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

June 21, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

MINE DISASTER

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

ALTERNATIVE FUEL

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

ST MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

CHILD AND PARENT PLACE

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

OPTOMETRISTS

VISITORS

APPRECIATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

INVESTIGATION OF CROWN ATTORNEY

EDUCATION FINANCING

CANCER TREATMENT

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

ACCESS TO FORESTS

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

FRUIT GROWERS

CAMPING FEES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

HEALTH INSURANCE

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

ASSISTED HOUSING

FIREARMS SAFETY

TOBACCO PACKAGING

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM

TOBACCO PACKAGING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

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

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET LES MUNICIPALITÉS

TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINE DISASTER

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to report to the House the conclusions of a coroner's inquest that concluded in the town of Kirkland Lake last week in regard to the Macassa mine accident that happened on November 26, where two miners lost their lives. The jurors made 14 recommendations, the first of which was that all persons involved in the recovery operation be commended for their dedication in the adverse and potentially very dangerous conditions they had to work under.

As the member for Timiskaming, I'd like to highlight some of those recommendations. The first group is to the mining industry itself. Mining methods have to reduce the time that workers spend underground in rockburst-prone areas. Also, the rescue training to assist in search operations caused by rockbursts has to be increased. Wherever possible, two accesses to a stope should always be maintained.

Also, as the member, I would like to urge the Ministry of Labour to act upon these other recommendations by the jury: that senior levels of government fund programs to train mine workers, and we need to increase that; that we have continued government and industry financing to study rockbursts beyond the promise of this government of 1995; and also, that a feasibility study on equipping underground miners with homing devices that can assist search crews be adopted by government.

These are very important recommendations and I call upon the Ministry of Labour to bring them forward.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I address this statement to the Premier and to the member for Algoma. The PC northern focus task force toured northern Ontario in an effort to obtain ideas about how a Mike Harris government can provide the best environment for economic development.

When we reached Algoma, we were confronted with an astounding level of resentment for being betrayed by the Premier and the member for Algoma, who proceeded with a $13-million, 40,000-acre settlement with Mississauga natives without any consultation with affected stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders' property rights and livelihoods will be expropriated as a result of this NDP manoeuvre.

After hearing the report from our task force, our leader, Mike Harris, travelled north to meet with the Algoma action group. This group is currently challenging the claim in the courts, because it is widely believed that the NDP has given away far more land than was historically claimed. I find it ludicrous that the NDP would strike a deal of this magnitude before the court has even made a decision.

For the property owners, loggers, miners, anglers and all stakeholders, Mike Harris and the Conservative Party have pledged our undying support for a process which will reflect the needs of all people and will bring these interests to the negotiating table.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Today, I would like to call attention to the inaction of the federal Liberal cabinet with respect to the ethanol issue. People in my riding have been waiting patiently for a sign that the federal Liberal government cares about the economics in rural Ontario.

I have asked repeatedly in this House for members opposite to take a stand and demand that the federal Liberals make a decision. The inaction both across the floor and in Ottawa by the elected Liberals leaves one to wonder what sort of commitment the people of rural Ontario can expect from that party.

The ethanol plant would be located in my riding of Chatham-Kent but the economic impact would be felt across the province. Twenty million bushels of corn would be needed to supply the plant and would translate into a $60-million boost in Ontario's agricultural business.

It appears that the federal Liberal cabinet is stalling the issue until the summer recess in the hopes that it will go away. I've got a news flash for all the Liberals in Ontario: The people of Chatham-Kent will not be satisfied with your promise to "look at the issue" much longer.

The federal Liberal government continues to make its commitment to fossil fuel development projects such as Hibernia while the people of rural Ontario are put on hold. This is not acceptable. Why the stall tactics?

Perhaps it needs to be explained one more time. The economic wellbeing of rural communities in Ontario could hang in the balance. The environmental quality in urban centres such as Toronto, Hamilton, London and Windsor can be enhanced through such use of ethanol fuels. Just Thursday, Toronto's pollution index was double the acceptable level. Ethanol fuels could help change this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Hope: I would call upon the federal Liberals and the Liberals of the province to move quickly on the ethanol issue.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would like to draw the attention of the House to the heroic efforts of two Red Lake district Ministry of Natural Resources employees.

On June 14, two Chicago residents capsized their boat on Pakwash Lake, a fairly large body of water just south of Red Lake. At the time, a ministry helicopter came upon the accident and immediately went into action to assist the boaters.

Chris Porter, the pilot, landed on a nearby peninsula to offload his passengers and headed to the accident scene. Upon arriving at the overturned boat, Porter hovered the copter while senior forestry technician Paul Fazekas ventured out on to the skid of the craft. In his attempt to assist the victims, he ended up in the lake with the two fishermen.

Both visitors were in a state of shock upon the arrival of the ministry officials at the scene, and through the expertise of pilot Porter and the strong swimming abilities of Fazekas, the visitors were hoisted into the helicopter and taken to a nearby tourist camp.

It was through the alertness and quick actions of the Ministry of Natural Resources people that a tragedy was avoided. One of the fishermen stated later that, "We were in serious trouble, and I just don't know what would have happened if they hadn't come along."

In bringing this issue to the attention of the House, I do hope we will recognize how fortunate we are to have such skilled, alert and dedicated MNR employees throughout the north.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Housing the concerns from the citizens of London with regard to Bill 120. We trust that the minister will incorporate our concerns as the regulations are drafted.

We were informed by your ministry during public hearings that municipalities can continue to license genuine rooming-houses and expect that the city of London bylaw will be honoured by the government and will continue to be implemented as the city intended.

From a safety standpoint, the city of London fire department has grave concerns about as-of-right basement and attic apartments, garden suites or granny flats. Basement apartments, because of the smaller windows and, for the most part, one entrance in and one entrance out, are, in a working fire, considered to be one of the most dangerous, intense burning blazes faced by crews. Sadly, we in this House have mourned many unnecessary deaths by fire in basement apartments in the last few months.

Doubling or tripling residential units will have a significant effect and strain on hard services such as sewers and water systems not designed to meet extreme demands. Bill 120 also ignores the municipality's requirements regarding parking. Experience tells us that this will unquestionably lead to parking abuses.

In January 1991 the city of London established a home planning advisory service to provide assistance to home owners who wished to create an additional unit in their residence. The city of London official plan already includes policies that promote residential intensification in appropriately identified areas. Our official plan contains policies that will further designate intensification but subject to consideration of neighbourhood planning and adequate servicing.

Municipalities in Ontario do not need Toronto-based solutions to local issues.

ST MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): St Mary's High School in my riding of Oxford will soon have a new home, thanks to the government of Ontario. Jobs Ontario Capital has given the school $8.9 million towards the construction of a new high school.

This represents good news for both students and teachers in my riding. St Mary's has become overcrowded in the last few years, and a new school will considerably improve the quality of Catholic secondary education in the Woodstock area.

The principal of St Mary's was obviously pleased with the announcement. He said that announcement marked one of the best days in his career since coming to the city seven years ago.

The new school will also mark a high point in community cooperation in my riding of Oxford, cooperation between separate school board, public school board and the city of Woodstock, as the new high school will be built on the site of the Woodstock District Community Complex, built with $3 million in Jobs Ontario Community Action funding, funding which highlights the cooperation which exists between municipal government and the provincial government.

This spirit of cooperation does not end in Oxford county. Jobs Ontario Capital has made $620 million available to Ontario school boards. During its mandate, this government has also taken a leading role in developing a national testing program, increased the participation of parents in schools and established a Royal Commission on Learning. The new school building for St Mary's adds to this impressive record, and I am delighted to welcome the project to my riding.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Over two years ago the House supported Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, now awaiting third reading. This bill prohibits cheque-cashing businesses from charging fees to cash government cheques. Thousands of low-income Ontarians are victims of these operations. They lose precious money that would buy food, clothing and other essential items.

The government has done nothing to remedy the situation. It continues to condone this exploitative practice. It pursues fiscally irresponsible policies that do nothing to alleviate the hardships endured by low-income Ontarians. This government has demonstrated over and over again that it is no friend of the poor.

It is also no friend of the taxpayers, because millions of our tax dollars are subsidizing these businesses. That money was meant to help needy Ontarians, not to enrich businesses of dubious nature. But this government is obviously not concerned about improper business practices.

Doing nothing is this government's response to some of the most pressing problems facing Ontarians today. By ignoring the plight of low-income Ontarians, it demonstrates yet again that only the chosen few have the ear of the New Democratic Party.

CHILD AND PARENT PLACE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Children are often the innocent victims in the difficult process of separation and divorce. In my community, Child and Parent Place has offered separated couples and their children the opportunity to visit each other in a safe, neutral setting. Child and Parent Place is based on the philosophy that children benefit from healthy relationships with both of their parents. Its aim is to ensure the wellbeing of children in acrimonious separation and divorce situations.

This is the kind of program which our party has advocated in the Common Sense Revolution when we indicate that we would establish a program of mandatory mediation to resolve many of the tensions and disputes which arise during a separation before these issues reach the courts.

Unfortunately, this safe haven for children, which was started by Lutherwood Community Services in 1988, is in jeopardy of closing if continued funding is not forthcoming.

Child and Parent Place is part of the supervised access pilot project, a program which the Ministry of the Attorney General began funding, along with 11 others across Ontario, two years ago. This program has offered hope and comfort to both parents and children. It would be tragic to allow this program to be cancelled due to a lack of funding. I urge the Attorney General to carefully consider the many positive aspects of this program and to make it a priority for families in this province.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I am seldom angry, but I can assure you that I have received a copy of a letter sent to one of my constituents by the leader of the third party, Mr Harris, that has me absolutely livid with anger.

I can only assume that Mr Harris has been spending too much time with Lyn McLeod, because he too is now writing letters that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I refer to a letter sent to Mrs Marjorie Godin of Twin Elm Mobile Home Estate in Strathroy. The letter refers to Bill 21, Mr Wessenger's private member's bill, the legislation that will protect lease-lot tenants from arbitrary eviction, protect the equity they have in their homes and give them the right to advertise and sell their homes without landlord interference.

In this letter, dated June 10, Mr Harris says that the bill was defeated in this House. Now, that is clearly false.

In light of the problems and abuse that tenants in some lease-lot communities suffer, this legislation is important to many in this House and to thousands of our constituents. But despite the clear need for this bill, the Tory Housing critic has filibustered and stood in the way of this legislation since it went to the standing committee on general government last February. In fact, the Tories have created problems at every step of the way regarding this legislation.

Their collective conduct is a disgrace, and now, to add insult to injury, the Tory leader, just as Lyn McLeod did with Bill 91, has sent out misinformation to Ontarians. If it isn't deliberate, then it's simply incompetent. Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My statement is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you are aware, the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council has been left to decide the future of optometry in this province. You'll also be aware that optometrists are a valuable resource in rural Ontario. For people who live in rural Ontario, they are the first line of defence in eye care.

The HPLR is now attempting to restrict the profession in the list of prescribed diseases that they can diagnose. My understanding is that optometrists are not trying to expand their scope of practice but merely to maintain the services presently provided.

Minister, you would know that the availability of ophthalmologists is very limited and that in some cases there are none available for many, many miles. Where they are available, the waiting lists are extremely long. Many people in our area naturally use the services of an optometrist first. If their scope of practice is diminished, people will most likely still go to the optometrist for help, only to find that in their situation they must go to an ophthalmologist. This will cost the taxpayers twice for the same service, increasing health costs, and probably delay attention to the eye problem for some time.

People who need immediate service for injury or certain circumstances will literally be turned away.

Optometrists are trained extensively to deal with eye care. It seems a shame to me to endanger patient access to eye care and again limit rural Ontario's access to another health care service. I encourage the minister to alleviate the concerns of people in rural Ontario and resolve this situation so that seniors and others can continue to receive good, quality care at their local optometrist.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber and seated in the Speaker's gallery some very special visitors, members of the diplomatic corps stationed here in Toronto representing seven countries.

APPRECIATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker, to make a statement. Some 28 months ago I resigned as the Minister of Energy. You will recall that at that time I was accused by an individual of committing a criminal act as a result of a summer job I held well over 20 years ago. After a lengthy police investigation that lasted just under three years, one week ago today I was acquitted of all and any alleged wrongdoing.

Today I rise to thank those colleagues in this assembly who supported me during the past two and a half years. To those members of this assembly, to the residents of Kitchener, to my wife and family, to all who gave their unconditional support, either publicly or privately, I shall be for ever indebted for your acts of kindness and your words of encouragement.

Unless one has been through the kind of allegation and charges and lived with that for each and every moment of over 800 days, unless one has been arrested in front of his wife and kids at the breakfast table early one morning, no one has any idea of the experience and the attendant costs, in both financial and emotional terms.

What has happened to me can happen to any doctor, any lawyer, any teacher, any labourer, any office worker, any journalist and indeed any other member of this assembly. No one person is immune, nor can they predict when a false allegation of wrongdoing may surface against them. It is my hope that we as legislators in this province can all learn from this so that the next time this happens, as it surely will, we will not simply get caught up in the political rhetoric of partisan politics which dominates this House and, under the veil of guilt, prejudge the final fate of any member.

Members should know that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act failed me, failed my family and failed the citizens of Ontario, who paid for this public prosecution and this investigation. I find it simply incredible that ministry documentation that would eventually prove my innocence was withheld from me for over a year and not released until many months after I was charged.

I'm not trying to dwell on the past. Nothing can restore lost time and the possibilities. Little can repair the long-term effects and attacks on one's reputation and the personal attacks directed towards one's family. However, despite all the wrongs that have been committed, the bitterness has passed and I still believe one can create good if one chooses to. If it were not otherwise, then our life's reversals would simply lead us only to despair.

Yesterday is gone for ever. However, I truly believe that one can rise to the occasion by turning the page and putting the past behind them and being the sort of person people will see and hopefully recognize as true and worthy of their continued trust and friendship. I'm committed to seizing that opportunity, to take whatever positive outcomes there can be from this sorry mess and be part of a constructive, helpful voice for my community and for this province.

For me personally and my family, the future does now hold a sense of joy, a renewed sense of optimism and a vigorous, positive outlook. I look forward to contributing whatever I can, using whatever ability and talent I have, as I join with my colleagues in this assembly and work for the common good of our fellow citizens, the common good of our communities and the common good of this dynamic province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I rise today to advise members of our government's plans to reform welfare in Ontario into an active program that will get people off welfare and back to work. Our new system, JobLink Ontario, will fit each person with a set of tailor-made supports that they require to enter today's job market and stay off welfare.

Je suis heureux d'annoncer les plans adoptés par notre gouvernement pour réformer l'aide sociale en Ontario afin d'en faire un programme d'action qui aidera les bénéficiaires à quitter le système d'aide sociale et à reprendre leur place sur le marché du travail.

Notre nouveau système, objectif Emploi Ontario, mettra à la disposition de chaque personne un programme fait sur mesure, réunissant les services de soutien dont elle a besoin pour intégrer le marché du travail d'aujourd'hui et ne plus recourir à l'aide sociale.

We know that thousands of welfare recipients want nothing more than to support themselves and their families. Many have lost jobs because of the changing economy and require new skills to re-enter the workforce. Many single mothers, if provided with training and child care, could and would enter the workforce. Many creative people with their own innovative ideas for self-employment have been stuck relying on welfare because they lack the means or technical knowhow to start their own businesses.

Some rules of the old system have been barriers to independence for self-starters or people wanting to learn skills through volunteer work.

Many people on welfare miss job or learning and training opportunities because they lack access to information about these various opportunities. There is no centrally linked and well-coordinated information system.

Lack of access to some resources that most of us take for granted has been a real barrier to people supporting themselves and their families on below-poverty-line incomes. Things as simple as access to photocopiers, telephones, money for bus fare, or child care while going to a job interview are just a few examples.

JobLink Ontario will turn that system of barriers and entrenched dependence around. JobLink Ontario will map out a route to independence for thousands of good, hardworking people of this province.

I am announcing today an additional $25 million in provincial funding that will enable JobLink Ontario to begin achieving three key objectives: first, to move people on welfare into jobs; second, to transform existing programs into one coordinated system that is focused on the needs of people moving from welfare to work; and third, to make existing training and job creation programs more accessible to welfare recipients.

J'annonce donc aujourd'hui que le gouvernement versera un montant additionnel de 25 millions de dollars, qui permettra à objectif Emploi Ontario d'entreprendre la réalisation de ses trois buts principaux :

(1) aider les bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale à trouver des emplois ;

(2) transformer les programmes actuels pour en faire un système coordonné axé sur les besoins des personnes qui veulent quitter le système d'aide sociale et réintégrer le marché du travail ;

(3) faire en sorte que les programmes actuels de formation et de création d'emplois soient plus accessibles aux bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale.

JobLink Ontario will be gradually phased in, starting in eight communities around the province this year. Expansion of JobLink throughout the entire province requires federal partnership and federal funding. We know our plan makes sense for Ontario, but we believe it could also be a valuable blueprint for other provinces and a model for the federal government's social assistance reform initiatives.

We have submitted a proposal to Ottawa to share the costs of JobLink Ontario. Federal human resources minister Lloyd Axworthy has expressed interest, and we are hopeful that we can reach an agreement in the coming weeks.

Our municipal partners, as well as many community-based agencies, have been on the leading edge of providing an employment focus to social assistance in Ontario. We will continue to rely on their creativity and expertise as we work closely together to implement JobLink Ontario. Building on municipal employment programs will be crucial to the implementation of JobLink.

Over the next several weeks I will announce the eight communities selected to house our first JobLink sites. I would like to take a few minutes now, however, to outline the six main components of JobLink Ontario.

First, our sites will house JobLink resource centres, visible doors through which people can enter and work with trained staff to assess their employment readiness; get information about any available suitable jobs; get information about training or learning opportunities suited to their abilities, interests and local job market realities, as well as other services and supports that they may require, such as child care or computer access or funds for transportation. We believe each resource centre will serve thousands of people every year.

It makes good sense to build on the success of our training and job creation programs that have been getting thousands of Ontarians back to work. So the second component of JobLink Ontario will build in an additional 4,000 new spaces to the existing training offered through the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB. These training spaces for welfare recipients will ensure that they are relevant to the local economy, with jobs as the training outcome. Eventually, JobLink Ontario will be integrated with OTAB and become part of its menu of mainstream programs.

Third, JobLink Ontario will sensibly respond to emerging economic and labour market trends. Non-traditional forms of employment are emerging as a window to the 21st century. Our support system through JobLink Ontario will respond to these trends and provide supports to Ontario's innovators.

JobLink Ontario will include a new $5-million Innovations component. This fund will be available to promote community economic development activities that lead to job creation. We are aware of significant success of similar new innovations in other jurisdictions, and Ontario won't be left behind.

Fourthly, we will also help people on welfare create their own businesses. We will link them with the expertise of highly successful small business entrepreneurs. They will get help with business planning and entrepreneurial training. Through the already existing Jobs Ontario Training community enterprise program, we have seen significant success with people on social assistance starting over 500 businesses. Again, we will build on that success and not duplicate services, by investing an additional $1 million into that program, exclusively to support people who are on welfare.

We look forward to serving about 3,000 welfare recipients through the Innovations component and the additional funds to Jobs Ontario Training community enterprise.

Regulatory changes will be in place this fall for employable adults. These changes will make it easier for people participating in self-employment training programs to start their own businesses. We will also implement regulatory changes that make the system more flexible by allowing people to participate in education and training opportunities and to learn job skills as volunteers.

Fifthly, we have begun addressing special employment needs of first nations on reserve. Implementation has begun of 100 community pilot projects which identify employment and training needs at the local level. There has been a $3.3-million investment in the future independence of first nation communities in Ontario.

But we must now also address the special needs of off-reserve aboriginal people who, without question, also want lives of social, economic and cultural independence, away from entrenched poverty and historical dependency. Therefore, a new $1-million pilot project fund will be managed jointly by aboriginal organizations and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and will identify culturally appropriate systems, means and supports needed to begin this essential transition. These efforts will be well coordinated with the aboriginal family healing and wellness strategy announced by my colleague the minister responsible for native affairs yesterday.

Sixthly and finally, JobLink Ontario will aggressively pursue meaningful employment linkages for people with disabilities and provide or assist in securing the special supports needed to accommodate this transition. We will continue to seek input from the disabled community and from our own workers to decide how best to do that.

Nous savons que des milliers de bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale ne demanderaient pas mieux que d'être en mesure de subvenir à leurs besoins et à ceux de leurs familles.

Objectif Emploi Ontario comprend les composantes suivantes :

(1) L'établissement de centres de ressources. Chaque centre accueillera des milliers de personnes au cours de l'année.

(2) L'ajout de plus de 4000 nouvelles places dans le programme de formation.

(3) Un fonds d'innovation de cinq millions de dollars qui servira à promouvoir les activités de développement économique communautaire.

(4) Un soutien aux bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale qui veulent créer leur propre emploi.

(5) Un nouveau fonds d'un million de dollars destiné à des projets pilotes qui serviront à aider les autochtones qui ne vivent pas dans les réserves à atteindre l'indépendance financière.

(6) Une attention plus soutenue accordée à l'emploi pour toutes les personnes qui demanderont de l'aide sociale.

Nous sommes convaincus que notre plan convient tout à fait à l'Ontario, mais nous pensons qu'il pourrait également être un modèle valable pour d'autres provinces et pour les initiatives de réforme de l'aide sociale au niveau fédéral.

In conclusion, let me say that JobLink Ontario will be an inclusive set of coordinated opportunities available to all welfare recipients. We are reshaping the system that yesterday said people with disabilities or single mothers, for example, are not employable. We want to break down the barriers and catalyze the cultural changes needed to welcome people with disabilities and others into full participation in our society, culture, economy and workforce. Ontario must benefit from the intelligence, creativity, skills and abilities of all of our citizens.

All of our ministry's employment programs will eventually be integrated into JobLink Ontario. With this announcement, we are adding $25 million to the already more than $200 million which our government has committed to assist welfare recipients into the labour force. I believe this is more than a wise use of taxpayer dollars; I believe it is a testament to this government's belief in all of the citizens of our province.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I begin by reminding the House of the speech from the throne in April 1993: "The social assistance system is not working. No amount of tinkering will fix it. This government believes it's time for fundamental reform."

First to go was the Ontario child income program, then the Ontario adult benefit program, long-awaited unification of the system. Today we have all that is left of Turning Point, which is this government's answer to welfare reform. Turning Point in a very deflated fashion is being offered to us today.

In July 1993 we were told there were going to be 100,000 targeted educational spaces for social assistance recipients. Mind you, there was no costing provided at that point. Today we are given eight new resource centres, or should I say referral centres or a new set of brokers in eight communities across this province? Even these are not going to be up and running until January 1995, and other centres in other communities across this province are promised over three years with no financial commitment to those other communities. Today's commitment of $25 million is about $50 per person for every person who's on social assistance who's unemployed.

JobLink of 1993 was to include literacy training, ESL training, skills upgrading and apprenticeship. I read and I listened and I've watched; there's not one mention of any of those programs today. So I ask again the questions I've been asking for over a year about JobLink: Is this really a personalized employment plan with all the supports necessary to return to work, as was promised on that hot July 8, 1993, day? How long will the participants of JobLink have access to the programs promised today in these resource centres? Does part-time and occasional work fit into your JobLink scheme? Again, not mentioned.

Will this program, and perhaps this is the most fundamental question, shorten the waiting lists for employment preparation programs that are already, in most communities, two years?

Will JobLink be integrated with the Ontario student assistance plan? No mention.

Will decisions regarding eligibility for JobLink be appealable?

Will training programs be put in place for staff -- that's a question many have been asking for a long time -- who will have to implement JobLink, staff who will have to have new skills at conducting assessments, developing employment plans and marketing of their clients to the potential employers.

Is JobLink truly complementary to OTAB and Jobs Ontario and opportunity planning and steps to employment programs that are already in existence?

Is this really a centrally linked, well-coordinated information system, and is that all it is?

The most important question: Will the jobs be there when these participants complete their training?

I close by noting that there have been some good parts to this announcement, because today's announcement talks about self-employment, and the NDP government doesn't seem to be worried now about the word "entrepreneur." They certainly did before.

There's flexibility now going to be permitted for people to learn their trade and to learn job skills through volunteering. That is a new addition which I think is quite meaningful.

I'm very happy that there is attention to off-reserve native initiative, and certainly most happy that there's improved exploration of employment opportunities for the disabled.

I'm very happy to see that there's an intent to continue the partnerships with municipalities, because the municipalities have done some very excellent programming.

But we're left again with uncertainties, with no real commitment and with the communities and the people who are to be served wondering what they are really going to get into.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I believe that today's announcement, the gutting of the commitment of this party for so many years and of the original JobLink commitment, the absolute gutting of $25 million -- they spend hundreds of millions destroying day care spaces by taking the private sector out of day care. There are fewer spaces in Toronto today than there were when this government took office, if you can believe this.

Listening to all the rhetoric of the party, never have I heard a more pompous statement than to say, "This could be an example for the federal government, for other provinces." They're all so far ahead of you that it's a disgrace for you to make such a pompous statement; $25 million. The rest of the world's ahead of you, the federal government's ahead of you, the rest of the provinces are ahead of you, and you make that kind of pompous statement that this is a far-reaching policy.

You lost the battle. The Premier and the cabinet gutted your commitment to welfare reform. Today's announcement is unfortunately a signal that as far as the NDP is concerned, as far as this government is concerned, Thomson, SARC, the welfare reform so badly needed are dead. They're dead.

We had the Liberal Party which did absolutely nothing except make the problems worse in good times. We had pretty good times and they couldn't solve the problem. Now you say times are too tough and you can't solve the problem.

In the Common Sense Revolution we committed $500 million to reforming a disastrous, failed welfare system in the province of Ontario, $500 million to implement the kinds of reforms that are required.

I read through your statement, Minister, and really and truly, I don't know where you get the nerve. I'm surprised you made this statement today. I thought you would have slunk off and hoped nobody noticed the backtracking and the wimping out and the lack of support for real welfare reform in this province. Not only that, but you tell us that if the federal government doesn't cooperate, you can't do it. What absolute nonsense.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Harris: When are we in Ontario going to fix our own problems instead of trying to bankrupt the federal government every time we turn around?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, please come to order.

Mr Harris: On page 4 you say, "Our municipal partners, as well as many community-based agencies, have been on the leading edge." They sure have. There is more meaningful training going on by unions in union halls all across this province. They couldn't wait for you. They are doing more than you are. You know what's interesting? They're now inviting Cam Jackson, me, Progressive Conservative members to come to the graduations in the union halls, because they are doing more than you are doing on behalf of getting their members back to work.

As I travelled this province, just last week at a luncheon meeting --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oxford, please come to order.

Mr Harris: -- in Bowmanville where union members came out, as I talked about the Common Sense Revolution, they said, "Finally, some common sense, some hope that our members will be retrained, that there'll be jobs for them."

You are a disgrace. You are an embarrassment. You ought to resign, and you ought to resign today.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw your attention under the standing orders to rule 23, which says:

"(

h) Makes allegations against another member.

"(

i) Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.

"(

k) Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder."

Mr Speaker, I ask you to review the statement made by the member for Middlesex this afternoon, who suggested that my taking

part in committee hearings on Bill 21 was "filibustering" etc. I ask you to review her statement and see if it complies with the standing orders of this House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga South, I certainly appreciate the matter which she draws to my attention. The member will know that often there's a difference of opinion which will be expressed in the House by members on both sides. Indeed, it would seem to the Speaker that that's in fact what we had, a difference in point of view on the subject matter, and there was certainly nothing out of order about having a difference of opinion here in the chamber.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A new point of order, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I am simply asking you to review, because it wasn't a matter of opinion; it was impugning my role as an opposition member representing --

The Speaker: The member has a concern. I've already ruled on this. There is nothing out of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier. It concerns the court case against four members of the board of the Van Lang Centre, the non-profit housing corporation in Ottawa West. It deals with the conduct of his Minister of Housing and it's the same matter that was raised yesterday in the Legislature in a number of questions.

I want to refer the Premier to his own conflict-of-interest guidelines, in particular to

section 22, and I want to read to the Premier the operative words of

section 22:

"In any adjudicative...process by...a provincially appointed tribunal..." -- I want to stop there and indicate that we're talking about a provincial offence, a provincially appointed judge and a provincially appointed crown attorney to prosecute the case, so a provincially appointed tribunal -- "ministers shall not communicate on behalf of a private party in any manner in which his or her position as minister could reasonably be perceived as influencing a decision."

She communicated about the case. She had discussions. She admitted that. Even though she denies saying, "Drop the court case," she discussed the possibility and expressed the hope that the court case might be dropped. That's clear from her own words.

Second, it dealt with private parties. We're talking about four accused people, one of whom is a constituent of the minister.

Third, there's no question, when you're given the nature of the meeting, with representatives from the ministry there, that her position as minister could be reasonably perceived to affect the outcome of this particular case, ie, whether in fact the charges might not even proceed. That was a possible outcome, from the minister's own words, of the meeting she attended.

Premier, I'm directing you specifically to your own guidelines,

section 22, the operative words, the facts which are admitted by your minister.

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

Mr Chiarelli: Will you not now admit to the people of Ontario that your Minister of Housing is covered and entrapped by

section 22 of your own guidelines?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No.

Mr Chiarelli: I have a supplementary. I want to refer the Premier to

section 24 of his own guidelines. I'll quote that. "Where a minister's constituency office undertakes activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents, ministers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent."

I'm informed by participants in this particular fact situation that all parties have communicated, in one way or another, by letter, phone, with representatives of the minister's constituency office. At least one of the constituents, one of the defendants, the accused, being the subject of these charges, resides in the constituency and is a constituent of the minister's.

I'm basically saying that we now have the minister's constituency office involved with these individuals, one being a constituent, and then the minister moves into a meeting with her ministry officials at which one of the items on the agenda is the charges against four individuals.

I'm saying to you, Premier, that what we have here again is a clear, admitted fact situation which covers the minister under

section 24 of your guidelines. Will you tell the people of Ontario that your minister is covered by

section 24, based on her admitted facts?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member is quite wrong.

Mr Chiarelli: I can understand the Premier wanting to defend his ministers. I cannot understand why the Premier will not answer questions in this Legislature to the people of Ontario based on the facts, which are very, very clear.

Premier, I want you to listen to the following quote from the Ottawa Citizen in today's paper -- your minister speaking again. I'm quoting from the Citizen today:

"Outside the Legislature Gigantes...admitted one outcome of her meeting might be that Pretty's case against the board would not go to court.

"'I suggested if that were possible, perhaps the board would be willing to back off and think again about an action which they had proposed to bring forward.'"

Again we have the minister involved, using her own words, in a fact situation which is impacting on whether or not charges may or may not go forward. Premier, there's a very real possibility that her conduct would influence the outcome of these particular charges, and whether they would go forward.

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

Mr Chiarelli: This is not a matter that should go forward to committee, as you suggested, and cost the taxpayer between $200,000 and $300,000. It's a clear case where you should accept your responsibility and ask for the minister's resignation. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: No.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Housing. According to an

article in today's Toronto Star, a development consultant for Cypriot Homes, a Kitchener non-profit housing corporation, used his involvement with Cypriot Homes to flip land and make a $135,000 profit. This is clearly a private profit made with public dollars.

Your ministry has apparently been aware of this situation for at least three years, so my question to you today is a very straightforward one: Exactly when were you apprised of this issue, and exactly what actions did you take once you were advised?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The situation which has been referred to in the Toronto Star is one in which the Waterloo Regional Police have been conducting inquiries. It came to my attention early this year, and the interests of the ministry in this matter certainly had already been followed up.

Mrs McLeod: Early this year is of course earlier in 1994. I would think that the red flags went up on this project at least in November 1991 when Mr Andres, the development consultant, pleaded guilty to fraud on another land deal.

I would think your ministry was seeing some concerns with this issue since the Ontario Housing Corp lawyer, David Fedy, began raising his own concerns about the matter in 1991, and when the legal branch of your ministry apparently was advising that legal action be taken.I would think that there were still red flags going up when that same David Fedy wrote to the Premier in November 1993 detailing the very serious irregularities in the purchase of this land. Clearly, the concerns that had been raised since at least November 1991 had not been dealt with by December 1993.

The Premier referred this matter to you in December 1993. Will you advise us what you advised the Premier at that time of exactly what action was being taken on the matter?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition incorrectly refers to Mr Fedy as an Ontario Housing Corp lawyer. He was not and is not. He is a solicitor with a private law firm and he carried out his own interest in following through on matters of interest to him.

Certainly, the ministry was aware of the situation, and if it's any help to the Leader of the Opposition, I can tell her that by September 1992 a new project consultant, a new project manager, was in place at that particular non-profit organization.

Mrs McLeod: I trust the minister is not discounting the legitimacy of the concerns that have been raised about this particular deal and about the fact that there has been a $135,000 private profit made with public funds on a land flip deal. We simply can't understand why over a period of three years there was no apparent response from your ministry in dealing with what is clearly a significant concern.

We have to wonder when a lawyer who is involved with the issue and clearly concerned about irregularities in the issue, trying to get some action from your ministry and your government, is advised by the ministry that land flips in the non-profit housing industry are a common occurrence.

Some of us today remember the Provincial Auditor's report in which concern was expressed about the fact that in non-profit housing there was higher than market value being paid for land. This would appear to be one of the reasons for that concern. It really is hard to understand why it has taken so long to be able to get action on this very serious concern.

The question today is: What did you do? When did you do it? What action did your ministry take? In fact, was this not even treated as an urgent and serious issue because land flips in non-profit housing are indeed a common occurrence, as your officials have told David Fedy?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm not privy to who Mr Fedy may have talked to, but whoever it was may have been describing past history. I don't know. It may have been a common occurrence under the old non-profit housing schemes which the Liberal government ran in this province.

Let me tell the leader of the official opposition that the public consultation conducted by the Ministry of Housing in 1991, leading to new policy for non-profit housing programs in this province in 1992, which is being implemented through the Jobs Ontario Homes program, includes strict appraisal guidelines which didn't exist before, requirements for title searches of a nature that did not exist before, guidelines for hiring development consultants which did not exist before, conflict-of-interest guidelines which did not exist before and stringent site selection requirements.

Let her ask herself what was the experience of the previous government, and let us tell you about what we've been doing in this government to make sure that the non-profit housing program we're operating is accountable.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party, the honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is also to the Minister of Housing. Minister, you know what really blows us away, not only in this House but in this province, is that you stand in this House -- you are even laughing at this point -- and you make announcements; for example, you announced a $29-million write-off. You seem to think that all you have to do is stand in this House and defend what has been going on. What our questions are simply asking you is, why don't you for once stand in this House and agree that there is a problem?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): There's got to be a question here, you know. Come on, Margaret, give us a question.

The Speaker: The member for Cambridge, please come to order.

Mrs Marland: Most of us of course recall that most of these programs were the Homes Now program under the former Liberal government, which announced 30,000 homes in a big panic after it had already announced 110,000 homes it couldn't fulfil. We realize where the problem started, but the fact is that you've been the government for four years.

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

Mrs Marland: Will you for once agree there is a problem?

Hon Ms Gigantes: From the member for Mississauga South we for ever get loose allegations pieced together from bits of misinformation which, if she followed through on them, she would know don't fit together and are providing misinformation.

The letter that was received by the Premier and by me from Mr Fedy was taken very seriously by both of us. But let me assure the members opposite that in fact the Ministry of Housing not only has looked at the issues raised by Mr Fedy, but also the larger issue, which I wish members here would address themselves to, which is, what is going on in the program design that means we have an accountable program that provides cost-effective administration and makes sure that guidelines on conflict of interest and overlapping interests are not permitted? They are not permitted.

In this particular case, the Waterloo Regional Police are making inquiries, and I don't wish to speak about the particulars, as she will well understand.

Mrs Marland: The only "loose" information in this House unfortunately comes from you as the minister. All the questions we are asking are based on your own ministry audits, and you don't understand that it's your own ministry audits that the press and the media are having to write about every single day in this place and across this province because you will not take action; the fact that you seem to think it's all right for a development consultant to pocket $95,000 using a blank cheque from the non-profit corporation, that it's all right that he pleaded guilty to criminal and fraud charges.

If you think that's all right, we simply ask you again, as Minister of Housing, what is your standard for how non-profit housing corporations operate in this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's hard to believe this is the same member who was on her feet a few minutes ago complaining that somebody was imputing motives to her. She's now reading my thoughts and telling the world what my thoughts are. It is incorrect, it is absolutely incorrect for her to suggest that when issues are raised about accountability of government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I was raising my voice. It's hard to hear oneself over the babble over there. But let me tell her very seriously, and I hope she'll take my word for it -- she's a reasonable person, and I hope she'll take my word for it -- that we take all questions raised about the integrity of the non-profit housing program in a very serious manner. In fact, in the questions which have been raised today, the ministry has taken action. And in the larger sense, if the member would please inform herself about the changes which have been instituted by this government in the administration of the non-profit housing program, I'm sure she would feel much less agitated than she appears to.

Mrs Marland: You're right, Madam Minister: I'm agitated, and so are the people of this province, because of your incompetency in this place. You do not seem to realize that as a minister of the crown you have to answer to the public about the misappropriation of funds. When you're allocating support for these programs, you're saying it's all right.

I didn't say what your standards were. I wouldn't begin to try to say what your standards were, and I would never try to read your thoughts. Fortunately, they're recorded in Hansard. But I can tell you one thing: Your standards are such that you reappointed Mr Quart to serve another 12 months on the McClure Community Homes board in Hamilton, after he'd already been found to have examples of absolute mismanagement. You reappointed him, you rewarded him. You paid him $60,000 to do it more for another 12 months.

We're simply saying to you, why do you feel so compelled to stand in this House and defend incompetence? Obviously, as minister you are the captain of the non-profit ship -- we are going to rename it the Titanic -- and I want to know, are you going to go down with your ship and resign?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's another example of the wonderful stew that can get served up by the member for Mississauga South when she wants a tasty morsel for the media. She has linked together items which are not in the least connected, and it is absolutely not the case that we do not care about the administration of this program.

The member for Mississauga South would prefer to raise issues that are old issues and say that our government doesn't care about them, that our government has done nothing about them. Our government has redesigned the whole program. She doesn't want to learn that, she doesn't want to see that and she will never say it, but it's true.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question's to the Premier. Premier, as we raise case after case of fraud, mismanagement, overspending, conflict of interest and patronage, it is becoming very clear that the problems --

Hon Mr Farnan: Solemn voice now for this question.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Throw that member out, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: It may be greater punishment to stay. I must caution the member for Cambridge. He has been asked before to come to order, and I caution him now to please come to order. The leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Harris: It's becoming very clear that the problems in government housing are systemic. They go well beyond the scope of the current minister. This black hole is bigger than all of your cabinet. We can continue to appoint legislative committees to investigate individual matters, we can continue to call in the police, but the bottom line is that the system needs to be fixed.

Premier, given the litany of revelations under your government and the former Liberal government and given that those who need help are not getting it, will you today establish a judicial inquiry into government housing in Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think there needs to be a debate about the issue of non-profit and social housing across the province.

I must say to the honourable member, my concern about some of the rhetoric I hear from him and from his colleagues is that it will lead to the elimination of non-profit and social housing in the province, and that's not something we want to see.

I would say to the honourable member that it is crucial for the accounting and for the efficiency of the program to be improved all the time. We had some valuable advice from the public accounts committee yesterday, which advice I think is going to be very helpful to us, and it already has been. We are already putting in place measures which we believe are going to improve the accountability of the system.

But my concern has been if you look, for example, at the fact that in community and social services there are 7,000 agencies which receive public funds and which are run by non-profit boards; in the area of housing we have hundreds of such boards and in health it's a similar situation. I think we have to come to terms as a province. If you want to eliminate these programs, the impact will be serious. If you want to eliminate volunteers, the impact will also be serious.

I would say to the honourable member, we constantly need to be reviewing and trying to improve the system. We have to improve accountability. We have to make sure that measures are in place.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We have to ensure that people are advised and informed and able to deal with it.

With respect to the particular question the honourable member asked, I don't happen to believe that a judicial inquiry is the route for us to go. We referred it to a committee once; I'd be happy to refer the general subject to a committee again. It's still in public accounts. I think that's where it belongs in terms of letting the province see what the issue is.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: If we have hundreds, indeed thousands of volunteer agencies, we have to find the accountability mechanisms that allow this to work, but I, for one, don't want to see the elimination of non-profit housing across the province, including in Scarborough.

Mr Harris: Ontario's government housing industry is the biggest boondoggle this province has seen. In fact, it may be the biggest government mess North America has seen. I tell you that it certainly rivals HUD, the Housing and Urban Development scandal in the United States. I think we're dealing with more misspent taxpayer dollars in fraud than the HUD scandal of the States. "Non-profit housing" has become a dirty word. Corruption, waste and mismanagement in the affordable housing industry have tainted ministers from Chaviva Ho_ek to Evelyn Gigantes.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, please come to order.

Mr Harris: It was partially responsible for the fall of the last government, as the root of the Patti Starr affair. Premier, it is time to put a stop to the HUD of the north.

I ask again, will you appoint a member of the judiciary to head up an inquiry into the massive sinkhole that is government housing in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I think we should be relying on the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee for advice. I would say to the member, just because he's getting advice from American consultants who are preoccupied with the experiences of the Republican Party in the United States and with the experiences of the Reagan administration in the United States and with the campaigns of Ollie North and all of his friends down in the United States, don't ask me to get on your Ronald Reagan bandwagon. I will not get on it; it's not the way to go.

What we need is a good system of public accountability where we have help from the Provincial Auditor. I think that's the best approach to take. Perhaps we could lend the American flag to the leader of the third party.

But I want to tell the honourable member, if he wants to have a serious discussion about this, that's fine, but his level of rhetoric, the inflamed level of rhetoric that's there, is completely out of proportion to what in fact we are facing in terms of public administration.

Mr Harris: Premier, every day you delay, the situation gets worse. Six years ago, on December 5, 1988, even before the Patti Starr fiasco, as Housing critic I raised this issue. I warned the former government that there was fraud, that there was abuse, that 100% government dollars was leading to a massive ripoff of taxpayer dollars.

Premier, you say the auditor is the way to deal with this. Two years ago the Provincial Auditor revealed massive problems. He revealed that by 1995 operating subsidies alone will cost $1 billion a year. Taxpayers are on the hook for billions of dollars in mortgages for units that, at the end of the day, taxpayers won't own. It is in everyone's interest to clean up the mess.

As an interim measure, will you immediately freeze all existing and all new projects until a new government can scrap the program and bring in shelter subsidies that will truly help people who need help? Will you at least do that?

Hon Mr Rae: Now we see what the real agenda of the new right is. The agenda of the new right is to eliminate non-profit and social housing altogether. That's the agenda of the new right. I say to the honourable member that's a subject that's worth discussing and we can continue to discuss that. I will tell you, I was last week at a housing project in Hamilton, and there were disabled kids there with better access to decent housing, better access to good care --

Mr Harris: Fraud, mismanagement, conflict of interest, patronage. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Crooks.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- better access to decent shelter than they ever had under a Conservative government --

Mr Harris: Patronage, fraud, mismanagement, incapable ministers, a cabinet that doesn't understand what's going on.

The Speaker: Order, the leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that would shut down non-profit housing and would shut down social housing. That is not a step I'm prepared to take.

Accountability, yes; your new right, Tory agenda, no. We're going to have better accountability. We're not going to shut down the program. That's exactly what we're going to do.

Mrs Marland: You have some gall to talk about disabled children. Don't ever talk about disabled children in this place.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Mississauga South please come to order.

The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Mrs McLeod: Again to the Minister of Housing, we have asked a question in the Legislature and we are asking for an answer. This is not a question about the NDP's grand design for social housing; it is not an invitation to a debate about the appropriate role of non-profit housing. It is a question to a minister who pursues non-profit housing so exclusively and with such blinders on that she refuses to hear the questions, let alone to answer them.

This is a very specific case. It is a concern about a private profit made with public dollars on a land-flip deal to a non-profit corporation. It is a concern about a case which is clearly unacceptable and which your ministry knew about for at least three years. The question is a straightforward one: What have you done and when did you do it?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The specifics of the case are not open for me to raise in this House and not to raise at all, in fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa West, come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The police are involved in inquiries around the case --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It would be very foolish, as the leader of the Liberal Party knows, the leader of the official opposition, and it would be unethical for a minister to talk about the specifics of a case which is under police investigation. It can very well jeopardize what is going to happen in the police case, so I'm not going to do that.

Mrs Marland: You don't talk about it even when it isn't under investigation, for crying out loud.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: But I will repeat to her that in fact the allegations that have been around for some time are allegations which have led to a change in the non-profit and have led to the installation of a new project management firm at the non-profit, and that dates back to September 1992.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, there does seem to be something of a double standard in the House today, because you considered it quite appropriate in a case in Ottawa with a court case pending not only to comment but in fact to meet with the parties. Today in the Legislature you will not respond to a very legitimate question in an area in which you clearly have responsibilities as a Minister of Housing. That is not acceptable.

I say to you that it is not acceptable to attempt to defend the non-profit housing system, to which you are clearly committed, unless you are prepared to deal quickly and decisively with clear evidence of abuse. It is clearly unacceptable to have a private individual make a profit of $135,000 on a land-flip deal.

I ask you, if you consider that unacceptable -- and I trust that as a Minister of Housing you consider it completely unacceptable -- what do you believe should be done in such a case, and are you doing it in this case?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Liberal leader is trying to get me to say that something happened. I don't know that something happened. Perhaps she was here earlier when one of my colleagues pointed out very clearly that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The issues that have been raised are serious issues, and they deserve to be dealt with in a serious manner. To compare what is happening here with my conversations with the non-profit board last week, these are totally different kinds of questions. In one area, I was attempting to mediate a dispute among board members; in another area, I have responsibilities as a minister, which I intend to execute in the way I think appropriate and which she would agree is appropriate if she were being straight.

INVESTIGATION OF CROWN ATTORNEY

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It pertains to an

article that was in the Globe and Mail this morning dealing with a police probe of a crown lawyer dealing with sexual allegations against a Thunder Bay prosecutor. The

article indicates that police have known of the allegations against this prosecutor since last August.

I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us when the regional crown attorney first learned of this, when her ministry first learned of this and what steps the ministry has taken since that time.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): In -- and I believe it was -- August of last year, the police in Thunder Bay promptly brought to the attention of the ministry the allegations that had been made. We followed our usual procedure at that time. We encouraged a thorough investigation. We advised the police that a senior crown attorney, not in the region and not connected with that particular office, would review any legal issues that the police might have.

The police advice at that point was that although they were concerned, they had no corroboration for the allegations. However, it did prompt a human relations investigation. There was some disciplinary action taken at that point in time. Similarly, when additional allegations were brought forward, a similar prospect was done. People were encouraged to thoroughly investigate and to follow the same procedure.

Mr Harnick: My understanding is that this investigation continues to this day. In fact, there is some idea that the police are going to forward the results of their investigation to your office for a determination as to the next step.

I'm quoting the article, when it refers to the crown attorney stating that "he holds a position of the utmost public trust. He has access to police records and evidence, and decides whether to prosecute those suspected of committing crimes." These allegations that have been made against the crown attorney are very serious allegations. I wonder why, during the course of an investigation and knowledge by the ministry for at least the last nine months, this crown attorney has continued actively prosecuting cases pending the completion of this investigation, and is that status of this crown attorney going to continue?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There was an investigation of the initial allegations, and it was determined that there was no further action going to be taken by the police at that point in time. One then obviously is faced, in a human relations sense, with the appropriate disciplinary action.

I can assure the member that there was disciplinary action taken, that the cases assigned to the crown attorney were carefully chosen to ensure that there was no conflict of interest in the particular area in which the investigation occurs.

The member is well aware that this is not an isolated case. There are other issues where crown attorneys are accused of a number of things. Certainly, as soon as charges are laid, there are reassignments made to prevent someone from having any position where they might have undue influence over the administration of justice.

In this case, as the member points out quite clearly, the investigation is proceeding and it would be inappropriate to comment about further action at this point in time.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Many school boards in my riding have had difficulty dealing with their budgets. While they recognize the province does not have a lot of money, they are concerned that there must be a recognition of the special needs of the north as there are higher heating costs, transportation and other isolated costs.

Minister, do the grants that your ministry gives to school boards take into account the extra costs faced by northern boards?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the member. This ministry does recognize and accept the fact that for smaller schools and smaller boards there are additional costs, especially in northern Ontario. In the GLGs, the general legislative grants, there were in fact $93 million included in the 1994 GLGs that specifically went to small schools and small boards, most of which went to northern Ontario.

Mr Wood: The administrator of the Kapuskasing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has recently stated that students in the board received only $5,000 in funding, while the same students in Toronto received $9,000. Minister, is this true, and if so, why is this unfair situation allowed to continue?

Hon Mr Cooke: The administration at your board would understand that grants that come from the ministry are based on the wealth of the board. In Metropolitan Toronto, the comparison would be that there is no GLG money that goes to the public boards. In your area it's several thousand, and the expenditure per pupil is $7,300 at the Kapuskasing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

I should also point out that because of the differences, capital grants are also directed to boards that need them the most. In your particular area, your school boards received $38 million in capital grants in the most recent capital announcements that our ministry made on behalf of the government. None of that money goes to Metropolitan Toronto's public board. You got $38 million because of the good work that you do, but because your board needed it as well.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last December, during the work of my task force on cancer care, we heard stories of unacceptable delays in the special approvals process for certain cancer drugs. We heard from cancer specialists who were particularly concerned about the eight- to nine-week delay for approvals for GCSF, which is a drug that's used to help chemotherapy patients fight life-threatening infections, obviously a drug which gives cancer patients the maximum chance of fighting their disease.

You told me when I raised those concerns in the Legislature that you believed the system for special approvals was working but that you would undertake to make sure there were not undue delays.

You're aware that a news conference was held today by AECCO, Access to Effective Cancer Care in Ontario, which is a coalition. They determined, through information they got under freedom of information, that the average waiting time for this drug between June 1992 and December 1993 was 61 days. That is still almost seven weeks.

I think we have to be clear about who this particular special approvals process affects: it's for those who are on drug benefit plans, so it is the poor and the elderly, and they are waiting an unconscionably long time for a drug that they need immediately. Minister, do you consider this to be a system that's working?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this, because I don't recall when it was the Leader of the Opposition had raised it, but certainly it is an issue with which I've been concerned and I'm delighted to be able to tell her and to tell the House that yes, indeed, as the people who had the press conference this morning indicated, between June 1992 and December 1993 there was an unnecessary and, in my opinion, unacceptable delay for the availability of this drug. I said I would look into it, and I'm glad to be able to tell her the problem has been fixed.

In fact, between January 1994 and April 1994, our information is that we're looking at seven or eight days.

What we did was to indicate that urgent requests for this drug be treated on a priority basis, and we have a commitment to physicians that we will respond to those requests within seven days. That's happening, the system is working and the problem is no longer in existence.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I'm not sure if you gave the data on the average length of time to the coalition that had the press conference this morning. They've tried for some time to get information so that they could be absolutely fair in raising their concern after what has been a long period of time to get information on the average waiting time for this drug.

They did indicate that they believed anecdotally, because they couldn't get the information on the current statistics, that there had been some improvement, but that there were still inconsistencies in the length of time that was needed to get approval, and there were also very real inconsistencies in terms of who did get approval for the use of this drug and who did not.

It's also been made very clear that the time frame for response should be 48 hours, that people need this drug very quickly, and that in other provinces they have brought about a turnaround time considerably better than the time in Ontario. Alberta's is answered within a week; in Saskatchewan, they've managed a three- to four-day turnaround; in Quebec, in New Brunswick, in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, it does take only two days to get an answer to a request for this particular drug.

Clearly, Minister, you would agree that it is absolutely unacceptable that cancer patients in Ontario should have to wait a needlessly long time for a drug which they need so desperately. Will you tell us whether or not you can get the response time for this drug down to within 48 hours, and that there will be a consistent process for approvals so that people know who will get it and that they will get it quickly?

Hon Mrs Grier: My understanding is that there is a consistent process for approval, and as I said in response to the first question, we've reduced the time from 61 days to seven days. Let me say to the member that on some occasions when the oncologist can give advance notice of the intent to prescribe the drug, we can in fact move that up. The commitment is that we do it within seven days. There are many occasions when it is less than that, and obviously if you're going to make that kind of a commitment, you have the commitment to do it as quickly as possible. That's what we've achieved, that's what we're doing and that's what cancer patients deserve.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General, who disappeared but her books are still on her desk.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there some other minister to whom you wish to address the question?

Mr Harnick: I suspect she hasn't gone far, and after all, question period's only one hour in length.

The Speaker: I'm afraid I can't be of help to the member, other than to invite him to place a question to some other minister or allow his colleague to ask a question.

Mr Harnick: To the Minister of Housing: a question. Minister, do you think that it's appropriate -- oh, here's the Attorney General. May I take that back, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: We're all so congenial today. Of course.

Mr Harnick: Thank you. My question is to the Attorney General: Do you think that it is appropriate for a minister of the crown to ask a private citizen to withdraw a charge that that private citizen has laid in a court in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Mr Speaker, the member is obviously trying to draw me into the questions that have been asked of the Minister of Housing, and I'm not prepared to participate in that game.

Mr Harnick: You may not be prepared to participate in that game, but you are responsible for the administration of justice in this province. That's number one.

Number two, you, as the chief law enforcement officer, more than anyone in this province should know that it's highly improper, it's most improper, for a minister of the crown to pressure a private citizen into withdrawing a charge that citizen laid. You know that and every minister in your government including the Premier knows that. Now, get up and acknowledge it or you shouldn't be the Attorney General.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Obviously if that were to happen it would be improper, but the Minister of Housing has clearly denied that's the case.

Mr Harnick: If it were to happen, it would be improper?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would remind the member, who had a histrionic display in this Legislature not very long ago about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty, that we believe in the presumption of innocence on this side of the House.

Mr Harnick: If it happened, it's wrong? Well, it did happen.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

ACCESS TO FORESTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Recently, I met with a number of anglers and hunters in my constituency office. They are extremely upset, to say the least, in regard to the current policy when it comes to the resource access road policy that the ministry currently utilizes.

As the minister would know, what happens is that a forest company, in order to be able to harvest timber in a particularly sensitive area that might be near a tourist outfitter's lake, builds a road in order to get that timber out. When the harvesters are out of there, the road remains and the ministry posts a sign saying that you can't access it.

What can the minister say to the anglers within the riding of Cochrane South, and I would say generally in northern Ontario, who face these signs, are extremely upset and would like to see them taken down?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The question is a good one and it's very important across northern and central Ontario. The reality is, the Ministry of Natural Resources tries to manage crown lands with a variety of interests and a diversity of values in mind.

When forest access roads are built, the Ministry of Natural Resources, through the timber management plan, tries to get all the various interest groups to attend open houses, to review the timber management plan and to focus their attention upon where roads are going and what other resources other than forest resources may be accessed.

The use of timber management planning and the use of open houses to draw public attention and focus public attention on fishery issues and other wildlife issues is not always successful, and I acknowledge, as the member has indicated, that it creates a lot of controversy.

We are trying, through the new Crown Forest Sustainability Act, to find another method of focusing public attention on the diversity of values and issues that need to be resolved.

Mr Bisson: I think most people would agree that what we really need to do is to find a way to involve those people who utilize the forests from all sectors, not only the harvesters of the timber but also those people who access forests for recreational use, at the very beginning so that we can find a better way of trying to deal with these issues at the beginning. If we're able to come to terms with that, possibly we're able to eliminate some of the conflict that arises afterwards.

I wonder if you can explain for the constituents of Cochrane South and those people interested how the sustainable forest initiatives would deal with that current situation and alleviate possibly some of those problems.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is quite right. As the system exists now and has existed for some time, the perception is that the Ministry of Natural Resources makes all the decisions as to which roads can be used, which ones must be closed and which ones must have some restrictions. That's not a fair representation of the issues, but that is certainly the public perception.

What needs to happen is, we need to provide a system where local citizens and interest groups actually become involved in the decision-making. Under the new legislation, we propose to have local citizens' committees. Those committees would be struck to analyse all of the resource use issues and would be required to work at finding resolutions to some of the disputes and trying to overcome some of the local conflicts.

The end result is that people will be more involved in the decision-making, they will be more responsible for the decisions which are the eventual outcome and, in the final analysis, Ministry of Natural Resources officials will not be blamed for decisions which will always involve a compromise or a consensus.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, if I could have his attention. Last September I raised the issue of the Workers' Compensation Board -- actually that American flag would be appropriate for this question; you might want to hold on to it -- choosing to buy a flooring system for its new building, Simcoe Towers, from a company in the state of Michigan. They chose the American manufacturer over a company right here in Oakville which manufactures a cheaper system of equal or better quality.

To share with you and remind you, this is a sample of the elevated floor system that's made right here in Oakville with a wood core, the Canadian product with a wood core. The American one has a concrete core. Studies have shown the Canadian floor to be more flexible, longer lasting, equal in strength and half a million dollars cheaper, with five times the warranty of the American product. It's been installed in numerous government buildings.

What is new, Minister, is that your own staff who write the specifications for government projects prefer the Canadian floor system. The distributor who got the contract prefers the Canadian floor system. But the Workers' Compensation Board thinks it knows best.

It's not too late. The contract has not been let yet and given to the American company. Will you review this ridiculous decision by the Workers' Compensation Board and give this contract to the company in Oakville to save Canadian jobs?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Because of some of the words the member used in his question, I can't respond in the way the member might expect. I will look into the matter the member has raised and get back to him with regard to the matter. But the member should choose his words a little more carefully in his questions, if he would like a straightforward answer.

Mr Mahoney: I don't understand what words seem to upset this minister. There's a Canadian product manufactured in Oakville. The WCB has chosen to buy a product that has clearly been demonstrated not to be as effective, with a lower warranty, and costing half a million dollars more, from the United States. I don't know what you're offended about.

Let me give you an example. You, Minister, have installed this Canadian product, or you are installing it, in the new Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs building in Guelph, the Ministry of Natural Resources building in Peterborough, the Ministry of Transportation building in St Catharines, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation building in Niagara Falls, the Ontario Provincial Police building in Orillia, the Ontario lottery headquarters in Sault Ste Marie. It appears to be good enough. It's even got a stamp of approval from the Ministry of Housing. It appears to be good enough for all your projects, but it's not good enough for the Workers' Compensation Board.

Sometimes in government we get a chance to actually do something. The contract has not yet been awarded to the company from Michigan. A simple change order will ensure that the company in Oakville gets this contract, that a Canadian product is used, and 50 to 75 --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- Canadian, Ontario, Oakville jobs will be saved. Will you now instruct the Workers' Compensation Board to buy Canadian?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite has loaded his second question with another pile of assumptions and the member across the way has no understanding of their necessary validity. Both of the products in question, the Canadian product and the American product, happen to be excellent products. There is no question about that. I've not seen the technical specs that were sent out in the building design for the Workers' Compensation Board, but the member opposite has absolutely no expertise in this field either, and his knowledge of the applicability of the two products, I will look into and report back on.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to Bill 163, in which the residents of York, Durham and Caledon have specific interest as to the superdumps that have been created in these three areas or are being suggested be created in these three areas.

Minister, the policy statements you set out in Bill 163 try to protect agricultural land. They try to protect the supply and efficient use and conservation of water. Bill 143 on the other hand allows the Interim Waste Authority and your government to build superdumps on agricultural land, on aquifers. These two bills are in direct conflict. How can you justify this contradiction?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is no conflict, as I pointed out in the House when the Minister of Environment and Energy was unable to be here. The most comprehensive, rigorously tested, engineeringly sound system to protect the environment was in fact initiated in the site selection for the dumps.

I can tell you there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever, and I think if the member wants to ask another question to the Minister of Environment, the minister would be happy to go through that with him.

Mr Tilson: You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and you know that, because the fact of the matter is you're building superdumps on farm lands, and yet Bill 163 says that you're going to try and protect farm land. You're going to protect the sources of water. You're doing the very thing, with Bill 143, that Bill 163 says you can't do. I say you're setting up two sets of rules. You're setting up one set of rules for developers and land owners, and a second set for agencies of your own government.

Minister, you don't have any credibility, and when it comes to protecting farm land, why don't you simply admit defeat and can these three superdumps that you're building throughout the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Philip: The lack of credibility is with the Conservative Party. They're against all the environmental provisions included in the Planning Act that we've just introduced, and against open government. They want closed doors and no environmental protection. That's what they've said in the debate on the bill.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for allowing me to get my question on. It's been of concern to my constituents since we made the announcement because they want to know about the fruit lands --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom?

Ms Haeck: Sorry, to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I'm so excited about being able to get my question on that I forgot who it's for.

The Niagara fruit land protection program, which we announced probably about six weeks ago, has been of great interest to my constituents. We've had a lot of calls about the process, and in light of some comments by a regional councillor, I gather there was some concern on the part of my constituents as to whether the region was going to be able to put the money in place to make sure the program was going to fly.

Obviously, that's an extremely important issue for a lot of farmers in my area and I would like to ask the minister, since I'm aware that he has been in discussions with the local community, what was resolved.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member from Niagara raises a good question. A number of the farmers who wished to access this new program to protect tender fruit lands are concerned and would like to know when they can get on with it.

We have an advisory committee that is working with the ministry in designing this program so it's user-friendly, so that farmers can access it and understand it. That committee has had, I think, two meetings to date, and there's another meeting coming up, I believe it's this week, with staff to design the program, work at setting benchmarks, which will be the amount of money farmers might receive in return for putting an easement on their title. That is being worked out, so we will have a process. I hope it will be up and running for the fall and that applications will be available hopefully by September or October.

The other point the member raised is about the regional government. They are putting in some money as well, and I think the member has heard from some of the regional councillors that they haven't voted the money yet. I'm confident that the regional council down in Niagara will in fact find the necessary money to fund this program.

PETITIONS

CAMPING FEES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that's signed by thousands of people in my riding, mainly the scouting and guiding groups, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government has levied a fee for camping at group campsites in provincial parks; and

"Whereas the scouts and guides are children, with leaders and assistants being volunteers;

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

"To remove the levy charge from scouting and guiding groups camping at provincial parks."

Our people feel very strongly about this, and I would like the government to consider it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition from Elmira Pentecostal Assembly, Rev James Gibson. It's been signed by approximately 56 people:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

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

"Whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, will be given to same-sex relationships if any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' as a grounds of discrimination;

"Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation.'"

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by many people in the London area:

"Whereas the right for workers to refuse to do unsafe work is an essential component of health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the threat of sending coworkers home without pay during a work refusal constitutes significant peer pressure to continue to work in unsafe conditions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario to bring private member's Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, before the Legislature for third reading."

I've affixed my signature to the petition in support.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I keep on receiving petitions from my constituents from Manor Park, and the petition reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas this reduction in coverage will affect all Ontarians but will have the greatest impact upon seniors, many of whom travel south of the border for important health reasons and who will be forced to absorb a tremendous hike in their health insurance premiums;

"Whereas the government has justified its decision on the basis of not wanting to pay exorbitant hospital costs, even though currently out-of-country hospital coverage is based solely on the rates charged by Ontario hospitals;

"Whereas the reduction in out-of-country hospitalization coverage below the rates charged by Ontario hospitals represents an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act;

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

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

That's signed by many signatures from Elmvale, Fergus, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Mississauga, and I have attached my name to it too.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here. It's signed with 142 names, plus my own. It's the Grimsby seniors regarding automobile road testing for senior citizens 80 years and over. The petition reads:

"That one day each year be designated by the Ministry of Transportation in the town of Grimbsy as a road driving skills testing centre for those licensed holders who are 80 years of age and over."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition signed by over 200 constituents of mine who are tenants of Cliffwood Manor at 4000 Don Mills Road in North York. That's in the riding of Oriole. They say:

"We, the undersigned, tenants of the above building, respectfully petition Your Honour to suspend temporarily the enforcement of the Housing ministry's policy with regard to geared-to-income rent increases from 25% to 30% over a five-year period.

"We, the seniors on old-age security and other tenants on geared-to-income rent request Your Honour to review the impact this policy will have on those tenants least able to afford the rent increase.

"We would greatly appreciate being consulted before Your Honour proceeds further with the implementation of this policy."

I affix my signature to this petition and think that their request to be consulted and for consultation to discuss the impact of the policy is a very reasonable request.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from the Leeds anglers and hunters to Ontario Premier Bob Rae and Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly:

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

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

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

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and 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."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got 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 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'll sign my name in support of this.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in St Catharines and Thorold concerned about the possible consequences of a consultant's report on Hotel Dieu Hospital. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, refuse to accept the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital emergency department and the reduction of available hospital beds. We strongly urge the hospital boards and the Niagara District Health Council to crush the consultant's report. The Hotel Dieu Hospital board has already taken this position. Implementation of the report would have disastrous consequence for the people of our community. We are committed to keeping two emergency departments in St Catharines and beds open."

I support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the citizens of Ontario, agree that clear dealings between the present justice system and the public establish a positive relationship for all concerned;

"Whereas one building block for such a relationship is a fair and accurate way of dealing with habitual child sex- offenders;

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

"We believe that one way of dealing with convicted habitual child sex-offenders upon release that his/her photo and address be made available to the public for a minimum of seven years in whatever area of the province he/she takes residence."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. To shorten it down, the member for Durham-York read most of it, but I'll go down to the bottom:

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

These are from St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Fonthill and the Niagara Peninsula. There are 11 names here. I would appreciate if I could get from the Clerk the last petition that Mr Bradley read out so that I am able to respond to some of the signatures that are on his petition.

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

"Whereas more than 13,000 Canadians 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 the 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 other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

That's signed by over 50 of my constituents. I've also signed the petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This petition is signed by hundreds of my constituents and it's opposed to the mandatory nature of junior kindergarten. As you know, our Common Sense Revolution also makes that recommendation, that junior kindergarten should not be a mandatory program. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

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

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have here a petition from Herbert Enns:

"We, the undersigned members, in adherence of the W-K United Mennonite Church in Waterloo, Ontario, affirm that our country is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity of each person, the importance of the family and the value of community. We strongly disagree with the government's proposed legislation to include same-sex relationships as having the same rights, privileges and benefits of the God-ordained male-female family unit."

That has been signed by many people in the city of Waterloo and throughout the community.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here. It says:

"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 insure riders who drive certain models of 'supersport bikes'; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this 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."

That's signed by 15 people from Orillia, Beaverton, Keswick and Lindsay. I have affixed my name to it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

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

Bill 179,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 179, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Hansen, do you have any brief remarks?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Yes, I have a couple of brief remarks. This Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act is crucial to the long-term viability of Ontario's trucking industry and to the lifespan of our highways. It would create shared responsibilities between shippers and motor carriers -- namely, truckers -- for compliance with Ontario's laws governing allowable truck axle weights.

Right now, some drivers are being told by shippers to simply take a load or leave it for someone else to haul. This is because shippers do not have to comply with current legislation respecting allowable truck axle weights but truckers do. That's not fair to the trucking industry and it's not fair to Ontarians who have to pay big tax dollars to maintain our efficient and expensive highway system.

The NDP government has studied this issue for five years and it is now about time we did something about it. A government industry weight review committee comprised of shippers, carriers, owner-operators and government was established to resolve this long-standing issue and its key recommendation was to have this legislation brought forward as soon as possible. That's what I've done here in my private member's bill, which is officially titled the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1994.

Truck axle weight laws may not seem to be of great significance to some, but the wear and tear on our highway system can be impacted to a great degree by the level of compliance with these laws. I think both shippers and truckers should share responsibility for complying with axle weight laws. It's good for all of us.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to let the member know that when I ask for brief remarks, I mean it in the real sense of the word -- brief.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

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

Bill 180,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act / Projet de loi 180, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief remarks?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Yes, Mr Speaker, they're brief. The bill provides for a maximum fine of $10,000 for those persons convicted of operating a business without a licence contrary to a bylaw of the metropolitan council or the metropolitan licensing commission.

The council may refuse to issue, suspend, revoke or impose conditions on a licence where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant or licensee will not carry on their business in accordance with the law. A condition of a licence may be that the hours of operation of the business be restricted. The refusal to issue the suspension or the revocation of a licence of the imposition of conditions on a licence may be appealed to the Divisional Court.

PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 163,

An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes relating to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la

Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la

Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la

Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There is an understanding that there will be a deferred vote. This will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1541 to 1546.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Philip has moved second reading of Bill 163,

An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Crozier, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 60; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? To which committee shall it be sent?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): To the justice committee.

The Deputy Speaker: To the justice committee? Agreed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will give a chance to leave the House for those members who wish to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Consideration of Bill 119,

An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à empêcher la fourniture de tabac aux jeunes et à en réglementer la vente et l'usage par les autres.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Parliamentary assistant, you had a request?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'd request that we allow staff on to the floor and to move down to the front row.

The Chair: I believe the member for Leeds-Grenville had the floor when we last debated.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): We want to make sure that we're procedurally correct, that the table has all the amendments I've put forward in respect of Bill 119, that they're all in order, and that they have sufficient copies as well.

When the debate adjourned some time ago -- in fact, I forget how long ago -- the government and its friends in the lobbying industry had tried to indicate that Mr Jordan, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, and myself have been the sole causes of delay, and in effect suggested, implied, in the advertising in my daily newspaper and in Mike Harris's daily newspaper that we were perhaps going to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of young people in the province of Ontario, a very irresponsible attempt to intimidate members of the Ontario Legislature and one that certainly Mr Jordan, Mr Harris and myself very much resent.

In any event, we'll move on from that. We want to talk again about Bill 119 and specifically the concerns that Mr Jordan and I have about this government's rush to endorse and implement and effect generic or plain cigarette packaging.

Mr Jordan and I, since this matter was discussed in the Legislature, travelled to Ottawa and appeared before the federal health committee dealing with the issue of generic packaging, and again conveyed the concerns of our constituents in terms of the significant job losses that would occur in both Mr Jordan's riding and my riding from firms involved in the packaging industry, and also, in respect of my riding, a firm involved in the production of specialty inks, Kromacorp Inc.

There are other firms in various other parts of Ontario that would also be impacted negatively: a reduction, a loss of well over 1,000 good jobs in Ontario. These are well-paid jobs, jobs with significant benefits attached to them, and all of these industries are making very significant contributions to the communities in which they're located, and to the surrounding areas, and the economies of those communities and areas as well.

The implications, from an economic perspective, are there for everyone to see if indeed they want to take the time to look at them. Up to this point in time we've been met with nothing but reluctance from provincial officials in respect to their preparedness to eliminate this one

section of the legislation, which these amendments are trying to achieve: Simply pull out the generic packaging elements of Bill 119 and we can get on with speedy passage of the bill.

To suggest, as some people have, both within government circles and outside of government circles, that those of us who are concerned about the economic implications of Bill 119 don't care about the health of Ontarians is, at the very least, misleading. I could use stronger language, but I won't. I don't want to see this debate degenerate.

In any event, I want to have some responses from the parliamentary assistant in respect to what's happened at the federal level. As I'm sure he is aware, there's indication now -- I'm not sure if it's been confirmed. There was going to be a committee report tabled this week.

All of the press indications were that the committee, contrary to the original suggestions, was not going to come out with a strong endorsement of the federal government moving into plain packaging legislation, that it was going to urge caution and that any final decision be delayed until the results of, I think, at least two tests, two studies that are currently under way, one being conducted by I believe the University of Toronto, and I'm not sure what other organization or body is conducting the other one.

I think those studies are expected to be available by the end of this calendar year. They would -- the hope is in any event -- deliver a message with respect to what impact plain pack