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

March 21, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LAWRENCE MARTIN

LANDFILL

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

LEGISLATIVE ACADEMY AWARDS

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

UNEMPLOYMENT

ONTARIO HYDRO

LABOUR LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

LABOUR LEGISLATION

ONTARIO HYDRO

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

TENDERING PROCESS

CASINOS

PHOTO-RADAR

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

BROADCAST OF QUESTION PERIOD

LANDFILL

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

EDUCATION FINANCING

HEALTH SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTING

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LAWRENCE MARTIN

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise today to pay tribute to Lawrence Martin, a constituent, friend and colleague from Sioux Lookout, a town in my riding. Lawrence was recognized last night at the 1994 Juno Awards and received the first Juno for the music of aboriginal Canada.

Mr Martin's significant achievements are many and varied. A great deal of his work is making direct contributions to the aboriginal society. In his principal profession of telecommunications, he has worked with Wawatay Communications and currently acts as Wawatay's executive director. As a recording artist, Lawrence is making an enormous contribution to the visibility of native music and native cultures in Canada and abroad.

His extensive leadership capabilities were recognized by the residents of Sioux Lookout in 1991 with his election to the office of mayor. In his capacity as mayor, I have worked with Lawrence on many occasions and I've been struck by his deep concern for his community and his commitment to those around him. It should also be noted that Lawrence is the first native Canadian to be elected mayor of an Ontario town.

I join with Lawrence's many friends, family and colleagues throughout Ontario in recognizing his remarkable achievements in various diverse endeavours, and I congratulate the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for recognizing his great talent. For those of us who know him, Lawrence Martin has come to symbolize the positive linkages that are needed between the many distinct cultures in our society.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Vaughan CARES has released the results of a survey it conducted in January in the Premier's riding. The survey clearly indicates that Mr Rae and the NDP government are totally out of touch with the people of the province of Ontario. A total of 91% of those polled favoured the study of alternatives, including rail haul, incineration, more aggressive 3Rs and central composting. In fact 83% of the residents of York South say that they will not even vote for Premier Rae in the next provincial election.

People want this government to look at alternatives. There are alternatives to building three superdumps in the greater Toronto area. There are alternatives that the people of Peel, York and Durham deserve to have the right to choose.

The residents of York South are making their opinion known to this government, just as the thousands of residents of Durham, Peel and York have been doing since this flawed process began with the passing of Bill 143 and the Ministry of the Environment setting up the Interim Waste Authority.

The survey tells us the people of Ontario expect more from our government. They expect real alternatives to difficult problems. Mike Harris and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party have made a commitment to all the residents of Peel, York and Durham that will seek out alternatives. It is time for the NDP and the Liberals to do the same. No more waffling; no more empty promises; real action from a political party that is willing to make promises and keeps them.

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My riding of Scarborough East covers the waterfront of Lake Ontario from Markham Road to the Rouge River. The presence of the Scarborough Bluffs as well as the Guild Inn means that this area has much to offer the people of Scarborough and the province in the form of natural and cultural amenities.

I've been participating in discussions about the revitalization of Kingston Road, which bounds this area, along with many local representatives. We see the potential of community economic development and of developing local recreational amenities. The lakeshore features add to these possibilities.

There is, however, one drawback. Areas of the bluffs have been undergoing erosion, and this is now proceeding at an alarming rate. My constituent Gerald Quinn of Sylvan Avenue graphically describes it as resembling the Californian earthquakes when they hear objects rattling on their tables. The local residents have been very patient and have put much time into constructive meetings with conservation authority staff.

Discussions about remediation have been going on for some years now and it has been agreed that construction of a breakwater at the foot of the bluffs is a solution. I want to suggest that construction should be a priority of the Metro conservation authority. Funding is always a difficulty, but this could be an ideal infrastructure project for collaboration with the federal government. We're all looking forward to innovative plans for the waterfront from the regeneration trust, but the rapid rate of erosion requires remediation without further delay.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today is designated as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This day was proclaimed by the general assembly of the United Nations. As a matter of fact, some cities and some counties have declared the entire week.

I'm not greatly excited about all this. I'm actually disappointed and almost fed up with the fact that racism issues are being exploited by parties to the right, with their rhetoric and catering to some of the rednecks that goes on with these kinds of remarks, and parties to the left who throw money around and feel that it is Christmastime. The fact is, here it is now like Christmas, so we drop a million dollars here and then we look forward next time again to say, when it comes again, that we will then pay our token contribution to racism.

As you have seen, racism has increased not only in Canada but all around in the world. I am extremely disappointed that today of all the days that we have a day like this, none of the parties here have decided that we would have unanimous consent to speak on this rather serious issue, but what we do is we go around the province and we talk about how concerned we are and committed to eliminating racism.

Commitment is not only money; commitment is a part of feeling the pain of people who are suffering from racism, which should be eliminated by doing something very practical.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Every day members of the Legislature are inundated with mail, much of which is completely unnecessary or members never get an opportunity to read it. Nevertheless, it takes an enormous amount of our time to open the mail, sort the mail and throw out those things which we are not interested in. If one is not concerned about the high labour costs of this exercise, one certainly should be about the environmental cost.

Let's make it perfectly clear that I believe all government documents, such as news releases and annual reports, should be available in both languages so that people do have their choice. That was guaranteed by the passing of the French Language Services Act. But I cannot understand that this government continually distributes every document to every person on its mailing list in both languages.

Environmentalists should be outraged. Taxpayers should be outraged. I believe all government communicators should examine the sensible method employed by the Environmental Assessment Board; that is, offering the document so that you can order it only if you are interested in reading it, and then only taking it in the language of your choice.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today, March 21, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I encourage all members to wear the multicoloured bow, a symbol of the observance of this day, but I would also remind all members that we have a special commitment to show leadership and to work together to fight racism and eliminate all forms of racism and discrimination.

This international day was introduced by the United Nations in the 1960s to remember the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa in which more than 70 peaceful anti-apartheid demonstrators were killed and more than 180 were wounded. The significance of today is also to proclaim and recognize that racial discrimination is a global problem.

On July 29 of last year, I rose in this Legislature to inform the members of the resolution passed by the city of Kitchener condemning acts of racism or discrimination and endorsing the development of policies and actions that will send a clear message that racism will not be tolerated in this or any other community.

In Ontario diversity is our greatest strength, but, sadly, Ontario has not escaped racism. We recognize that racism is one of the serious barriers we face to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this province. Not only is racism unjust, it also results in an enormous waste of human resources.

I would like to take the time to thank the Regional Multicultural Youth Council of Northwestern Ontario for supplying us with bows today. Let us wear the multicoloured bow as a sign of our commitment to fighting racism every day of the year.

LEGISLATIVE ACADEMY AWARDS

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): In anticipation of the other Academy Awards tonight, I thought I might just present the Ontario Legislature's own Academy Awards.

In the category of worst original score by an outgoing Premier in an unsupportive role, there's only one nominee; and for his rather screeching performance of We're All in the Same Sinking Ship Now, the winner is Bob Rae.

In the category of best question period performance by an actress, the nominees are Marilyn Churley, for Casino Queen; Frances Lankin, for I Could Go On Like This For Ever; and Marion Boyd, for In the Name of the Mother; and the winner is Shelley Martel, for Silent as a Lamb.

Finally, the nominees for best actor are Floyd Laughren, for Honey, I Lost Two Billion; Tony Silipo, for Naked Food Bank; Bob Mackenzie, for In the Name of the Brothers and Sisters; Bob Rae, for That Was Then, This Is Now; and Gilles Pouliot, for Smile, You're On Photo-Radar; and the winner is the entire NDP caucus, for Unforgiven.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today marks the anniversary of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it is on this day that we reconfirm our commitment to rid the world of racism.

The United Nations proclaimed this day in 1966 in memory of the 69 South Africans killed protesting apartheid in the Sharpeville massacre of 1960. Since then we have seen reform in South Africa, with the first ever country-wide election involving all the people of South Africa just a month away. We have seen the release of Nelson Mandela and we have seen a government respond to the needs of the people.

But this day is not just about South Africa. The Sharpeville massacre acted as the catalyst for the recognition of racism. It brought to the forefront the need for public disclosure of racism and racist practices by governments, organizations and individuals in our society.

Today our world is as complicated as it was in 1960. There's a rise in wars against racial groups. We need only to draw our attention to the former Yugoslavia, where an ethnic war has raged, Ireland, where there's a battle between Protestant and Catholic, and in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

Closer to home, we have noted a rise in anti-Semitic activities by neo-Nazis. We've seen attacks on members of our ethnic communities. We've seen widespread outbursts of protest against individuals in our society, whether it be spray-painting swastikas on the Ontario Legislature or the increase of printed hate propaganda against Jewish people, ethnic minorities or aboriginals.

The first step to eliminating racism is understanding. Let us understand we have a need to fight this together.

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise today to speak with some very good news. I want to tell folks about the Algoma Steel Corp. I'd like to tell the members here that for every $100 invested in the common shares of Algoma on November 10, 1992, yesterday they were worth $29,500 each. That's 300 times more in the space of 16 months.

What has happened is that the Algoma shares have caused a lot of people to kick themselves in their behinds, none the least your people who stood in this Legislature. I have it in Hansard here. In September 1991 you took the Premier to task. You said he'd lost his compass in the woods. You took the cabinet to task because you said we didn't know what we were doing. I've got it on record here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: Mr Kwinter, your critic for that, said: "My concern is there are decisions being made against Algoma Steel that make no business sense at all." He said: "I just have a problem. You're kidding the troops in saying you're going to go in and you're going to go and turn this thing around, you're going to make it a model of efficiency, you're going to be a world beater, because if it could be a world beater, we would have done it."

That's my concern. I haven't got time. The leader of the third party said the same thing. Shame on all of you. Algoma's a success.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a very special group of visitors who are seated in the Speaker's gallery. They are Mr Velo Edward Sibisi, Mr Vusumzi Pikoli, Mr Innocent Sithole, Mr Valley Omar, Mr Sydney Choma and Ms Elsabi Combrinck. They are visiting from South Africa and are here for the next week and a half to observe our parliamentary practices. Please give them a very warm welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also invite all members to join me in welcoming the 16th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament: Laura Baxter, Rainy River; Megan Bradley, Lincoln; Meredith Covert, Northumberland; Christopher Enright, Scarborough East; Alice Evensen, Riverdale; Jonah Gindin, Dovercourt; Cindy Grohnwald, St Catharines; Tracy Haynes, Simcoe West; David Holsworth, Kingston and The Islands; Elisa Hung, Oriole; Allison Imrie, Peterborough; Ross Jordan, Ottawa South; Grant Karn, Elgin; Oliver Long, Algoma-Manitoulin; Sean Lougheed, Bruce; Jennifer MacNaughton, Cornwall; Kim McLeese, Frontenac-Addington; Brie Miles, Wentworth East; Ashley-Bree Nason, Kenora; Dennis Patterson, Lambton; Philip Robinson, York-Mackenzie; François Roy, York Mills; Hsien-Yeang Seow, Oakville South; and Matthew Wereley, Lanark-Renfrew.

Please welcome our latest group of pages.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wish to bring to your attention a matter that seriously infringes my rights and privileges as a member of this Legislature. On or about February 7, the Minister of Municipal Affairs placed a massive advertisement in Ottawa-Carleton newspapers on Bill 77.

In this ad he stated, "The bill will be law well in advance of the official closing date for nominations of October 14, 1994." In addition, he said, "I'm calling on the opposition members of the Legislature to cooperate in seeing that this legislation is implemented." Finally, he erroneously stated, "The public has indicated that the time to implement these reforms," meaning Bill 77, "has arrived."

These statements infringe on my rights in three ways. First, the minister has misused public funds for strictly partisan purposes by trying to intimidate the opposition. Second, the minister has made a mockery of our parliamentary system by claiming that Bill 77 will be law by next October. Third, despite massive protests from suburban municipalities, the minister wrongly claims that the public wants his reforms. All of these actions seriously undermine my work as a legislator, and I ask that you request of the minister a public retraction of his purely partisan and highly inappropriate letter to Ottawa-Carleton electors.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Nepean, first, I appreciate the fact that he has brought this matter to my attention. He will know that while I don't believe he has a point of privilege, he does touch on something which may in fact be a point of order. I will be delighted to take a look at the material which he has provided and will report back to the member later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. I am sure we would agree that there is one issue that people across this province are more concerned about than any other issue, and the issue is jobs. Premier, you have talked a lot about the need for optimism. You have said that the recession is over, but we see, sadly, the reality of the latest unemployment figures and we see that there are 10,000 fewer jobs in the province of Ontario in January and February of 1994 than there were in January and February of 1993. If the recession is over, how do you explain 10,000 fewer jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I know it's the job of the Leader of the Opposition to make things sounds worse than they really are, but I'm sure if she talked to her colleague the Prime Minister and her colleague the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, they would point out to her the fact that all the indications with respect to this province are that this year is going to be a year of very substantial growth, as was last year.

Let's look at the numbers. We have seen a decline in the number of bankruptcies. We've seen a significant decline in the number of layoffs. We've seen a significant growth in the number of creations of new businesses. We are seeing today, this month, representing the February figures, which were released at the end of last week, an increase of 11,000 new jobs in the province.

I would say to the honourable member that if you look at our strategy with respect to Jobs Ontario and our strategy with respect to encouraging an increase of private investment, we expect that investment this year will increase 8.6% in 1994. We understand that businesses plan to increase their investment this year by 7.2%. We can go with you community by community. In your own community, where I visited just last week, we've got the most substantial investment by Bombardier in partnership with this government --

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

Hon Mr Rae: We're going to have more people employed at that plant than was ever the case during your administration, than ever before.

Perhaps the honourable member would just accept for a moment that things are getting better. I know it defies the rhetoric of the opposition. Things are improving in Ontario. Things are getting better. We are on the right course and we are on the right track.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you are lost in the clouds of your own rhetoric. I suggest you get down to hard reality, look at the numbers and recognize the people behind the numbers. There are 10,000 fewer jobs in Ontario in 1994 than there were at this time in 1993. Those are real numbers and real people.

Premier, I suggest to you that your predictions, your projections about job recovery, are no better than your government's projections about budget revenues. I would suggest to you that your budget problems have a great deal to do with the fact that there are 10,000 fewer jobs in this province. Premier, until we can get the people of this province working again, you are going to continue to have revenue shortfalls.

Premier, your government has predicted that we would see 88,000 new jobs in Ontario in 1994. We already have 10,000 fewer jobs. I ask you today, is this one more projection that is already completely offtrack?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that when she says, for example, that as long as we have such significantly high unemployment we will continue to have a problem with respect to revenues, of course that's true. That's true for our government and that's true for the Liberal government in Ottawa, which I would remind the member is now the federal government, which is continuing its policies of cutting back and discriminating against the province of Ontario, policies which you have been apologizing for and which you have been supporting.

I would say to the honourable member that despite those cutbacks, despite what the federal Liberal government is doing to this province, despite what is taking place, we are determined to keep faith with the people of this province, to maintain the social infrastructure, to maintain the Jobs Ontario programs, to maintain public investment and to make sure that this time next year things will be even better than they are today. We're going to continue on a steady course of job creation, of deficit reduction, a very positive message for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada if only you would let them hear it.

Mrs McLeod: All right, Premier, let's talk about keeping faith with the people of this province. Let's talk about those people community by community whom you want to bring your message of hope and optimism to and let's get back to talking about reality.

I suggest to you that this document reflects the reality in some of those communities across the province of Ontario. This is a listing of job losses in one area alone, Trenton-Belleville. There are 16 pages here documenting some 2,600 job losses in over 100 layoffs or closures over the past three years. This is the reality for the communities of Trenton and Belleville, Premier. I think this reality should say to you that your economic plans are not working in spite of all the rhetoric. Your policies are shutting businesses down and they're putting people out of work. You cannot blame this on anybody but you and your own government.

What's happening in the province of Ontario in January and February 1994 is not what's happening across the rest of this country. If you look at the rest of Canada, you will see that there are 143,000 new jobs in January and February 1994. I ask you again, how do you explain that here in Ontario we are still losing jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not going to get into a statistical game with the Leader of the Opposition. I'm going to say to her very directly and as candidly and as clearly as I can that we have been the government during the most difficult recession this province has seen since the 1930s. If you think that a message from you which says that every job loss is the personal fault of the Premier or the Minister of Finance has any credibility with anyone who's going through this difficult time, you are sadly mistaken.

The Leader of the Opposition has got to come to grips with the fact that there is a very difficult transition. We have stayed the course with the city of Belleville. We have stayed the course with people in Trenton. We have stayed the course with the people in Thunder Bay. When your people were telling us not to help the workers in Kapuskasing, we kept faith with the workers in Kapuskasing. When your people were saying, "Don't do anything for Sault Ste Marie," we kept faith with Sault Ste Marie. You people made a bad deal in terms of the UTDC; we made a good deal in terms of UTDC.

We've kept faith with de Havilland. We've kept faith with the people of this province in a difficult time, and we're going to continue to do that despite the gloom and doom we hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Premier, on another subject which I hope he will at least see as being immediate and real and surely in part his responsibility.

Premier, we are 10 days away from a strike deadline at Ontario Hydro. It is clear that public concern is mounting, and I know you're getting the same letters I'm getting. Placer Dome has written to you. They want you to know that any rotating blackouts would pose immediate, major safety concerns for people who work underground at their mine sites. You've had another letter from Petro-Canada. They've written indicating that they are concerned about the immediate economic, environmental and safety impact of a strike at Ontario Hydro.

I ask you today if you will tell the people of this province what you are doing to make sure the lights stay on in the province of Ontario.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'm going to refer that to the minister responsible.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I recognize the importance of the issue being raised by my friend the Leader of the Opposition and would indicate to her in direct response that my colleague the Minister of Labour has staff meeting with the parties to assist them in the collective bargaining process. We are confident that with goodwill on both sides a voluntary settlement will be negotiated.

Mrs McLeod: We all trust that there can be a settlement reached, but as I indicated some two months ago in raising an issue with the Premier, I believe it is the responsibility of the government, of the minister and of the Premier himself to ensure that the health and safety of the people of this province are not jeopardized in the event that there is not a settlement and in the event that there could be a strike at Ontario Hydro.

I asked over two months ago that the Premier indicate what the government's contingency plans would be in the event of a strike, recognizing that the risks of a strike for workers, for patients, for ordinary citizens could be enormous. I ask you today, Minister, what contingency plans are in place in the event that settlement is not reached and there is a strike at Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Wildman: We're confident that the parties will work hard to bring about a voluntary settlement that will ensure the health and safety of all people of this province. I want to assure the member that I am aware she is more understanding of the collective bargaining process than her question demonstrates and that she would know it is not in the interests of that process at this time to respond in any other way.

Mrs McLeod: I am well aware of the collective bargaining process. I am also aware that there's a situation facing us that we have never before faced in the province, and that is the possibility of an Ontario Hydro strike under the new labour legislation that this government has implemented. It is clear that even Hydro workers themselves are concerned about how they could protect public health and safety in the event of a strike under the new legislation.

Nobody knows how the emergency provisions of Bill 40 are supposed to work. Nobody knows who is going to determine where and when public safety is going to be at risk in the event of a strike. I ask the minister whether any potential agreement with Ontario Hydro workers could act to protect the safety, for example, of the underground workers at Placer Dome. I ask what he will do and what the Premier of this province will do to ensure that there is no risk to public health and safety in the event of a strike at Ontario Hydro.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that it is unusual or in any way surprising that the workers from Ontario Hydro would be concerned about the health and safety of other people in this province. I'm sure that everyone who has had anything to do with the Power Workers' Union and its members understands how seriously they take their responsibilities with regard to all forms of generation in this province, particularly the nuclear generating capacity of this province.

I would say that the best way to protect the health and safety of all workers in this province and the economic benefits that our electricity system produces is to negotiate a voluntary settlement that is acceptable to both sides.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. There are more than 500,000 people out of work in Ontario today, and there are many more who are afraid they will lose the job they have. Among them are residents of Simcoe county.

Premier, 1,900 jobs may be lost there as a direct result of your labour legislation. CN rail intends to abandon the rail line from Collingwood to Barrie, thus killing nearly 2,000 jobs in the area. Private investors would be willing to continue to run this line and save these jobs, but they can't do it. They can't do it because your Bill 40 treats them as if they were the employer of record all those years. Because of successor rights in Bill 40, they cannot take over this line. Are you willing to save these 2,000 jobs in Simcoe county by amending this provision in Bill 40?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that to the minister who's most actively on the file, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Bill 40 is not the issue here. There is nothing catalytic; it's not a make-or-break situation. CN is owned by the federal Liberal government. If there is any intent of ripping up the rail, of sapping that vital resource from people's lives, we shouldn't be asked to carry the guilt. It's not a provincial endeavour.

Furthermore, we did not negotiate those collective agreements. The member mentions Bill 40. All Bill 40 did was to close a loophole. The intent and the spirit of collective agreements were negotiated and are the responsibility of the federal government. We will, of course, once we gauge the full impact of public necessity and convenience, make representation not only on behalf of people, on behalf of the commodities, on behalf of the reason for being of municipalities. But I want to make very clear --

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- that Bill 40 does not prevent an agreement being reached by all parties so that an alternative to the existing process can be found.

Mr Harris: Clearly, we've got the wrong person on the file. Minister, you say it's not a make-or-break deal. CN says it's Bill 40; the investors say it's Bill 40. How would you like to tell the mayor of Collingwood, who has come here today, that it's not a make-or-break deal? Mayor Raymond Barker has come to Queen's Park and is in the gallery today. He's here to represent these workers. He first wrote to your Premier last year. To date, he has no answer. Maybe nobody's on the file, or at least nobody who understands what's going on.

He wrote again earlier this month to you, Premier. Still no answer. He's in the gallery. He's waiting for an answer. Nearly 2,000 Simcoe county families need an answer.

Since you're now on the file, Minister, having heard what people are saying about Bill 40, are you willing to lead the charge in that cabinet as nobody else is willing to? Are you willing to solve this problem by supporting an amendment to Bill 40, or is your concern for jobs nothing more than political rhetoric?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The leader of the third party uses this opportunity as the first question when school's back, when the House resumes today, and indicates that the Minister of Transportation has the wrong file or does not understand the process or diligence in this case. I would like to reciprocate by, with respect, informing the leader of the third party that he was elected to the wrong House: If he's going to cast a stone, he should do it in the big House; he should do it in Ottawa.

I am not aware of an application being put in front of the labour board. I am not aware of a real situation where people have said, "We are willing to seek an alternative to keep people employed: A, B, C, D. What is it you're willing to do?"

All you have to do to be given consideration is to file an application. The proponents know that, the presenters know that. The ball is clearly in their court. We are the facilitator; we wish to make things happen.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to say first that I'm extremely disappointed that the Premier would not answer this question. For nine months the town of Collingwood has tried to get a response from this government, simply a response from the Premier or the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Transportation, that this government cares about 2,000 families in the Collingwood, Midland, Orillia and Barrie areas.

Paul Tellier, the president of CN, wrote the Premier on February 25, after months and months and months of trying to get the Premier and the Minister of Labour to address this issue. He wrote the Premier and simply asked the government to turn its attention to this issue, to sit down and negotiate with the Collingwood Rail Retainment Committee and with CN to try to come to a resolution of this matter.

The government doesn't want to admit that there's a problem with its job-killing Bill 40 labour legislation. The fact of the matter is that this does not belong with the Minister of Transportation; this is an issue that belongs to the Premier and the Ministry of Labour. It is succession rights that is the issue --

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

Mr Jim Wilson: -- and the government cannot get away with sloughing off the question to a minister who knows not of what he speaks.

My question is -- since I'm stuck with this minister -- will you support a private member's bill that I'm to introduce in this House this afternoon? I will introduce that private member's bill to amend Bill 40 so we can save those jobs and get on with creating an economic base in this province that's conducive for business to carry on business. Will your government support my private member's bill? That is the question. I want an answer on behalf of the government.

The Speaker: The question's been placed.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's quite difficult to make a decision on a bill that hasn't been introduced but is in the future some time.

More to the point, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will be meeting with Paul Tellier, who is the CEO, the chairman, of CN. Last Friday, I met with Doug Young, my federal counterpart, the guy from Tracadie who's responsible for the Ministry of Transport at the federal level. And yes, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of MITT and myself, with the Premier's office, with members of caucus, are right on top of the issue.

What I'm saying, simply put, is that there are many components to this -- not to this crisis; the opposition would wish to make it a crisis. We're right on top of it. We are more than interested in 2,000-plus jobs. Premier Rae, Deputy Premier Laughren and the rest of caucus are committed on one issue and one sole issue: to put Ontarians back to work as soon as we can.

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

Mr Harris: The people of Ontario are getting fed up with this government blaming the Liberals for everything.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier. Gerard Kennedy of the Daily Bread Food Bank said on the weekend that your flip-flopping on welfare reform is causing uncertainty and grave concern to those on welfare, to those most vulnerable in our society. Gerard Kennedy said it is time for you to be upfront about welfare in this province.

There are over a million people in Ontario today who depend on some form of social assistance. Those people, and indeed all taxpayers in Ontario, want to know, what is your government intending to do about welfare reform in this province and when do you intend to do it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I want to say to you, and I would say to Mr Kennedy if he were here, that in the face of a very difficult recession and in the face of the most blatant act of discrimination ever carried out by a federal government, either Liberal or Tory -- in fact both -- we have kept faith. We have maintained rates and in fact increased rates.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Which you complained about.

Hon Mr Rae: Which you complained about, which the honourable member opposed, which members of his caucus have said was a mistake. We have done that and we're proud of it. I'm proud of the fact that the disabled people in this province have a higher level of support than they do in any other jurisdiction in Canada. I am proud of that.

It's also widely recognized, and I think it's widely recognized as well in Ottawa, that there are things we need to do. In fact, we can only do them together after the total abandonment of this province by the federal government on the subject of welfare.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines laughs. The people living in his riding are getting 29 cents from the federal government. The people living in Shawinigan are getting 50 cents.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You always blame somebody else.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Bradley: The people from St Catharines blame you.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no, no, no.

Mr Bradley: They want you out.

The Speaker: Would the member for St Catharines take his seat.

Mr Bradley: That's the difference; they want you out.

The Speaker: I caution the member for St Catharines to please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that we are working with the federal government and we are working with all of our partners in the municipalities and elsewhere to ensure the continuing integrity of our support for people who have no other means of support in the community and who qualify for social assistance. We're going to continue to do that, and I'm hoping that we will be in a position through this next week and in the very next couple of days to make a very clear announcement with respect to exactly what it is we can and cannot do on this question.

But I want to tell the honourable member, we are very proud of the fact that in the face of very, very difficult financial circumstances, we have kept faith and we have maintained rates, and we are determined to maintain the integrity of that system. We're going to do that.

Mr Harris: I want to make it very clear to the Premier that nobody is prouder than I that this province has had the wealth and the prosperity and the ability for those who truly need help to have the most generous assistance in Canada. I am proud of that. I am proud to have been a part of it.

But, Premier, according to David Frum of the Financial Post, aside from those who legitimately need help, there are three times as many households on welfare at the end of 1993 as there were in the depths of the recession of 1981. In fact, when the money was pouring in between 1985 and 1990, the number of people on welfare in this province went up and up and up under the Liberals. There is no end, unless there is substantial welfare reform, to the number of people who will be willing to accept welfare as a lifestyle. You know that's wrong. I know that's wrong.

We've had general agreement now from study after study, from SARC to Thomson to others that the Liberals sat on and now you have sat on for the last three years. I would ask you, clearly, since you know and the people of Ontario know there's something wrong with this system, when are you going to bring forward proposals that we've all been calling for to fix the system?

Hon Mr Rae: The one thing I can tell the honourable member is that this government, when it fixes a system, is not going to blame the victim. That's what this government is not going to do. We are not going to join in this right-wing chorus, which the leader of the third party now wants to be the guardian angel of, which says that the real problem with respect to social assistance is the people who are on it and that they're lazy. I want to tell the honourable member, that is not the view of this government and that is not the view of this party. The reason that we have high levels of social assistance is because we have very high levels of unemployment.

I would say to the honourable member, the reforms to unemployment insurance which his federal counterparts brought in have increased the burden of social assistance by some $200 million over the next three years. The reforms which were brought in by the Chrétien government will increase it by a further $150 million. That's the impact of the kind of reform that we've seen from Liberals and Tories.

I can assure the honourable member, we brought in Jobs Ontario Training. We've taken thousands of people off welfare and put them into the workforce. We've created child care spaces. We have the best social housing program going in Canada. We're going to continue to put the emphasis on work --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and on training and on fairness, and never talk about what it is that's wrong with the victim rather than what's wrong with the system. There's a system that needs reform, and people need dignity. They don't need to be blamed, which tends to be the approach of some other parties.

Mr Harris: I think the record will show that nobody has been more consistent, including Helle Hulgaard, in saying: "Let's not blame the victim. Let's not blame those on welfare. Let's blame the system. Let's blame the government."

Let's put the blame where it belongs, right here in this Legislature. The system is broken. The system needs fixing. The Liberals sat on this for five years; in fact, they made the problem worse. You have sat on it now for three and a half years. Every year we have a throne speech; we have a session opener. Welfare reform is a top priority, you say. Every year we ask questions: When are you going to reform the system?

Premier, I ask you again: Is your government finally willing to stop the rhetoric? Are you willing to stop saying it's just a priority? Are you willing to move on welfare reform in this province so we can do two things: one, help those people who truly need help in a most generous and compassionate way, as this province is known for, and stop the ripoffs and abuse of the system by those who have no business being on it? Are you willing to bring forward those proposals this session?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say I think the record will speak for itself in terms of what we have done and also what the honourable member opposite has said on the subject of welfare: how he thinks it's okay for someone to say, "No, I'm just going to go on it. That's the way I want to be"; the very speeches that he's made, the kind of encouragement that he has given.

I want to say to the honourable member, our record is clear. We're the ones who brought in Jobs Ontario Training, which the Conservative Party has opposed. We're the ones who have expanded child care by over $200 million in the last three years, and we will continue to do that. That's how you do it: through training opportunities, through child care opportunities, through a serious effort to offer incentives. That's what this government is doing and that's what we will continue to do. That is the reform that we are carrying on.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Surely both the Premier and the leader of the third party understand you can't have social welfare reform unless there are jobs for people to go to, which is why I want to return to the question of the job loss that could be incurred if the Barrie short-line rail problem is not resolved. I will place my question to the Premier.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mrs McLeod: I will place this question to the Premier, because it was to the Premier that I wrote about this issue some six weeks ago and I am still awaiting his response.

Premier, it is quite clear that the short rail line between Collingwood and Barrie is the cheapest or the only transportation link for a number of local businesses and that there are indeed a great number of jobs that depend on the existence of those businesses. It is also clear that CN no longer intends to run the line and that there are other potential purchasers of the route who have said they can run it. But it is clear as well that the cost of the successor rights provisions under Bill 40 make it impossible for anybody else to take it over.

Premier, let me give you the example, and that's that implementing the successor rights under Bill 40 could mean that any new purchaser of that rail line would have to pick up some 17 collective agreements even though they would need to employ 10 or fewer workers to run the line. I ask you, does that not seem to you to be absolutely ridiculous, and if so, will you not grant an exemption from the successor rights provisions under Bill 40 for any new purchaser of the Barrie short-line rail?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me say to the honourable member, the lead ministry in this is the Ministry of Transportation. Economic Development and Trade and Labour are involved. We have a group of people who are tackling this question. We take it seriously. We also believe the federal government continues to have some responsibility with respect to the CN line. I'm not passing responsibility; we want to be constructive and helpful.

Experience will tell us that a solution has to involve the workers, and we are initiating discussions with the unions. It has to involve the purchasers. It has to involve CN in terms of its responsibilities. And the federal government has to be there; they can't just walk away.

There will be a negotiated solution to this question, I'm quite confident. It should happen. But it's one that's going to have to involve some give and take on all sides. That's how these things are resolved: not one simple solution here or there, but a sense of give and take that will be there. There are all kinds of opportunities for this to happen, and I want to give the honourable member my assurance and give the assurance to the people who are listening that the government is very interested in this question and in being a constructive partner together with others in finding a solution, because that's what it's going to take: give and take on everyone's

part in order to find a solution.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I guess the question is, who is giving and who is taking? So far, all we see is this government taking and not giving anything on this particular issue.

The Premier might be interested to know that this morning in fact I heard from a potential purchaser group involving some of the current employees, in fact the model that this Premier has touted as the way to go in Ontario. These are the actual workers, who are members of the union, who are interested in taking over this line. They too, Mr Premier, want you to amend your job-killing labour legislation to help them acquire this particular property. They are unable to assume the responsibility that lies under 17 collective agreements. In that regard, they have asked that we also sponsor a private member's bill.

In the past, you have been noted to support private member's bills that this member has put forward; maybe I can get you to do the same, if I could get a page to come and take this over.

I've also agreed to sponsor a private bill incorporating a new railway company for these workers to take over this spur line if indeed they are the successful bidder, but they insist, sir, that you must agree to amend Bill 40 before they are prepared to make the financial commitment. The legislation I've introduced to you, Premier, will pave the way to allow communities such as Collingwood and Barrie to work with interested buyers, be it the workers or be it someone else, to keep the rail line open and to protect the jobs in that community.

Premier, will you make a statement today that you are prepared to support these jobs and to support this legislation, and will you use your authority to ensure that this private member's bill passes quickly through this Legislature?

Hon Mr Rae: I would simply say to the honourable member that we want to be constructive in this regard, and we are looking to finding a solution on a practical basis to a series of problems. It's clear this isn't just a one-off issue. We're going to have this on a systematic basis because of the decision by CN to abandon a number of lines and the potential that those lines could be used for other purposes and could be used in other ways by appropriate purchasers.

I would say to the honourable member, if he looks at the experience rather than the rhetoric, with respect to the ACR there was no government more determined to find a solution, which was difficult, which required concessions on all sides and which required a willingness to move. We were the ones who helped to engineer and to focus that question. I can assure the honourable member that I'd be very interested in getting the names of the people that he's referring to, very interested in hearing what their concerns are and how we can in fact meet and deal with this problem.

We are very interested in finding solutions, and we do not want to see any legislative roadblocks to finding a successful solution.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. It's about Ontario Hydro. Considering the escalating concerns that are taking place with respect to Ontario Hydro and its unions, considering the fact that there have been discussions about strikes and work stoppages and also considering the provisions of your Bill 40 and the impact of operating the sites if there is in fact work stoppage, could you answer the question that is being most widely asked out there in the business community and the public itself considering the jeopardy of the health and safety of the communities in Ontario?

If the Hydro people go on strike, Mr Premier, would you be prepared to legislate them back to work for the safety of the people of the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that again to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think I answered that question in response to a query from the leader of the official opposition in terms of her understanding of the collective bargaining process and mine. I'm not sure that the member opposite has the same understanding of collective bargaining, but I suspect he does, and he must know that this question does not make it possible or enhance the opportunities for a negotiated settlement.

Mr Stockwell: There are a significant number of businesses in this province that operate with the need for hydro. Clearly, it's one of the most important things that we supply as this province. Certainly, with your Bill 40, it becomes rather difficult to ensure safety and health for all the citizens of Ontario to be properly managed if in fact there were a strike.

The question that's coming from the public is, if there is a strike, is this government prepared to legislate those workers back to work to ensure economic stability and care for the health and safety of the people of this province? I understand the collective process, but I think it's important for you to think on behalf of the citizens of this province. We must know if you're prepared to legislate these people back to work. All the businesses and people would like to know this.

If you're not prepared, say so, and that is not going to affect the length or the type of negotiations you're going to have. If you're not prepared to do that, tell the workers today. If you are prepared to do that, may I suggest your strike could be a lot quicker and your negotiations could be settled in a much more timely fashion.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm tempted to say that the way the member has posed the question indeed indicates that he doesn't understand the collective bargaining process. The fact is that the government, the members of the Power Workers' Union, the members of the Ontario Hydro board and management are all concerned about the health and safety of the people of this province and recognize the importance of electricity and the generation of electricity to the economy of this province.

All will do their utmost to ensure that there is no disruption in service. I'm sure the best way to do that is to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Recently Metro council voted to build only two of the four rapid transit lines. In a last-minute flip-flop, Liberal Metro Chairman Alan Tonks decided to kill the over 30,000 additional direct jobs that would have been created by constructing the Spadina-York University subway extension and the Scarborough RT. The existing transportation needs of the people of Downsview, Weston and Vaughan have lost out to the land speculators and the more affluent communities along Sheppard Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Don Mills.

My question to you, Minister, is, will you allow Liberal Chairman Tonks and Metro council to stop the creation of over 30,000 direct jobs and ignore the transportation needs of the Downsview, Weston, Vaughan and Scarborough communities?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): While we were disappointed that in the council resolution all four projects didn't get the unqualified support to proceed at this point in time, I want to point out that there was approval in principle for all projects. Two projects are moving ahead right away, which is good; that's 38,000 jobs. But I agree with the member that the other 30,000 jobs are more than a worthwhile goal. We remain committed to doing everything we can to see all four projects proceed.

Specifically, you make reference to transportation needs of parts of the city. By that, I know you're referencing the fact that the Spadina line was not one of the two that have been given approval. We are working with people along that Spadina line to see the potential. We think we can in fact maximize the potential we think is there, to involve private sector development in the cost of proceeding with that line. Additionally, there have been proposals to move ahead with a design-build approach on the Scarborough light rapid transit as well.

We think there are ways, through involving the private sector and through issuing a debenture on these lines, that all four could proceed at this point in time without additional tax burden to the residents of Metro.

Mr Perruzza: I respect the sincerity and the hard work that the minister is doing in order to ensure that the four projects and that all of the lines and all of the jobs move. But I have to tell you that I was at Metro council when Metro was deliberating this very question, and there was a lot of wheeling and dealing and private deal-making.

While the public rhetoric was that money was the issue, and taxes and so on, I have to tell you that in the end Metro opted for the most expensive of all of the options. I believe the Sheppard subway is going to cost $400 million more than the Spadina-York University line, at a direct cost to Metro of $100 million.

While I respect the efforts of the minister, the ministry and the government to get the jobs and the projects off the ground, I have to tell you that Metro's games-playing and its commitment to our job creation programs are very much questionable. How long will we allow Metro to continue with the games if the deal can't be made?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member raises a very interesting point with respect to the reasons given for not proceeding with Spadina and Scarborough in reference to costs and the relative cost-value assessments of the various lines.

Having said that, we are working right now with Metro to pursue alternatives in terms of financing. They've established a committee. That committee is to report back by June. I hope that we can find a solution before that time, but there is a time reference that was built into the council resolution.

I think the member raises points that will be of interest to the Ministry of Transportation whenever a final package is brought forward. If we're not successful in achieving all four lines whenever that package is brought forward, then the Ministry of Transportation will be reviewing that and looking at those projects and looking at the cost-value assessments. I think those are points that he raises that are of value and the ones we should continue to look at as this unfolds.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning some of the incidents that the workers at Ontario Hydro have had to put up with over the last several months. But in particular, I have two interesting items which have gained a lot of attention in my area, where we have lost now over 900 jobs with respect to the early retirements, the layoffs. Maurice Strong has a vision and my community lives the nightmare that has to deal practically with the problems created by Mr Strong.

I want the Minister of Environment and Energy to tell me if he agrees with two actions taken by Ontario Hydro: first, advertising for a parking lot official for an advertised salary of upwards of $81,900 per annum to manage a parking lot; and second, if he approves of the over-$1-million ad campaign talking about the new Ontario Hydro, which we see posted all over the bus shelters of this city. Does he believe that those two steps have added to the credibility of the management decisions and to the efficient operation and production of affordable power in this province?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In reference to the member's

preamble, I would say that perhaps the former Conservative and then Liberal governments had a vision with regard to Darlington, and now perhaps Bruce is living the nightmare of Darlington. I would say that the decisions related to the overbuilding of the capacity for Ontario Hydro have had to be responded to. That has led to a significant downsizing of Ontario Hydro in attempting to deal with its excess capacity.

With regard specifically to the two instances that the member raises with regard to the day-to-day operations of Ontario Hydro, I assume from his question that he wants to ensure that Ontario Hydro does not spend money unwisely, and if he is suggesting that these are ways that the corporation should review its spending, I will bring that to the attention of the senior management of Ontario Hydro. I'm pleased that the member supports the attempts to ensure that any excess expenditure by Ontario Hydro is ended.

Mr Elston: That was a total abrogation of the minister's responsibility for Hydro in this chamber. He refused to answer any of the question with respect to advertising or with respect to the posting of this high-priced position for managing a staff of three people.

Perhaps the Minister of Environment and Energy, since he's raised the issue of capacity and other things at Ontario Hydro, would like to tell me, when his ordered review is taken on by the Ontario Energy Board, if he would be willing to do two things: one, to commit that the decision of the board that reviews the Ontario Hydro vision as it will be put, I presume, by Mr Strong and others, will be a decision which will be binding upon Hydro which he will enforce; two, to undertake with us, particularly those of us who represent areas in which workers are being laid off in large numbers, like Lennox, Lambton and Bruce, to table in this House the vision of what Hydro is to be in the next five months, five years and 10 years so that we all know what the vision at Ontario Hydro really is.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member would know that what he is requesting with regard to the Ontario Energy Board process would require legislative change in order to ensure that the decision of the board is more than providing reference and advice. I note that his government did not make that kind of legislative change when it had the opportunity.

I would also say to him that I am very concerned about the communities that he has mentioned and will be meeting later today with representatives of the communities affected. I'll be pleased to hear their views. Of course, he knows that before the Ontario Energy Board, any interested party, whether it be a member of the community, a municipal leader, business leader, labour leader or members of other interested groups such as environmental groups, will be able to make their views very clear on what the future of Ontario Hydro should be and how it relates to the operation of management and the setting of rates.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Although my question is for the Minister of Labour, since he's not here I will go to the Treasurer since it is a financial question.

In an effort to address its financial problems, the Workers' Compensation Board has been considering expanding its scope of coverage to include the financial services sector. Unfortunately, the WCB still believes that the answer to its financial problems is to seek more and more revenue from Ontario's beleaguered employers, as opposed to controlling its own expenditures.

Given the recent commitment by your government to establish a royal commission to review the workers' compensation system, it would obviously make a mockery of this process to proceed with expansion. Will you give us your assurance that the WCB will not proceed with expansion of its coverage to the financial services sector until the royal commission completes its report?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps I could put a little perspective on this matter briefly to the member. The royal commission issue was what was recommended to the government from the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. It is not a decision that the government at this point has taken, just so that is clear. I'm not ruling it out; I'm just saying that it's not at this point a decision of the government.

I'm very much aware of the whole issue of expanded coverage. The argument being made for it is that those financial institutions benefit a great deal from the work that goes on, for example, by the mining industry, by the construction industry, by the forestry industry, yet they don't pay an assessment to the Workers' Compensation Board. On the other side of the coin, I do understand their argument that most of them already have coverage through the private sector and therefore don't need to be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. It's an interesting issue on which the government has not made any decision at this point.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, I'm glad that you made that point clear, because there is some feeling among the members of the business community that the royal commission is going to be issuing a report and that you will not be making any further changes. You have certainly indicated to us that you are probably going to be making some changes unilaterally, either through regulation or legislation, and in some ways the royal commission is nothing more than a ploy to deflect the heat from the problems at the WCB. I think it's important that we recognize that. It's not going to be a delay.

Another area of concern is the fact that there is a plan to expand entitlement to include compensation for chronic stress. We have asked for a moratorium on all new entitlements such as chronic stress. Again I ask you: Will you give your assurance that indeed there will be a moratorium until the royal commission completes its task and makes a report?

Hon Mr Laughren: I need to stress yet again to the honourable member that there has been no royal commission appointed. The member is talking as though it already exists and is about to report, or is going to report in the foreseeable future. That simply is not a decision that's been made.

The member also talks about us making unilateral decisions on either expanded coverage or enhanced benefits to injured workers. I would simply say to the member that for many, many, many years the problem of the unfunded liability has been growing and that if we did make a unilateral decision, we would be the first government that actually tackled the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. Certainly, the previous government sat back on its hands and watched the problem develop and grow and grow and grow.

I don't think it is fair for the member opposite to imply that because we would make some decisions we would be avoiding the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. As a matter of fact, we, for the first time, would be dealing with the very serious problems there.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Madam Speaker -- Madam Minister; we've been away for a while; you'll have to pardon me -- there's a situation that has arisen in northeastern Ontario in regard to tree seedling growers, an issue that a number of us have dealt with over the past couple of years. Specifically, what has happened is this: The MNR has let out contracts in regard to who is going to be growing seedlings for the province of Ontario.

What has happened is that a number of Quebec firms have bid on the tree seedling contracts in the province of Ontario through that particular bid system, and one particular firm that I know of received a contact to grow a number of tree seedlings for the province.

The difficulty is this: In my looking around the issue and meeting with people like Energreen greenhouses in Ramore and other greenhouse growers in northeastern Ontario, I found that not only have Quebec growers bid on Ontario contracts; what's really the problem here is that the Ontario growers don't have the ability to bid back into the province of Quebec because the province of Quebec has a preferential treatment regulation --

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

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It'll take a second to get through.

The question is simply this: Presently the province of Quebec, when it comes to growers, has the ability to be able to bid into Ontario. Unfortunately, the Ontario growers do not have the same ability. I would simply like to ask the minister this: What is your ministry doing in order to be able to address this issue?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm most certainly aware of the problem. I think it's important to set the context and remind ourselves that for some time in Ontario seedling operations were actually done on a regional basis and there were protective measures that were in place in Ontario as well. For a number of years, MNR has been working towards moving to a more open tendering system. The Provincial Auditor has supported moving in that direction and, quite frankly, our government supports that as we try to bring down interprovincial trade barriers.

We have done that now in Ontario, and Ontario contractors are actually winning contracts in Alberta and in BC. However, you're also right that we don't have that equal access into the Quebec market. This is an issue that is under negotiation, both in the bilateral negotiations --

Interjection.

Hon Ms Lankin: I haven't taken my whole time yet -- and in the multilateral negotiations, and we're hopeful of making some progress there. What would be helpful, though, are the specific cases that you raise where people have tried, so that we can document it. It's helpful to take that information to the negotiating table.

Mr Bisson: Can I ask the minister, in regard to the negotiations that are going on now, is the province of Ontario ready to sit down with the province of Quebec and say, "Listen, all we ask is that Ontario growers be treated the same way as Quebec growers"? If Quebec growers have the ability to bid into the province of Ontario, clearly Ontario growers should have the same right to do so into the province of Quebec. If the Quebec government is not willing to move on that issue, what will this minister do in regard to putting pressure on the province of Quebec to open up the process to Ontario growers?

Just for a bit of background, what happens in areas such as Ramore is that its only employer happens to be a greenhouse. The difficult is that by not having access to those particular contracts because of what happened with this particular grower, it puts --

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

Mr Bisson: -- them in a very serious business to be able to operate that company over the longer run.

Hon Ms Lankin: I missed the very tail end of that question, but the gist of it, I understand, is with respect to what action we are taking in the negotiations between Quebec and Ontario.

I can indicate that the procurement policy with respect to goods and services, and this would be considered a service, is under negotiation, both in the multilateral negotiations involving all provinces, but also in the bilateral negotiation with Quebec. We expect that we will reach conclusion of those negotiations by late April, so we are expecting that this issue will be resolved under that context and we are hopeful at this point in time that it will be resolved in that context. I think that to prejudge what will happen, or to suggest that if we don't win on this what will we do, would suggest failure on the entire set of negotiations and I'm not ready to concede that at this point.

CASINOS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Minister, what were the initial estimates for the renovations for the interim casino project in Windsor and what are the actual costs coming in at?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't have that information today and really the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is responsible for that, so I will hand the question to her.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Mr Speaker, I am sorry. Having just finished the other question, I didn't hear the member's question.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr McClelland: Actually, I had two questions, Mr Speaker, a supplementary I am now not going to get on as a result. The question that I asked initially was the initial estimate of the costs of the renovations for the interim casino site in Windsor and now the actual costs as they are coming in.

Hon Ms Lankin: I will provide those exact numbers to the member. I don't have them with me at this moment. There have been some additional costs incurred, as structural issues and other issues with respect to design of the building, the renovations, have been incurred during the construction and renovation. There are some changes from the original projections to the costs now and I will provide the members with the details of that.

Mr McClelland: I have a bit of difficulty in terms of a supplementary, unless the Minister of Economic Development and Trade can refer it back; I'm not sure. I really wanted to know what the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' plans are today with respect to the extension of commercial gaming in the province of Ontario, on first nations reserves and other locales in the province of Ontario.

A few months ago, indeed a few weeks ago, the position of the government was that there would be one site, Windsor, for three years, to take a look at it. The minister was very unequivocal in her position. That was her position. Apparently that's changed today and it might be different tomorrow.

The Speaker: Could the member place his question, please.

Mr McClelland: I'm wondering, what is your position today with respect to the establishment and the extension of commercial gaming in the province of Ontario, both on and off first nations reserves?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member attempted to switch back and at this point in time he has asked a question which is not within the purview of my portfolio. I can indicate to him that with respect to the interim casino, and I come back to his original question, there will be rent provided to the art gallery of $6 million over the three years and there will be a $1.3-million provision to it to reconvert back to the art gallery at the end. His first question was specifically with respect to the costs of renovations, and I will have to get back to him on the details of that.

PETITIONS

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the photo-radar legislation penalizes the owner of the vehicle even if the owner is not responsible for the violation; and

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

"Whereas the government newsletter quotes a ministry staff person admitting that photo-radar is only being implemented to bring new revenue to the province; and

"Whereas the NDP government is already wasting too much of the revenue it does receive;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the NDP government cancel its plans to implement photo-radar and cancel its photo-radar legislation."

I sign this as I'm in agreement with this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition here with approximately 250 names from people in Stouffville and Markham:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by almost 700 of my constituents who live in Wilmot Creek:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as expeditiously as possible to third reading and royal assent of Bill 21."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

BROADCAST OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which I wholeheartedly support:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario residents are deeply concerned about issues such as taxes, auto insurance, wasteful spending and the provincial economy; and

"Whereas the broadcast of the proceedings of the Legislature is crucial to helping the public understand what its elected officials are doing; and

"Whereas TVOntario does not broadcast the daily question period until late at night;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government encourage TVOntario to

schedule its broadcast of question period earlier in the evening so that all Ontarians can become more involved in the proceedings of the Legislature and the actions of their elected officials."

I have signed this petition.

LANDFILL

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

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site-selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure that the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand the NDP government of Ontario to repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

It's been signed by dozens and dozens and dozens of people from my riding in the community of Sutton-by-the-Lake. They're astonished by the delays the opposition played in this committee process and were very angry it took them this long. I hope we can proceed with it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding Bill 55, introduced by Progressive Conservative member Don Cousens.

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

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

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

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

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

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions."

It's signed by 85 constituents.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, on a point of order, or it may be a point of personal privilege: The honourable member for Brant-Haldimand just referred in his petition to a certain private member's Bill 55. I would like to inform him, if he doesn't already know so, that he could save his breath on such petitions: That bill has been withdrawn. I did withdraw it. I brought it into the House in good faith to do something to --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No, on this point of order, because he's made this petition. I'd say it is not valid. He may as well save his breath.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and signed by some 120 constituents of the city of London and the county of Middlesex.

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

"We, the undersigned, would like to let it be known that we oppose Bill 120 and want it defeated at the third reading.

"The NDP government has not given any thought to the impact of this bill to retirement homes, despite the effort to give input by these facilities. By placing retirement homes under the Rent Control Act, Landlord and Tenant Act and Rental Housing Protection Act, you will cause serious problems to the running of these homes.

"Our elderly need these homes to help them to continue to be independent individuals who need assistance with their daily lives but not to the extent of nursing homes. By placing retirement homes under the landlord act, the care givers would not have ongoing access to the residents' rooms and emergency situations would go unnoticed.

"The residents are in these homes so they can be watched, helped and protected if needed. Residential care should fall under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Housing.

"Before you place another Band-Aid solution on a problem, stop this bill."

This petition has been signed by many people, 120 families in London and Middlesex, and I'm adding my name to the petition.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by many parents of children at St Boniface school in Scarborough concerned about the overcrowded conditions that exist there. They're petitioning the government to address this growing problem and finance the addition to the school as a high priority.

The petition states that their concern is about the over 600 students who attend there, most accommodated in 15 portables onsite. The portables take up most of the school yard, covering two baseball fields and one soccer field. The gym is inadequate, the washrooms are limited, the office space is very crowded, with little space available.

I'm pleased to add my support to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I too have a petition that was given to me much in advance of the withdrawal of Bill 55, but I feel obligated to read it into the record for Mr Eldon Grist. The member for Markham, who tabled that bill, has made some indication that it's been withdrawn, but in any event I read the petition:

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

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

"Bill 55" -- which the member for Markham introduced and made reference about earlier -- "will make it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society."

I won't read any more of the

preamble but just indicate that I will attach my signature, as is required by the rules of the House.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crime; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews and public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, be passed into law."

I've signed that as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition signed by parents, teachers and students of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, St Joachim, St Patrick's, St Columba, St Bernadette, St Ann's and many others which reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario schools are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of residents who are concerned about creeping user fees, that reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP has always said it was against user fees in health care and other social services; and

"Whereas the NDP promised it would never implement user fees for health care and other services of a social nature; and

"Whereas the NDP has bowed to pressure from the Conservative Party and is now working to implement user fees in a number of areas; and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to implement a number of health user fees by charging for various necessary drug treatments, for annual checkups, psychiatric counselling and speech therapy for children and other necessary services; and

"Whereas the NDP government is trying to fool the public by saying that these are not user fees but rather copayments; and

"Whereas it has been shown that user fees do not make health services more accountable but only restrict access;

"We, the undersigned, urge the NDP government to reconsider its new policy on user fees and protect the integrity of our universal health care system by cancelling its proposed user fees on health services."

I'm going to add my name because I agree with the petitioners who have asked me to present this to the House.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My petition is from Mr John A. McIntosh in Waterloo.

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

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

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

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

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

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

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing orders 8(

a) and 96(a), the House will not meet on the morning of Thursday, March 24, 1994, to consider private members' public business; that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 43, 44, 45 and 46; and that Mr Poirier and Mr Elston exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have one other motion, and I seek the consent of the House. The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly committee is currently conducting interviews for the Environmental Commissioner under the Environmental Bill of Rights, and we agreed at the House leaders' meeting this morning that that committee should be allowed to sit beyond 6 o'clock; that where it has scheduled an interview that either commenced before 6 o'clock or was supposed to commence before 6 o'clock, it should complete that interview even if it means sitting past 6 of the clock.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.

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

Shall the bill be reported for third reading?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No. Committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Committee of the whole.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report on the underground economy and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I would like to say that this is the first time the standing committee on finance and economic affairs has examined the underground economy in the province of Ontario. I want to thank the clerk, Lynn Mellor, and certainly the research officer, Elaine Campbell, for the very hard work they did with regard to this report. I also want to thank the many witnesses for their very valuable presentations before the committee. I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Johnson moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 95,

An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York / Projet de loi 95, Loi prévoyant l'adoption par la cité de North York de règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.

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

Shall Bill 95 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report on pre-budget consultations 1994 and preliminary response to the Fair Tax Commission and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any statement to make?

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I'd like to thank the hard work of the clerk, Lynn Mellor, and certainly the research officer, Elaine Campbell, who again has done a good job in helping us assemble this report. I also want to thank all the many witnesses for their very valuable presentations made before the committee.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Johnson moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Eddy from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

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

Shall Bill 119 be ordered for third reading? No? Committee of the whole.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that Bill 20,

An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords, be not reported.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? No.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to address the motion, if that's in order, and we believe it is, with respect to the recommendation dealing with Bill 20, a bill that I introduced in the Legislature in 1993. It passed second reading in this House and went to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The bill dealt with the concerns of tenants right across this province but especially in the Metropolitan Toronto area -- tenants and police officers, I might add, as well -- and it attempted to add an additional tool for the crown, for landlords and concerned tenants with respect to the ability to evict convicted drug dealers from apartment dwellings in this province.

The bill failed in the committee when it was not supported by government representatives on the committee. If you set aside the NDP fronts and the landlords, the people who appeared before us in an objective way were very much supportive of the legislation.

I want to say that the witnesses who appeared -- and I will identify a couple of them who I think were nothing more than fronts for the NDP party. It was some of the most offensive testimony that I've heard in my years in this Legislature. We have seen some difficult things occur in terms of being inappropriate testimony that has been arranged, I believe, by the current government, witnesses who've appeared and given the government line, but this was perhaps the most offensive.

I suggested that at least two of the witnesses appearing before us misled a standing committee of the Legislature, and I want to mention the two groups specifically: the Parkdale legal aid clinic and the East York Tenants' Association. The language during their testimony was offensive, insulting, and in terms of questions answered by members, the representative from the Parkdale legal aid clinic indicated, and it's in Hansard, that in his view there was no serious problem with drug dealers in apartment dwellings in the Parkdale area.

He also said that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority was dealing in a very adequate fashion in terms of eviction of drug dealers in Metropolitan Toronto housing. Both of those claims were proven to be false when we had independent and objective witnesses appear before us later.

The East York Tenants' Association also indicated that there was no problem in their view. The only problems apparently were with landlords. They could see no problem with drug dealers.

The concerns that both of these groups raised -- and I want to put them on the record, because these concerns were supported by the NDP representatives on the justice committee. The concerns they expressed were not the concerns about tenants and families and children living in apartment buildings who have to have drug dealers running through their apartments, concern about dirty needles in their communities etc; what the NDP members were concerned about was the violation of drug dealers' rights. This was a concern expressed: a violation of the human rights of drug dealers.

Another comment made, again supported by the NDP members of the justice committee, was that by evicting drug dealers from apartment buildings, convicted drug dealers, this was cruel and unusual punishment; it was cruel and unusual punishment for convicted drug dealers to be evicted from public housing. These people are being subsidized by the taxpayers in terms of public housing, but the NDP and their cronies who appeared before us said that this eviction would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr Winninger, the lead man on the NDP tag team, suggested that --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I sat in on that committee and I was party to the proceedings and I can tell you --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: I know that particular member has tenants in his own riding who are very much concerned about this problem, but it certainly wasn't expressed by him during the hearings. In fact, he was absent most of the time.

I want to say that even the point man for the NDP, and he had some difficulty with me in respect to this matter during the hearings --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask once again that when he refers to members of the public who come to appear before the committees as "cronies," that's absolutely and totally inappropriate. I was there. They were intelligent --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear the comment and I will not render any judgement. The member for Leeds-Grenville. And please don't interfere with the debate.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I could rise on a point of privilege, because I think it's unfortunate. I'm trying to express a point of view that I think is representative of a significant number of Ontarians. Certainly, the justice committee, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, expressed this concern --

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, would you rule me out of order if I called them wide-eyed lunatics?

Mr Runciman: -- and that member keeps interrupting me because he would not represent his own tenants' views in this committee and now he doesn't want me to represent the views of many, many Ontarians in respect to this very important issue.

Mr Winninger, the member for London South, as I said, was the point man for his membership on the committee. One of his major concerns -- and I'm not quoting directly, but we straightened this out in Hansard and I'll re-read Hansard if he wishes me to do so if he gets up on a point of order -- was, again, he felt these people convicted and evicted had the right to ply their trade if they so chose, and he expressed sympathy.

Mr David Winninger (London South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that if the member is going to quote from Hansard, he should quote in the entire context. I never suggested even remotely what the member is attributing to me.

Mr Runciman: Part of what the member says is fair comment in the sense that I was unable to get my hands on Hansard, and I would be glad to put that in a statement in the future in the House in the proper context. Certainly in my view there was nothing to apologize for in committee in respect to that

interpretation, but I take what he says as fair and I will indeed put the appropriate quotation in Hansard at a later date.

We heard about concerns. Someone said the landlords can deal with these things, and tenant organizations. We heard testimony of tenant organizations being taken over by drug dealers. We heard about tenants and landlords being intimidated by these kinds of individuals.

We had a detective from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force who appeared before us and talked at length about the significant problem in Metropolitan Toronto Housing in respect to these kinds of activities. He talked about an explosion occurring in a high-rise in a Metro Toronto Housing building last year, I think it was. Luckily, it did not result in significant fatalities but it very easily could have. Some of these dealers occupy three or four apartments. They're using one of the apartments to mix their drugs, they're using the other apartment to arrange deals and the third apartment is for money collection.

Of course this detective also pointed out that Parkdale was the most critical area in terms of Metropolitan Toronto police and drug dealers in apartment dwellings, although we had a witness supposedly representing the legal aid clinic in Parkdale saying it wasn't a problem. Well, the Metropolitan Toronto police say Parkdale is the most serious problem area.

We also had the same representative, whom the NDP takes offence at me calling a crony of its party, appear before us and say MTHA had no problem in terms of evicting these kinds of individuals. We had two board members from the MTHA appear: a past chair, who was fired from her job because she was too much of an activist in terms of questions like this, and a current board member; both are current board members. We also had a tenant from MTHA.

They talked about the horrible conditions that many tenants have to live under, the harassment, the intimidation, dirty needles in hallways, all sorts of activities occurring in these buildings, and tenants simply can't get any action taken. We had one tenant appear before us who talked about his wife being murdered by drug dealers, apartments being boarded up because of security concerns because of the activities of drug dealers in these buildings.

I now have the opportunity to put Mr Winninger's comments on the record as he said them. I am quoting from Hansard, Mr Winninger expressing concern about convicted drug dealers being evicted from apartment dwellings: "This is aside from all the other concerns about their moving on to other residences and plying their trade elsewhere, if that's their inclination," "their trade" being the selling of illicit drugs to the youth of this province.

Mr Winninger: On a point of order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): How can you have a point of order about Hansard?

Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask Mr Runciman, if he's going to be referring to excerpts from Hansard, to refer to the entire context, which will show quite clearly that my suggestion was that evicting a drug dealer from one residence and moving him to another is not going to solve the problem.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If you want to rebut his comments, you'll have 30 minutes to do so, like he has.

Mr Runciman: I'm going to take the member up on his suggestion, because I think it's appropriate that perhaps we put a few more of his words on the record, and I'll do it briefly, but this is the concern --

The Deputy Speaker: No, on a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's not normal that we have a series of interruptions, and I apologize for interrupting, but at the time when there have been now four interruptions by the New Democrats on this intervention, I would ask that you add three minutes to the speaking time of my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville because they have been incessant in their interruptions on the same matter, and I suspect there is an awful lot of support for that being the case.

The Deputy Speaker: No, there won't be any change. The time allocated is 30 minutes for each individual on each party, so I will respect that procedure. I would ask the opposition please to remain quiet, and if you want to debate, you can do so afterwards; you have 30 minutes to do so.

Mr Runciman: I want to take up Mr Winninger's request, the NDP member for London South, that I put his comments on the record, because when I look at some more of his comments I think indeed they should be on the record for all the public of Ontario to appreciate what he was saying.

He's talking about context here. We have to remember he's talking about sympathy for convicted drug dealers; that's what we're talking about. Mr Winninger says, "Why would you somehow put these people in double jeopardy?" Convicted drug dealers; he's expressing concern about putting convicted drug dealers, people peddling drugs to the young children across this province, in double jeopardy. That's a priority concern for the NDP and Mr Winninger. He says, once they've served their sentence, once they're ready to re-enter society, why shouldn't they have a residence to go back to? This is aside from all the other concerns and plying their trade elsewhere, if that's their inclination.

It's clear what he said. I make no apologies for it. If anyone should be apologizing to his constituents, to the people of Ontario -- read it, Mr Speaker. Everyone in Ontario, get a copy of Hansard and read it and you interpret it. Mr Winninger, the member for London South, the NDP point man on the justice committee, was expressing very strong sympathy and concern for convicted drug dealers, not for tenants who have to live with these people, not for landlords who can't get them out of their buildings, not for the Metro Toronto police who have to deal with these people on an annual and daily basis.

No, his concern was for convicted drug dealers. That is disgusting, nothing less than disgusting.

I said, when I came back to this session, that I wasn't going to get worked up about issues like this. I'm going to take a breath and calm down, because I have great difficulty in understanding the NDP on issues like this, where they're coming from in terms of the concerns they express. It's unbelievable.

I talked to some of the backbench members who served on the standing committee on justice after the second day of hearings. I said: "Why in the world are you opposing this legislation? I simply can't understand your reasoning." A member said to me, "We're following marching orders."

Interjection: Told how to vote.

Mr Runciman: They were told how to vote on this legislation. That's not only insulting to them as individual members -- they're prepared to accept it, obviously -- but it should be offensive to the people in their ridings whom they purport to represent and to the people across this province whom, as the government, they purport to represent. They're simply not standing up for the concerns of so many, many people.

The testimony we heard in the last day of hearings of this committee -- members can attest to this -- was heartrending. We had a man who had lost his wife break down in tears. His wife had died in his arms, murdered by a drug dealer. His daughter was abducted and held hostage for four days, raped a number of times, by drug dealers in Metropolitan Toronto Housing.

But again, you might as well speak to a wall as try to get this message across to the NDP and its members on the committee. They had come in there with set marching orders and it didn't matter what kind of testimony was heard. It didn't matter how heartrending, how convincing, how persuasive. It simply was to be ignored, and that was a fact. This has to be of significant concern to all of us in this Legislature.

I mentioned I was deeply offended by the fact that a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee had obviously and clearly been arranged through the NDP. They appeared there, purporting to represent tenants, which they did not do. They represented the NDP position on this legislation, and that's all.

Mr Stockwell: On the payroll.

Mr Runciman: These organizations apparently have some funding mechanism. I don't know what the reason is, but it was clearly offensive because of the testimony that followed from the Metro Toronto police, from tenants themselves, from other witnesses who had no vested interest, very objective and clearly concerned people who live this kind of life on a day-to-day basis, who have to live with drug dealers in their neighbourhoods, who have to live with drug dealers down the hall, who are afraid to put their children out into the hall or out into the yards of these apartment buildings because of the activities that are going on.

We heard about lobbies of apartment buildings. You have to be in by 8 o'clock in some of these buildings. Otherwise, it's too dangerous because the lobbies are taken over by drug dealers. That's a reality out there today. That's a reality which the NDP and the committee members chose to ignore.

This is an unusual process in terms of requiring this report to come back, reporting not to report, but we felt it was so important that we discuss this issue that we're following through on this process. We intend to continue to pursue it. When another incident occurs in a Metropolitan Toronto Housing property, we're going to continue to raise this issue and the position the NDP members took and the position the NDP government took in respect to concern about tenants in this province and concern about Metro Toronto police, who have to go into these buildings and try to deal with these problems.

We think it's a sad day when the NDP, simply for political reasons, I gather, because I cannot understand any rationale other than the fact this bill was proposed by a Conservative member, an opposition member -- what other possible reason could they have for rejecting legislation? We proposed a number of amendments to address their concerns and witnesses and they still continued to reject it. The only rhyme or reason we can appreciate at this stage is because it was introduced by an opposition member.

That's totally inappropriate. Their actions are, again, ones they will pay for when the electorate finally has an opportunity to express its views. They simply have a propensity for doing things which certainly are not in the best interests of Ontarians. I think that in terms of Bill 20, all of them, every last member of the NDP, should be ashamed of the votes their members cast on Bill 20.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, are there questions and comments on this or just debate?

The Deputy Speaker: No questions or comments.

Mr Elston: Okay, thank you. I will just add a few words, not so much to carry on about the bill itself -- I think the member for Leeds-Grenville has given his piece on that -- but a little bit about what I see to be a very unfortunate occurrence in this particular committee. Private members' time is one of those areas in the House where there apparently is a truce among the members. We have an hour at which point a private member has a chance to put his or her particular piece of legislation before the entire chamber so that we can pass judgement as a unit on the merits of a private member's bill.

Much has been made recently by the government of its endeavour to pass pieces of legislation which have received the nod of approval by the entire chamber. The member for Leeds-Grenville was one of the people who fortunately was able to have his bill moved on second reading, approved by the chamber as a whole, the people who were here. It was then agreed by the government, and that's a big hurdle for us to get over at times, to have it ordered for committee time.

I think it would have been assumed that had the government ordered it for committee time and had it received the nod of all the people here in the House, there would have been a report back from the committee that would have maybe suggested some amendments, that might have refined it, that might have done something to change some of the provisions, because that is well within the contemplated activity in committee.

At no time would we have thought, when the truce had been declared around private members' time, that the committee would have ganged up on this private member's time along partisan lines to put an end to this legislation. That seems to me to be the most blatant and most violent abrogation of the truce around private members' time that we could have.

There are a couple of other ways the government can kill private members' legislation. The person currently sitting in the Speaker's chair may very well contemplate, for instance, that there is a refusal by the government to move on a bill that he sponsored some three years ago now, the so-called cheque-cashing bill. It has been waiting for third reading.

It went through committee, got its approval on second reading, got its approval at committee and is now sitting or languishing -- we pass a motion every time we prorogue this place to have it survive -- in a type of legislative twilight zone where it continues to exist, but on a plane which is not accessible by the real world. That's another way this government could have demonstrated a refusal to proceed with this particular legislation.

I know that it is well within the authority of the majority members, in this case all New Democrats, of this committee to refuse to report any part of the bill back to this House, back to this chamber, for us to consider as a whole legislative body. But it is, in my view, presumptuous that when the Legislative Assembly, the entire chamber, has spoken on a private member's bill, the committee, but six individuals in this House, should suppose they have the authority to put an end to any legislative consideration of an item which on principle received the approval of this chamber.

That is the type of manipulation of this chamber which I think should be held in some high degree of disregard by the public of this province. Six members of this chamber have said no to a bill that on principle has passed on second reading in this House, and they have offered not one explanation to the collective chamber as to why they have taken it upon themselves to put an end to this private member's desired legislative scheme.

Do you know something, Mr Speaker? It is not, when it comes for passage on second reading, just this member's scheme any longer, because the House as a whole has adopted it as a principle that is well worth pursuing. So while the ownership belongs to my colleague from Leeds-Grenville, the House has adopted the principle as one that we should explore and develop further if that is required.

But why is it, and particularly with respect to private members' time when the truce has been declared among all the House under the auspices of the standing orders, that these six people will remain unaccountable to the chamber as a whole, merely by making a motion with their larger number of members and passing a motion to kill a bill which in principle has been approved by the whole chamber?

Mr Speaker, I don't understand. I don't understand what it is the government hopes to achieve by using six thugs in dealing with this particular -- I withdraw the word "thugs" -- six people who are following the orders of the hierarchy of the New Democrats to put an end to this particular legislation. How is it that those six people will remain for ever unaccountable to all of us, because none of them stood up when they had a chance on their 30-minute time to explain why they put an end to this bill?

They merely, at the behest of somebody who shall remain nameless and faceless, used the member for London South to put the message that no longer will this bill survive for legislative consideration in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I don't understand why they chose to flex their legislative muscle in this regard. I think the bill ought to come back for committee of the whole discussion if there is something that is totally out of whack as far as those six people are concerned. I don't think those six people should have the right to tell the chamber that they have put an end to a bill for which this chamber says, "You, as committee members, will consider this legislation."

I am asking the members of the New Democratic Party in this chamber to put an end to this type of blatant end to the piece around private members' time. They have it within their authority right at this moment, or as soon as this debate ends, to put an end to that type of high-handed, heavy-handed committee activity around private members' time. You can vote to disregard the report of the majority NDP membership on this committee and you can say, "This bill ought to be reported back with amendments," if that's what you like, but that it ought to come back for further consideration either in committee of the whole or on third reading.

It would seem to me that probably the best line would either be to have this thing referred back to the committee for further work and bring it forward again for us to consider in committee of the whole or to have it brought directly into committee of the whole where we can talk about the reasons why the government feels that this private member's initiative should not proceed as it was originally planned by this chamber. I don't understand what there is to lose for the government in that regard.

I don't understand what it is that was so bad about this piece of legislation that shouldn't have been brought up at the very time this received second reading. If it's a matter of principle, it's at second reading that those six people should have stood on their feet and said, "This bill should not go further and we're voting against it."

If there was something in principle wrong with this bill, the minister responsible for the Solicitor General's department, or for the Housing ministry, or for photo-radar, the Minister of Transportation, any of these people, should have stood on their feet and said in principle: "We are opposed to this bill and we are not going to do anything further with it. We are killing it on principle because we are against dealing with drug dealers in this fashion."

How is it that when a committee receives an order from this House to deal with a bill, six people alone of the 130 who represent the province of Ontario can say, "There is nothing further that will be considered on this because, as a matter of principle, we six don't like this"? That's what they're saying. I don't think these people should assume that they should carry the day. They should report the bill back. It's well within their limits to report the bill back unamended, and then we could have the debate a