with them.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): The association to which the member refers has been meeting regularly with officials of the ministry. In fact, they've been involved in a working group with ministry officials, which has resulted in a report that I have seen and have discussed with my officials -- we are reviewing now a more detailed response to it -- in which they have set out for us very clearly some very good suggestions for ways in which we can improve the special services at home program.

I can tell the member, as we've already indicated to the association, that we are taking those recommendations very seriously and we are going to be responding to them in very short order. I think they will be pleased to see we have taken those issues very seriously and the advice they have given to us quite seriously.

Mrs O'Neill: That answer of the minister may be comforting. We will like to see what it really means. I still think the political will -- the minister himself could have given some authenticity to this by meeting with this group of 9,000.

In Mississauga there are no special-services-at-home dollars for respite care. However, if respite care is required by families in Mississauga, they're offered a one-week minimum stay at Bloorview at a cost of $300 to $600 a day. The more favourable option, the option preferred by families, respite care at home to satisfy the same need, would cost between $10 and $25 a day. What a difference.

I remind the minister that there are many qualified graduates both from colleges and universities who are available to provide these services in these homes.

Minister, in this International Year of the Family, why have you chosen the most expensive option, the most disruptive option, to provide respite care for the functional families that need this support?

Hon Mr Silipo: Once again I can tell the member, as I'm sure she knows, that this was clearly one of the issues the working group discussed and about which they put together some recommendations.

What the member has of course failed to mention is that we have, every year since we've become the government, increased funding to the special services at home in significant proportions relative to what has happened to other areas of our budget. I can tell the member today that when we announce the funding for this program for this year, there will continue to be an increase in the amount of money we will spend this year as opposed to last year.

That is in addition to looking at the kinds of inequities that exist throughout the province and looking also at the kinds of areas that are covered under this program in keeping with the kinds of recommendations that have come from the working group.

Far from being unsupportive, we are being very supportive to the degree that our fiscal abilities allow us and, quite frankly, even beyond in this area, because we recognize the importance of a service like this that allows people to be served at home with some assistance for respite and other kinds of help that do allow people with needs to be served in their own communities and in their own homes.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, today at the leaders' debate sponsored by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Premier stated that the corporate filing fee is a responsible user fee concept and that this charge is in line with what it costs to provide the service. We know the corporate filing fees are $50 for for-profit corporations and $25 for non-profit. How much does it in fact cost your ministry to administer this service?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't have the figure, but I imagine the member is going to give me that in his supplementary, so I will wait until his supplementary to follow up.

Mr Eves: I would have thought the minister would know the answer to the question, because during the estimates committee hearings of November 3, 1992, her assistant deputy minister, Mr Art Daniels, was asked this exact question. He revealed that the corporate filing fee would generate income to the province of some $10 million a year, that the cost to your ministry to file these fees and send them out was $2 million a year, and that the province of Ontario would net $8 million a year.

How do you justify this with the statement your Premier made this morning, which was that this was a user fee concept, and all you were doing was recouping what it costs you to do this? In fact, that is not the fact. You are scooping eight million bucks a year off the top. Is that not correct?

Hon Ms Churley: I think there is something being left out of the equation here. The member may or may not know that the ministry is in the process --

Mr Eves: Only your lack of knowledge. Your deputy knew this two years ago. Sixty seconds ago you didn't know the answer. Now you know it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Parry Sound, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: The ministry is in the process of investing substantially in something called OBNIS, which is computerizing all the companies' databases and up-to-date information. That does cost the government and therefore the taxpayers, whom he is so greatly concerned about all the time, money. It seems to make sense to this government and to this minister that as we are in the process of updating and computerizing and modernizing this system so that the public --

Mr Eves: The net profit to the province is eight million bucks a year, no matter how you slice it. That's what it is. Art Daniels said so.

The Speaker: Could the member for Parry Sound please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: When you realize that this system is searched between 240,000 and 350,000 times a year, we have to make sure, for the public, that the database is up-to-date and computerized. The money should come from the users of the system, and that's what we're doing.

TOURISM

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I mentioned the opening of Stratford and I want to now switch to Stratford the city. We do rely heavily on the cultural festival and the tourism industry in general, so my question is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

I recently heard some good news about the number of tourists --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): There are no commercials allowed in here. This is a commercial-free Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mrs Haslam: It's nice that the member could finally join us here. There are some of us who keep this as a full-time job.

To the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, naturally I'm interested in tourism, because tourism plays a very important

part in my region, particularly in Stratford and particularly around the cultural entities in Stratford.

I'd like to have the minister tell me what she's doing to enhance and take advantage of -- because I do think this is important -- the tourism potential of the Stratford Festival, since it is such a well-known cultural entity in Ontario.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Since domestic tourism is tremendously important in Ontario, I would hope the opposition wouldn't mind once in a while joining along with the former Minister of Tourism for that side in helping to promote it.

I was recently pleased to join the member for Perth at tourism night at the Stratford Festival, so I'm certainly delighted to confirm the importance that the Stratford Festival plays to tourism in the Ontario economy. Some of the many things our government has been doing to promote it include supporting many familiarization tours to the Stratford Festival for international tour operators and promoting the Stratford Festival as one of the principal participants at our annual Ontario theatre marketplace.

And of course I'm delighted that our government has fully protected the funding of the Ontario Arts Council so that we're able to continue flowing $1.6 million per year to support the Stratford Festival.

Mrs Haslam: I'm in the county of Perth, one town I have is Stratford, one of the largest cultural theatres in Ontario, but I also have a large county area, and I'm very interested in other ways of enhancing tourism in southwestern region.

I'm asking the minister if there is support for tourism -- not just cultural tourism, because I know how you're working in cultural tourism now. But have you also looked at other kinds of tourism in the southwestern region that can build on the successes we have?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: There are a number of aggressive public relations activities my ministry uses to help promote the Stratford and Perth area, including having been successful recently in receiving a very high-profile

article in the prestigious American magazine the Atlantic promoting the area.

We've also been delighted as a government to use the Jobs Ontario Community Action program to help promote many tourism projects, including in the Stratford and Perth area the agri-tourism pilot project. We've also been delighted to continue supporting the marketing and administrative grant to the Southwestern Ontario Travel Association to promote the area as one of Ontario's key tourism destinations. We're also delighted each year to give marketing seminars to the visitors bureau there.

In closing, some of the new initiatives have included developing for the first time ever in Ontario the Ontario Tourism Education Council --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- to train hospitality staff in improving hospitality and service in this province. We're now listed on the World Travel File, including the area of Stratford.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: We've retained a public relations firm in Germany and Britain to help promote it --

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): In true non-partisan fashion, I have abbreviated my question to accommodate that lengthy response.

My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, the just-released annual report of the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board revealed a backlog of 6,678 cases. This is an addition of almost 1,000 more cases to an already unacceptable backlog, a backlog which forces victims of crime to face lengthy delays with added emotional strain. As the minister responsible, why have you let this happen?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member refers to the 1992-93 annual report, which was recently tabled. It is true that in 1992-93 there was a growth in the number of cases that were backlogged, and we responded to that with great concern. We have made some very strong administrative changes. We've added a number of people to the board to change that. In fact, in 1993-94 we increased the number of hearings we had by 33%. We changed many of what used to be oral hearings to documentary hearings so that people did not have to go through the testimony kind of return.

The issue that the member needs to know is that although we began the year of 1993-94, the most recent year, with that backlog that the member talks about of 6,678 files and we received 3,880 new ones -- which, again, was an increase over the previous year -- we managed to complete and close close to 5,000 cases. Therefore, the total active case load at the end of 1993-94 was actually reduced. It's still too high, it's still over 6,000, and that is a real concern to us, but we made a decision that we wanted to put as many of the dollars that were allocated to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board into compensation as possible.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: We did increase the amount of awards that were there by about $2.7 million and we will continue to work at the backlog as we go along, changing our processes as quickly as we can to deal with the backlog.

Mr Chiarelli: The minister is a walking, talking oxymoron; she says one thing and the facts and her ministry say something totally different. The year-over-year figures show a 15% increase in the number of cases. These are people who have been injured through crime and who are suffering emotionally by these delays. The whole justice system is sinking into a swamp. When you look at the Human Rights Commission and the backlog in the courts and now look at the criminal compensation board, it's getting worse, as all the other areas are, year over year. Clearly, you have failed to do your job as the minister responsible.

Will you please tell those 6,678 victims of crime specifically what you are doing now to expedite their cases?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure whether I ought to ask you to call the member to order for calling me an oxymoron. I'll leave that to your judgement.

I think that the member was not clear on what I said to him. I told him very clearly that we had reduced the number of total active cases at the end of 1993-94 by 6%, that indeed although our case load increased by 12% during 1993-94, we managed to handle 33% more cases than we did in the year before. We are succeeding in whittling down a very serious problem. It is a problem and no one is trying to claim that it isn't a problem to wait for compensation if you've been injured as a result of a criminal action by someone else.

The member needs to recognize, however, that we have the same problem in this area as we do in many other areas, of ensuring that the technological support is there. It was not there when we came into office and we have made enormous strides in improving the technological support that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has. We have put a good deal of our resources into administrative streamlining and investigative streamlining. We have tried to streamline the process for the victims and witnesses so that fewer hearings need to be held with those individuals.

We are taking those actions. We are seeing an improvement. We expect to see a great deal more improvement. I would say that we are seeing constant reduction of support from the federal government in this area and yet we have increased our support by almost $3 million to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We believe we are doing the best that we can and we will continue to do so.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, as you should be well aware, 42 small rural hospitals are facing the withdrawal of physician services in their emergency rooms unless a solution is found to this growing crisis. In addition, 14 hospitals in this province have been forced to reduce emergency room coverage, which means that a total of 56 communities in this province are having or will soon have their access to critical emergency care reduced considerably.

Recently the small hospital

section of the Ontario Hospital Association passed a motion demanding a resolution to this crisis within 60 days. Minister, the people of Ontario want to see some leadership on this vital and important life-and-death issue. What real guarantees can you give to these threatened communities that you'll be able to resolve this critical matter on or before July 31 of this year?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I think I have made clear in the House on many occasions when this issue has been raised, it is an issue of long standing, it is an issue that cannot be resolved by action on any one person's part, whether it be the doctors themselves can't solve it, the hospitals themselves can't solve it, the minister can't solve it. It has to be as a result of discussions among all three who are partners in the provision of this service.

I'm delighted to be able to repeat to the House what I said last week, that the Ontario Medical Association, after having spent some time not being prepared to discuss an alternative payment mechanism that would resolve this issue, has, as of May 25, written to us indicating that it is prepared to enter formal negotiations with the Ministry of Health on this subject. The Ontario Hospital Association, as the member has pointed out, has also urged us to resolve it.

I remain committed to the fact that through those discussions we will resolve it and as quickly as possible.

Mr Jim Wilson: The minister will recall on many occasions over the past three years that you have promised patients, hospital administrators and the associations involved a solution and you've not come forward with any solution on behalf of the government side. You've simply said that there are other partners involved and that you're unable to get to the bottom of this matter and to resolve it.

For the past eight months you've fallen back on the tripartite discussions that have produced nothing but talk and more finger-pointing, and we see more finger-pointing from you today. So I'm going to give you a way to reach a solution and some action that you can take as the government, and that is, would you agree today to appoint an independent arbitrator?

Since the tripartite discussions are on-off, they're going nowhere, would you agree to appoint an independent arbitrator, an arbitrator who's agreeable to the OHA, the OMA and the government, and have that arbitrator sit down and find a solution to this matter? Will you agree to that today, Minister, on behalf of the patients in this province who are not going to have the emergency care they need when they need it? They expect that from your government and from any government, frankly, that's in office in this province.

Hon Mrs Grier: I was interested when the member said he was going to give me a constructive solution. I would welcome that to what has been a difficult problem. But with all due respect to the member, I think the appointment of an arbitrator is not a solution.

In fact, the Ministry of Health has put forward a suggested solution.

Our proposed solution is that the funds that now go to those physicians on a fee-for-service basis, which means that they are paid according to the number of patients whom they see, and so when only one or two patients a night are in an emergency room, it doesn't generate enough money to make it worth the doctor's while to be there -- our suggestion and solution is that instead of paying doctors based on the volume of people whom they see, we revert to an alternative payment plan which enables them to be paid according to the time they are on duty, according to the volume of services over a year that they provide and that we use the OHIP funds that are currently going to those doctors and redistribute them in a way that makes it worth their while to see their patients both at 3 in the morning and at 3 in the afternoon, which I believe is their responsibility.

We want to find a way to pay them in a way that enables them to continue to live up to those responsibilities.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Under the category of "here we go again," my question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I have read with some horror articles in the paper, especially the one where the survey of the Ontario Waste Management Association was published. The reason I'm horrified is because they suggest there is no garbage crisis. I'm not horrified that there's no garbage crisis because we know that Metro will turn a garbage crisis on and off at its whim, but why I am horrified is that these private haulers can suggest that every landfill site in the province of Ontario become a potential site for Metro's garbage.

My question to the minister is this: Does he believe that the people of Hamilton, of Halton, of Flamborough, of Clarington or any other place, for that matter, will openly and gratefully be recipients of Metro's garbage? After all, what they are --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You are.

Mr Wiseman: We are? When you were sitting on Metro council, you apologists of Metro garbage coming to Pickering --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Durham West --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: -- you did nothing. You hid behind papers. You did nothing.

The Speaker: Will the member please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question to the minister.

Mr Wiseman: I will do that, Mr Speaker, if the banshees across will just be quiet.

I would start again in the sense that what we're talking about --

The Speaker: I asked the member if he would complete his question.

Mr Wiseman: How can we be sure that the private sectors will be held accountable, especially when we know that in Pickering, Metro cannot be held accountable? Metro has violated their certificates of approval and have not shown a good custodial nature. I would like to know how we can expect the private haulers to do better when Metro is not even accountable.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I know the member's interest in this matter and I must say that the announcement by the Ontario Waste Management Association was surprising and disappointing in that of the sites that it counted in its so-called survey, it's our understanding over 60% of that capacity haven't received any kind of approval.

It really would be rather risky and, frankly, absurd for us to just assume that all of these sites could be approved and available for greater Toronto area garbage. It just would be unacceptable. Specifically in regard to the member's question about other communities, I heard a quote yesterday on the radio by Mayor Don Granger of Flamborough in which he stated emphatically that his community does not want greater Toronto area waste and doesn't want to share the landfill the town uses with Metro either.

There's no reason to believe that other communities would accept this waste, and it's quite an assumption, particularly when most of the sites that were counted in the so-called survey are not approved.

Mr Wiseman: It's rather difficult to explain in this place how difficult it is for the residents of Ajax and Pickering to be constantly under the threat of Metro's garbage. I often speak of the three Brocks: Brock north, Brock south and Brock west. What I'm concerned about now is that Metro continues to have grotesque garbage plans for the communities in my riding. As a matter of fact, I have come across information that reveals that Metro is currently negotiating for access rail lines in Ajax at the Pickering-Ajax border. This is the document; this is the map.

Will the minister confirm for me once again that this government will not be relaxing the restrictions on interregional transportation of waste, and that the

section of Bill 143 that offers the people of my riding assurances that Metro's garbage will not be coming to Durham or to Ajax and Pickering will be kept up?

Hon Mr Wildman: I can assure the member that Bill 143 remains the law, and it will remain the law as long as this government has a say in how we will deal with greater Toronto area garbage. It's important to recognize that this government is committed to ensuring that there are environmentally sound methods of dealing with landfill questions as close to the source of the waste as possible and in the greater Toronto area.

We believe that it is the responsibility of the areas close to where the waste is produced to deal with the waste, and we're also committed to ensuring the 3Rs will divert as much waste as possible from landfill.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Before I ask my question, I'd just like to acknowledge the presence of the grade 8 students from St Josephs school in Dryden. I know they'll be interested in this question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

It has to do with the unacceptable price of gasoline in northern Ontario. This is an issue that must be dealt with immediately, because I have been receiving many calls and letters from a good number of constituents, especially in the Dryden-Kenora area.

Madam Minister, on January 30, 1991, your colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was quoted in the Northern Life magazine as saying the following: "The provincial government is examining five or six options to regulate the price of gas in northern Ontario." That's "examining five or six options to regulate the price of gas in northern Ontario."

Minister, could you tell the House and, more importantly, the residents of Dryden why they are paying 20 cents -- that's 20 cents per litre -- more for gas than residents in southern Ontario? I must ask you, Minister, if you feel that 60.9 cents per litre for gas, which the residents of Dryden had to pay yesterday, is acceptable, and if not, what are you doing about it?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm very concerned about the matter which the member brought up, but I think it's better answered by the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member has put forward this issue very well, and as he knows, the government is concerned about the high cost of gasoline in northern Ontario.

We have moved to try to alleviate some of the burden by eliminating the vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario in order to try to offset the impact of higher gasoline prices. But as the member will know, the current market is such that where you have a smaller number of retail outlets with lower volumes of sales, the market allows for higher prices. Unfortunately those of us in northern Ontario who drive longer distances and experience colder weather through most of the year end up paying a substantially higher amount for gasoline. That's why this government has attempted to alleviate the problems somewhat by forgiving the registration fees.

Mr Miclash: That's not what you said when you were in opposition when the issue of the price of gas was raised and you were asking for equalization. In fact, some of the campaign literature from the 1990 election stated very clearly that gas prices must be equalized across the province. Minister, you will recognize that quote as being one that was in the campaign literature of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

This is a commitment that your party had made and a commitment that all of you were elected on. Clearly you and your government are long overdue in living up to this promise to address these inequities in gas prices between northern and southern Ontario.

Mr Minister, the people whom I represent, in places like Dryden, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Kenora, Ear Falls and many other communities across northern Ontario, are demanding action from you and your government at this time.

Let me also refer to what your colleague the Minister of Transportation, yet another minister from the north, the minister representing Lake Nipigon, stated in the March 11, 1991, edition of the Sudbury Star:

"Above all, what I would like to see is the assurance that I, as a northerner, am being treated fairly in terms of gas prices. What I want as a consumer and for the people I represent is that I get a fair shake for my hard-earned dollar."

Mr Minister, do you feel that northerners are being treated fairly and getting a fair shake for their hard-earned dollars in terms of gas prices?

Hon Mr Wildman: In terms of the retail cost, I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with what the member is saying.

As a matter of fact, my ministry carried out a study of the effects of the lowering of crude oil prices on gasoline retail prices across the province. We found that the retail price for gasoline in southern Ontario declined far more quickly than it did in northern Ontario, and in some small communities in the north, it did not decline at all.

So that indication is that the prices are indeed higher and that my colleague, in wishing that the consumers in the north were treated more fairly, was expressing a concern that all of us have in northern Ontario. It's again for that reason that we've forgiven the registration fee.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm tabling this petition on behalf of a constituent. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Bill 167 would grant same-sex couples the same status as heterosexual couples;

"Whereas we believe that a family with parents of opposite sex is in the best interests of the child;

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

"To reject the proposed Bill 167."

This is signed by constituents from Oriole riding.

1450HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 32 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government has slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country; and

"Whereas this will mainly affect the seniors who travel south in the winter for health reasons; and

"Whereas this is an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas Mike Harris of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party makes preservation of medicare a priority in his Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and restore the out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by people from St Thomas, London, Middlesex, Oxford, Woodstock, Tillsonburg and other areas.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition here from a number of people in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and also from a number of people in the riding of Parry Sound. The petition reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has seen fit to introduce legislation concerning same-sex spousal benefits, which is a matter of extending equal rights to a minority in our province;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 167."

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have four petitions consisting of 53 names against and 499 names for various aspects of same-sex legislation, and I've put my signature on these four petitions.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly. It was signed by many people from Owen Sound and the Owen Sound area. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to ensure riders who drive certain models of supersport bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

There are about 34 signatures, mostly from my riding.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a combined petition here from the Council for a Tobacco-Free Hastings and Prince Edward, located in the city of Belleville, and the Lung Association of the Hastings-Prince Edward region, in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a petition dealing with Bill 167, dealing with rights extended to same-sex relationships. The people who have signed it believe such relationships are morally wrong and they are concerned about the legal right to adopt. They also ask us not to pass this legislation because they do not believe it to be correct. I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a number of petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petitions are signed by 1,335 constituents of my riding of Sarnia and the neighbouring riding of Lambton county. The petitioners oppose amendments to the Human Rights Code that are contained in Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994.

I do not support these petitions, but to comply with our standing orders I have affixed my name to the petitions.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"In the International Year of the Family, we, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services to support and strengthen families in Ontario by significantly increasing the funding allocation to the special services at home program.

"This most cost-effective program provides essential supports to children and adults with disabilities so that they can remain with their families in their communities."

This petition is signed by over 1,600 people, and I too have affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by over 150 people from my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOBACCO PACKAGING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"Whereas we, as God-fearing people, are opposed to the victimization of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation; and

"Whereas we, however, believe that attempts to establish and/or promote homosexual relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexual-based family do not conform to God's will for society; and

"Whereas Canadian law as established by the Ontario Court of Appeal prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation to prohibit homosexual persons from adopting or raising children."

I signed the petition also.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have two petitions but they're the same wording. One's from Jay's Barber Shop in Brockville, the other's from St Francis Xavier Church in Brockville. There were several hundred names, over 500 names compiled over the weekend.

"Whereas the Ontario NDP government has introduced Bill 167 granting significant benefits to same-sex couples, including the right to adoption;

"Whereas Bill 167 has passed first reading in the Legislature with support of NDP and Liberal members;

"Whereas we are strongly opposed to this initiative and believe it is an inappropriate measure designed to undermine the traditional family;

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

"Please convey the wishes and feelings of the overwhelming majority of Ontarians: Do not give in to special interests, defeat Bill 167."

I'm signing my name in support.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which petitions the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

This petition has about 420 signatures.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition that's signed by several hundred people, ranging in age from 18 to 80, who adamantly want to express their views to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage, no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follow the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

I heartily concur with this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): "Whereas Bill 167 will change the definition of 'marriage' and allow homosexual couples to adopt children; and

"Whereas it does not reflect the mainstream priorities of the people of Ontario or the priorities that the Ontario government should be dealing with; and

"Whereas this bill passed first reading with NDP and Liberal support; and

"Whereas Lyn McLeod has stated a future Liberal government will move to enact this legislation; and

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

"Whereas this bill caters solely to the demands of local special-interest groups; and

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw the same-sex bill and encourage all MPPs to vote against the bill on second and third readings."

I've affixed my signature to that as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr106,

An Act respecting the County of Victoria

Bill Pr111,

An Act to revive Oaktown Property Management Limited

Bill Pr112,

An Act respecting the Town of Picton.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr98,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr97,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Your committee further recommends that the following bill be not reported, it having been withdrawn at the request of the applicant:

Bill Pr62,

An Act respecting the City of Stoney Creek.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 22nd report and moved its adoption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr McLean? No.

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Mackenzie moved government notice of motion number 30:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 91,

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry, when Bill 91 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That one hour be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House.

Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 3:30 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

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

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

g) shall be permitted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I understand that there is an agreement that there will be a two- or three-minute opening statement and a 10-minute windup for our party, and the remaining time will be divided between the two opposition parties.

It is time to move ahead with this legislation, based on the consensus of farm and labour groups we have built over a lengthy period of debate and consultations. This bill has been considered in this House for almost a year, giving every member ample time to debate all the issues involved.

Let me remind the honourable members of the extensive public consultation process we have followed. I established a task force in January 1992, with representatives from labour unions, agricultural employers and farm workers. In the fall of 1992, that task force submitted a consensus report recommending a separate act to provide for collective bargaining in the agricultural sector. The recommendations included a number of provisions to take account of the unique characteristics of this industry. Bill 91 was drafted to reflect these recommendations.

In January 1994, I established an advisory committee to provide advice on labour relations in the agricultural sector. Labour unions in the agricultural industry were equally represented. This committee submitted a consensus report in April, recommending a series of amendments to Bill 91. In May, this government released draft amendments incorporating all of these recommendations.

The members of the advisory committee have reviewed these amendments and have advised me that Bill 91, amended in this way, would meet all the concerns raised in the consultation process. I would remind my colleagues that on the agricultural side in particular, the members of the committee have a mandate to speak for the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, which represents the majority of agricultural organizations in Ontario. No one can say this bill has not been fully debated both inside and outside the House.

It is time to bring Ontario in line with the majority of provinces in this country by extending the rights to organize to farm workers which exist in the other provinces.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions? Are there any comments? If not, further debate?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Once again, Bob Rae's NDP government is moving a time allocation motion, just as they have done on numerous occasions, just as they did last June. Ever since the Bob Rae NDP government changed the rules that govern this House back in June 1992, the NDP has been quick to use them whenever a controversial bill comes forward and it wants to shut the public out from participating.

Certainly, along with my colleagues, I voted against these rule changes, as did, as I said, all of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, for we knew that the NDP government would use them to shut out the public and any further debate in the Legislature. I am sure that by now all the members of the Progressive Conservative Party, who voted for these changes in rules and who supported the NDP government in its efforts to shut out the public, can realize the big mistake they made.

Perhaps, though, when it comes to a time allocation motion that deals with a major bill in the agrifood industry -- well, they don't care, for we all know that the word "agriculture" was not even used in the Progressive Conservative Party's platform, that Common Sense Revolution. In fact, a closer scrutiny of the Progressive Conservative document would indicate that they intend to cut agriculture by about 40%.

But this particular motion is the most draconian of all. The NDP government is trying to sneak this agricultural labour bill through, a bill that will have significant impact on the family farm and rural communities when the farmers are out there cultivating their fields, trying to eke out a living.

Interjections.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You guys are about farming. They don't like it being rammed down their throats either.

Mrs Fawcett: To hear the members opposite talk, the government members, you would think we had been debating this bill every day for a year, and that's not true. You know that. How many actual days of debate have there been on Bill 91? Not 365 days, as you would say.

Mr Murdoch: Let's ram something down some labour throats.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: If you want to interject, I suggest you do so from your chair. The member for Grey-Owen Sound, I would also ask you to remain quiet.

Mrs Fawcett: This just further displays the NDP's lack of knowledge or understanding of the agrifood industry. If they truly understood agriculture, they would get rid of this bill and restore the agricultural exemption under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They would know that farmers have to plant when the sun is shining because of the seasonality of the industry. They have to harvest when the crop is ready. They can't wait or even stand any kind of slowdown. They cannot keep regular, ordinary hours that possibly industry plants can keep, one of the very reasons -- all of these are reasons -- that we in the Liberal Party oppose this bill.

How can the NDP justify bringing in a major piece of legislation that will dramatically affect labour relations in the agriculture community and not even give farmers the chance to voice their concerns at public hearings? Bob Rae's NDP government has put such severe limitations on this bill that there will be no -- that's right -- no public hearings on this bill. I would have thought that this government, which purports to be an icon of public consultation and consensus-building, would at the very least send this bill to the standing committee on resources development for, at the very least, two weeks of hearings.

Right now, I don't see that the resources committee has a bill coming before it. We certainly have the time to have the public come in so that this government could listen to all the farmers who would be available to come in and give us their views. I know there currently is no government business on this committee's agenda. All the government has to do is really look at the agenda and see that the time is there to do it.

If the government wanted to push this bill through before the House rises, we would have time to hear the farmers' views on Bill 91 at committee. We could actually go out and hear what the farmers had to say about this bill, much as my leader, Lyn McLeod, did, and my colleague and co-critic and I continue to do.

Under these rules the farmers will not be heard. Now, instead of the House leaders mutually agreeing on how long a bill will be debated, the Minister of Labour comes in and says: "Shut off the debate. No public hearings. Just push this through as fast as you can. I don't want to take any more heat from the farmers before we go to the polls."

I would suggest that you have taken a great deal of heat already from the farm community. Ever since the Liberal Party brought this issue to the forefront, when we used the first opposition day to debate this bill, the NDP government has invoked the wrath of rural communities.

Yes, the Liberal Party was the leader in this agricultural debate and we continue to be the only viable alternative for the agricultural community. We have no apologies for our 52% increase in funding over the five years we were in government. Surely you must be ashamed of the NDP's $100-million cut to the agricultural budget in the three years. Of course, the Tories are going to practically eliminate the ministry with their reductions.

Even when Bob Rae's government brought in Bill 42, the stable funding bill, there were at least some public hearings, and with almost every other bill that has been time-allocated, we have had public hearings. The NDP government has left the agricultural community without an exemption for almost two years and now won't even give two weeks of public hearings to this major agricultural bill.

What are you afraid of? What are you afraid you're going to hear? If you think you will avoid the farmers' wrath by doing this, you're wrong, you're absolutely wrong. Rural communities right across this province will vote with a resounding no to Bob Rae and his NDP government when we go to the polls. Rural members of the NDP caucus had better enjoy their last few days here, for none of them will be returned, not one. You can't shove this type of legislation down farmers' throats and expect them to support it, especially when you won't even give them a chance to comment on it at public hearings.

We in the Legislature have had an opportunity to debate this major piece of legislation that has significant ramifications for the agricultural community. The debate that we have had has allowed the public at large, and certainly those involved in the agrifood industry, an opportunity to canvass this issue, to become better informed of the numerous restrictions and ramifications this bill will impose on them. Now that farmers have had that opportunity to hear, they want a chance for their say on this issue. They want to tell the NDP government that the family farm does not need to be unionized. They want to tell you that not one of them supports this bill.

You've had your say. I've had mine. Now why can't you let the farmers have their say?

Every time the Minister of Labour is asked about Bill 91, he tries to confuse the issue by saying it's had wide consultation. He always refers to these two reports: the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. It was June 1992 when the first report came out, and then in November 1992 there was another report. But he doesn't seem to have listened to any of those. I can't understand why he would keep referring to this wide consultation. I wonder if he even read it. Did he even read the reports? Did he really listen? He keeps saying there were farmers on the task force.

Obviously he completely ignored them, because I know that when the bill came forward, everybody wondered, "Just where did all this come from?"

I don't know whether the minister would ever get a chance to pick up any of the farm and country newspapers, but it's rather interesting, and I would like to quote from an editorial in Farm and Country by John Muggeridge:

"Despite two carefully worded task force reports, when Bill 91 was introduced for the first reading, the farmers on the committee hardly recognized it."

What does that say? Obviously, nobody paid attention in the Ministry of Labour.

"The no-strike provision was there, but not enforced. The bill was merely an appendage to the Labour Relations Act. Absent was any definition of 'agriculture' or provision for an agricultural labour relations board. Family members were exempt, but 'family' refers only to the immediate family, with a minimum 50% share in the business.

"When the farmers went public with their concerns about the flawed Bill 91, top agricultural ministry bureaucrats reportedly blew a collective fuse. Labour minister Bob Mackenzie was 'somewhat surprised.' Agriculture minister Elmer Buchanan said, 'Things seems to be getting stirred up unnecessarily.' In any event, with Bill 91, there was obviously a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

"Let's hope everyone got the message. With the mood farm employers are in, if some of our political leaders were up for re-election today, Australia would be too close."

This is what the farmers really felt about Bill 91. To me, it says it all here, that the Labour minister was "somewhat surprised." Even in the questions that were asked of the minister today, he admits that he doesn't know very much about agriculture, that he has to count on people in the field who do know about it to at least try to explain what the problems are with this Bill 91.

Yet when they do, he doesn't pay any attention, he doesn't care, which only says to me that his agenda is all-important, that his labour agenda is the only thing that's on his mind. He doesn't know and he doesn't realize that farmers treat their workers absolutely with care and really with --

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's a pretty important issue and I think we should have a quorum in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mrs Fawcett: This is a very important debate. This is a debate on a closure motion, really, on restricting debate in this House, on restricting the opportunity for the public to have their say on a very important piece of legislation that will affect the family farm and farmers right across this province, and the government members know very well that it is up to them to keep the quorum in this House. It is up to them to pay attention.

I, of course, have always felt that the present government does not understand the farming community, and in many instances it doesn't seem to really care what happens. They know that the farmers --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): We've done more for agriculture in six months than you did in five years.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Huget: Why don't you go out there for a while? These are programs we put in because you didn't have the courage or the brains to put them in.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm asking you to come to order, and if you don't, I'll use the means to bring you to order.

Mrs Fawcett: I really seem to be pushing a few buttons over there that make them feel a little sad that over the last three years of this government $100 million has been cut from the Agriculture ministry. That's how much they care about agriculture.

The really good programs we started, like the Ontario Farm-Start program, like land stewardship, a lot of the good farm programs that addressed and helped farmers to get along were axed because this government cannot balance its budget. They are so concerned with the deficit that it would seem that even the farmers are going to have to carry the burden on their backs.

But getting back to this minister and his intent to bring in labour legislation for the farm community, he purports that he has all these wonderful amendments he's going to bring forward, and we're supposed to take this giant leap of faith and say once again, "If we say yes to this second reading debate, they're going to bring in all these wonderful amendments and everything is going to be happy out there."

Minister, I can tell you, amendments or not, the farmers out there don't want your bill. There is not one of them I have spoken to or that my colleague from Cornwall has spoken to who wants this bill. Farmers keep asking me: "Who brought this piece of legislation forward and why? Who asked for it?" I guess one name that comes to mind is Gord Wilson, and another one that comes to mind is Bob Mackenzie, because certainly the farm community out there doesn't see any need for this.

As I was saying before, when we decided that possibly there wasn't a quorum in the House, the farmers must have good workers because their livelihood depends on it. They don't treat their workers shabbily. They have to treat their workers fairly; otherwise they don't get the job done. I really take exception when the minister thinks he has to bring in legislation like Bill 91 so that he can look good in the labour community and it doesn't matter about the farm community.

I will say in no uncertain terms that our party is against Bill 91. We are against this kind of closure motion, this kind of action to cut off debate, to cut off any kind of public consultation, all aimed at satisfying his ego.

In closing, I would say it's really hard to realize why we are all of a sudden debating this issue even today. Where did it come from even to be brought in today? Why the rush? Why can't we at least prolong it and have some public consultation? Why all of a sudden does everything have to be done in such a short period of time?

The Liberals have said right along: Get rid of this bill. We don't need it. Restore the agricultural exemption under the Ontario Labour Relations Act and agriculture can be allowed to go on the way it has for all of these years and do very well.

The minister has not, in answering any questions that have been asked of him in the House on this bill, ever given a straight answer, ever given an answer to the question. The only thing he can get up and say is, "Oh, after consultation, we've listened to the people."

Well, if this is the way you listen, that when people give you reports you don't even follow them at all, and then they have to bring in 11 recommendations for you to address once again, and now we're expected to take the leap of faith that you really will do that, I say no, I don't trust you. I don't trust you and I don't trust your government to do these things.

I say the only thing you could do would be to withdraw this bill and put the agricultural exemption back into the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Just a comment to the member's remarks with respect to the Progressive Conservative Party on the Common Sense Revolution. She seems to take great delight periodically on this issue in attacking our party in terms of lack of interest with respect to agriculture. Our party has always put great importance on agriculture, and she knows that.

If she reads the Common Sense Revolution, which I doubt very much that she has, I'd refer her to page 19 of the document which refers specifically to the amount of cuts we will be putting. We say we would put $5.53 billion in cuts, specific proposals, on the table. That is all documented in the Common Sense Revolution -- which she has not read, obviously -- and agriculture is not part of those calculations.

I invite her to read this document. The Progressive Conservative Party continues to support agriculture. In fact, I question whether the Liberal Party does.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To reinforce the point that was just made, I do not object to members opposite or members in the Liberal Party speaking to issues of the agricultural community and the Conservative Party's position on those with respect to the Common Sense Revolution.

But to be fair, in the Common Sense Revolution we have outlined a significant number of reductions, a significant number of cuts. We've taken a lot of heat from groups that are being reduced on the amounts of money we're asking for from within each sector. We're talking about 13,000 public servants, we're talking about social welfare cost reductions and so on. But the good point I'd like to make about this document is that we talk about the more than $5 billion in cuts we're going to make and then we itemize those cuts specifically within the document. If the member were truly being fair, she'd realize that and would say that agriculture is one sector that was not cut.

You can say there are many that were cut, and I accept those challenges from the members opposite and the Liberal Party; there are many cuts in here, many direct, actual, documented reductions. But to start charging us and this document with further cuts that are not mentioned over and above the $5.3 billion is not being fair or reasonable when someone puts out a document that itemizes cuts.

If the member believes a 40% reduction in cuts in the agricultural community is included in this document, I ask her directly to point to them. Tell us where that 40% is, and tell us, of the $5.3 billion we're calling for in reductions, exactly one dollar we've called for in agriculture cuts. If she cannot do that, I ask her to withdraw that comment.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I've listened to some of the debate. I've been busy with agricultural stuff, but I've enjoyed the debate.

Today we're talking about Bill 91, a labour bill. The Liberals are making statements that the Tories are making cuts. All I can go by is what I see on TV, and this certain Mike somebody says, "We're cutting everything except health," and I think that is true. I guess he's picking up numbers. The fact is, that needs to be stated.

The issue around the labour bill has been that we as a government, the Minister of Labour, talked to farmers, consulted with farmers, set up a committee. That committee, along with union representatives, sat down and talked as frankly as farmers -- if anyone knows anything about farmers -- will. Over the last year and a half the minister kept his word. The Premier was asked at the annual meeting when the farmers get together with the Premier to talk about issues, and it clearly came out, "Are you going to really follow what that group's going to do?" and the Premier said yes.

I can understand why the farmers have been concerned over the years. I lobbied very hard as a federation member and as a Huron county federation person, and yes, I understood that Liberal and Tory governments would say one thing and then later on it was, "We had to make changes; you just have to trust us." I understood that and that's what we told the minister. We told the Premier and Elmer Buchanan, who understood it, and many caucus members understood it.

After long and open debate, the farm community came to a consensus. That is what this is all about, and I'm proud of the work that's been done by the minister.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the previous member with regard to the revolution that's on in Ontario. I heard very clearly the comments she made, at one time that 40% cuts were taking place, and then she said they were cutting the whole ministry out. Well, as my colleagues have said, I would like you to show us that in the document. My leader has said very clearly that there will be no cuts in agriculture. I don't know how much clearer you can get than that.

Yes, we have read the NDP Agenda for People that was put out on March 19, 1990. The member was talking about the two previous administrations. I think he should reaffirm his position with regard to agriculture in the Agenda for People and show us what you have done.

I say to the member for Northumberland, with regard to the comments on Bill 91, that she is so right in many issues she talks about: Who, and what farmer, has agreed that this bill is right? What farmer?

You would not name one today who agrees. The parliamentary assistant has said there are so many people who agree; that they have travelled the province and have gone across this province. The parliamentary assistant is a farmer himself, and I guess he's about the only one who would probably want to agree with it.

Mr Klopp: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr McLean: You see, he's now got the message, and he's gotten a little upset.

The Deputy Speaker: Your point of order, the member for Huron.

Mr Klopp: Mr Speaker, he said he doesn't know of any farmers who agree with this bill. I'm a farmer and I agree with this bill.

Mr McLean: That's why we're having problems in this Legislature with this government: They just don't listen and they never did listen to the people on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Fawcett: With the Common Sense Revolution, basic math would indicate -- they're not going to touch health, they're not going to touch education, they're not going to touch justice, and that takes up about 65% of the provincial budget, so that means the $5.3 billion in cuts must come from all of the other ministries. I did not hear agriculture mentioned.

Mr Tilson: Read the document. The document is very specific about what the cuts are.

Mrs Fawcett: Well, yes, I guess if you read between the lines, but I don't.

Mr Stockwell: You don't read it. Admit it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Dufferin-Peel, the member for Etobicoke West, you both had your chance.

Mr Cleary: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mrs Fawcett: To the member for Huron, I wonder how he has the nerve to stand up and say he is a farmer and that he is in favour of this legislation which farmers right across this province are not in favour of. They don't need it, they don't want it. They keep asking, "Who wants it?" If the member for Huron is the only farmer in Ontario who wants it, I don't think that's sufficient enough reason to put forward the legislation.

Mr Tilson: The subject today, of course, is the closure motion with respect to Bill 91, which I must say the members of the Progressive Conservative Party find rather strange. We've had two speakers debate in this House, and to restrict us in this party to one hour for committee of the whole, at which time you're going to put forth I don't know how many pages of amendments, which I don't know whether we've seen yet, and one hour with respect to third reading, is incomprehensible.

The government, particularly the Minister of Labour, has indicated that he's not afraid to discuss this further, that he has consulted. I can tell you he hasn't consulted, because there are many farmers, certainly in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, who don't understand what you're doing. They don't understand the purpose.

At least one member in the NDP caucus has told us he's a farmer and that he's in favour of the legislation. I suspect he's been told to say he's in favour of the legislation.

Mr Klopp: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member should know that when it comes to the agricultural issues, I am not told to do anything. We discuss things and we communicate and we make decisions --

The Deputy Speaker: It's not a point of order.

Mr Tilson: I guess we're getting back to the question as to why this motion is being put forward. Our leader --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The guy comes to our bench and heckles.

Mr Tilson: I'm getting heckled from about five feet away, for heaven's sake.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, address the Chair, please.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I'm being heckled by a member five feet away. I'd like at least the courtesy of the space between myself and the government.

Our leader of the Progressive Conservative Party raised a very good question today, which the Minister of Labour simply did not answer: to name one farmer, other than someone in his caucus, who supports this legislation. I don't think there are any.

I know he's had discussions with people in the OFA, for example. The OFA, no question, did have some

part in the drafting of the legislation, because otherwise --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: I'm simply telling you what members of the OFA have told me. We were told that your government, Mr Minister, would simply pass an order in council that would add agricultural workers under Bill 40. That was the threat given to the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and that's why they had to do what you told them to do. In other words, you put a gun to their heads.

Here we are, on this day, debating a closure motion that's going to allow only two more hours of debate, and part of that two hours is going to be seeing amendments that we have no time to debate. We're not even going to go to committee.

This province of Ontario has been based on agriculture in the past, and it still plays an important role in our life around this province. The farmers want to discuss it. The farmers want the right to come to public hearings around this province and debate and express their concerns about what you're doing to agriculture in this province and specifically with respect to this bill.

They don't want it. I have not heard one individual in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, either in the town of Caledon or the county of Dufferin, indicate that they support this bill. In fact, quite the contrary: They all oppose it.

So the process of this has simply been that there's been a threat put by the government that if the Ontario Federation of Agriculture didn't participate in this bill, the NDP would simply pass an order in council that would add agricultural workers to Bill 40.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have promised to repeal Bill 40 when you people are thrown out of office, which I hope will be very soon. I can tell you that we have promised to repeal this bill. It adds nothing to the progress of agriculture in this province.

The farming organizations in Ontario have simply told us, Mr Minister, that Bill 91 doesn't live up to their agreement with the government. You know that. They are most concerned and want the right to have public hearings to appear before a committee of this Legislature to express their concerns. You, with this motion, are simply not going to give that to them.

I guess initially I intend to spend part of my time expressing our concerns with Bill 91. I can tell you that we would like more time and it appears that we're not going to get that time. When I say "we," the members of the opposition and the people in the agricultural community simply are not going to have that right, and that is regrettable, but seems to become more and more common with the practice of the New Democratic Party as to how they intend to govern in this province. Almost every piece of legislation that they put in this place is passed under closure. They simply shut down debate and they don't allow the people of this province to come forward and put forward their views.

Bill 91 allows the Ontario farm to essentially become a union shop. That is no question. I understand that there are four unions, including the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, that are already salivating at organizing unions in the farm community around this province. I can tell you that that is of concern to many of the farm organizations and many of the small farmers, the small people who are trying to stay alive in this province, and specifically in the agricultural community. They simply don't like what you're doing and it's just another nail in your coffin and you'll never surface ever again.

Ontario farm employers, Mr Minister, as I'm sure you're aware, spent approximately $668 million last year on labour, some unskilled and some requiring skill to operate everything from automated greenhouses to dairy barns and combines. So it still plays a very active

part in the economy of this province, and yet looking at what you have done in your budgets -- and I don't mean you, Mr Minister, but I certainly refer to the Treasurer, your government -- it doesn't show your support of the agricultural community.

There were two task force reports, and my understanding, from speaking to people who were on the task force, is that when Bill 91 was introduced for first reading, the farmers on the task force hardly could believe what was being put forward. It wasn't in the agreement. That's what they're saying to us, that what you said you would do and what you have done are not the same thing. So I can tell you, your coming to this place and suggesting that the farm organizations support what you're doing is simply not what the farm organizations are repeating.

The no-strike provision certainly was there, but was not enforced. The bill is, from submissions that have been made to me by members of the farm organizations, merely an appendage to the Labour Relations Act. I wonder, what in the world are you, the Minister of Labour, doing standing up and telling farmers what to do in this province? What do you know?

You may tell me you're a gentleman farmer, but I'm telling you, your expertise supposedly, and hearing your history and your biography in the past -- you have had a great deal of experience in the labour movement, no doubt about that, and many people congratulate you for that, but you have had absolutely no experience in the agricultural community, and you have no business, as Minister of Labour, coming forth and passing this type of legislation and imposing it on the agricultural community of this province. At the very least, it should be something that should be being presented by the Minister of Agriculture.

I don't know; he hasn't said very much on this. It's all you, as the Minister of Labour.

It's all very strange as to how this comes about. Is it really the suggestions that are being made, that it's the union leaders who have come to you and manipulated this whole process for the whole idea of increasing unionism in this province? Farm agricultural people say, "My goodness, now they're going to unionize the family farm." How far will you go? Are you going to unionize everything? I hope not.

"Absent from the bill was any definition of 'agriculture' or provision for an agricultural labour relations board. Family members were exempt, but 'family' only refers to the immediate family, with a minimum 50% share in the business."

I haven't seen your amendments. I don't know whether you're going to deal with these types of things, but that's a concern that has been put forward by the agricultural community and simply has not been expressed.

The farmers in this province have had a difficult time, going back many years. It's becoming more and more difficult to compete in the international market, yet they are now -- just flipping through this bill and looking at the regulations and red tape that the farmer is now going to have to put through, why would you do this? Why would you do this at this particular time, when the farmer is having a difficult time simply staying alive?

I look at everything you do with respect to agriculture. When I say "you," I mean the government. In the last budget, the Finance minister didn't mention the agricultural economy in his budget speech, notwithstanding, of course, that Bill 91 was first read last year, on July 29, 1993. This seems to be the saving grace of the farmer, Bill 91. This is what's going to save the agricultural community. Yet in the last budget of the Finance minister, the agricultural economy wasn't mentioned once in his budget speech.

The budget reveals that in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs -- which is an interesting twist, to make the name so long we get tired saying it -- its operating budget will be reduced; will be reduced, Mr Minister. I know you don't know anything about this, because you're the Minister of Labour. You don't know anything about agriculture. But I'm going to tell you what the farmers are saying. The budget is reduced by 6% to $487 million before the ministry is required to absorb its share of the $400 million in expenditure savings and restraints.

When you look at the Agenda for People, or power, whatever it was called, as to what you say in your Agenda for People, if I can find it, it talks about --

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): You've got it memorized, have you, David?

Mr Tilson: No, I haven't got it memorized. I'm trying to forget it. It's such a bad dream. In fact, your whole government is a bad dream, and everything that you've done, and Bill 91 is a prime example.

On page 3 of the Agenda for People of the New Democratic Party, on August 19, 1990, they talked about how:

"Sky-high interest rates are hurting farmers. Each 1% increase in interest rates adds $9 million in interest charges to Ontario farmers' costs."

But what have you done to help that? Is Bill 91 going to help it, with all the red tape and all the problems the farmers are going to be put through with respect to operating farms in this province?

The second thing the Agenda for People, which was put forward by the New Democratic Party, says:

"New Democrats propose making long-term debt financing available to farmers at the government's long-term borrowing cost. Up to $100 million would be made available."

That's it. That's it as far as what the New Democratic Party thinks about farmers in this province. I