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

May 18, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

RURAL ONTARIO

YOUNG OFFENDERS

MISSING CHILDREN

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

CONTROL OF SMOKING

TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

MISSING CHILDREN

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

LAND USE PLANNING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

LAND USE PLANNING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

LAND USE PLANNING

PURCHASE OF LAND

EMERGENCY SERVICES

PURCHASE OF LAND

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

PENSION FUNDS

FOREST INDUSTRY

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE

SUMMER EXPERIENCE WAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

SOCIAL CONTRACT

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

GAMBLING

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

GAMBLING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SALE OF AMMUNITION

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

TOBACCO PACKAGING

FIREARMS SAFETY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

TOWN OF PICTON ACT, 1994

COUNTY OF BRUCE ACT, 1994

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

REVENUE AND LIQUOR LICENCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS FISCALES ET LA

LOI SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

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

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1994

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): When Finance Minister Laughren presented the budget on May 5, I was concerned that he did not mention words central to our provincial economy such as "farming," "agriculture" and "rural Ontario." Instead we heard references to subways, highways and urban centres. A closer inspection of the budget reveals that not only was the Finance minister unwilling to mention the agri-industry, he actually abandoned rural Ontario.

The NDP is cutting the budget for farmers by $34 million this year. Somehow, in spite of the NDP's proposal of restraint, it was able to find $17 million more to spend on the civil servants at Management Board. It is incredible that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs can justify cutting assistance to farmers by $34 million while increasing spending on administration by $17 million.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Residents of Mississauga South are reeling in shock after a local man, Brian Baylen, was viciously murdered while out for an evening stroll in a neighbourhood we all thought was safe. A 15-year-old female and a 16-year-old male have been charged with murder.

Like my constituents, I am appalled and furious. I grieve for Brian Baylen and his family. It could have been my friend or relative who was stabbed to death on my street.

I believe we are all responsible for Mr Baylen's death. We have watched in apathy as our society becomes increasingly violent. We have allowed our children to grow up with violence as the norm in television and film entertainment. Children are desensitized to violence at a very young age. Is it any wonder then if some youths commit violent crimes, senseless killing of innocent victims?

Another serious problem is the federal Young Offenders Act, passed by the Trudeau Liberals a decade ago. These two young people who face murder charges in Mr Baylen's death, if tried in youth court and found guilty, will be out of jail in just five years.

I am starting petitions calling on the federal government to toughen the Young Offenders Act and asking both the federal and provincial governments to take action against the portrayal of violence in the entertainment media.

Please sign these petitions and let your elected representatives know that as lawmakers they are not doing enough to make our communities safe. These are young people whom we treat as adults until they commit crimes and then we treat them as children.

MISSING CHILDREN

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): May 25, next week, is National Missing Children's Day. The green ribbons that all MPPs are wearing today are to remind us of missing children everywhere. It is a symbol of hope for their safe return.

It is difficult to imagine the unspeakable grief that parents suffer when their child has gone missing. As legislators, we must be mindful of the work that needs to be done to make our society safer for these our most vulnerable citizens.

Children truly are our hope for the future. Just last week in fact the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice released this report which I have here -- it's called Yours, Mine and Ours -- on how best to serve Ontario children and youth.

I would like to take this opportunity today to acknowledge the work of Child Find in Ontario. Child Find is a non-profit organization which does the following: It assists in the location of missing children, increases public awareness of missing children, teaches prevention methods and gives general assistance and emotional support to affected parents. It operates a very important long-distance line, a 1-800 number.

Seated in the gallery today is Jackie Cutmore, executive director of Child Find, if she would stand. I want to welcome her to the Legislature and I want to commend her and her organization on the work that they do helping us get missing children back home. Thank you.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): The Minister for Economic Development and Trade has informed the town of LaSalle that its application for funding the Robert Carrick Memorial Athletic Complex under the Jobs Ontario Community Action program has been denied, this despite the fact that this complex would be constructed on publicly owned property, that it is a cooperative effort spearheaded by a committee of volunteers comprised of interested and proactive residents, that the complex would be designed for use by the physically and mentally challenged and would have been used to host the 1994 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled and that the committee has followed the guidelines of various ministry officials.

The town of LaSalle advises me that other projects in the county have received funding and that in the committee's opinion this project, in its unique nature, was most worthy.

By way of this statement, I would ask that the minister responsible reconsider the Jobs Ontario Community Action application from the town of LaSalle so the physically and mentally challenged, as well as the able members of the community, may get on with this worthwhile project.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): It's a sad day for Ontario politics when a very powerful interest group uses scare tactics, along with misleading information, to attack a member of Parliament for representing his constituents.

At a press conference today the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco stated that by sticking up for some 450 manufacturing jobs in my area I am somehow posing a threat to the health of our children. Every point the coalition makes in a full-page ad it is running in my riding is inaccurate, every last point.

I have a strong and clear record as a long-time advocate of workable restrictions on smoking, and I am offended, as I suspect most Ontarians will be offended, by the tactics employed by this organization.

I care about fighting the battle to deter our youth from smoking, I care about people losing their jobs and their livelihoods when the government refuses to even listen to them and I care about fighting against special interests who use every weapon at their disposal, including scare tactics and misleading information, to try and intimidate elected officials. Their tactics don't deserve to work, and in this case they are not going to work.

TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): This week the Kingston area is celebrating an industry that's central to the life of our community: central because the industry links our area with its historic place in Ontario and in Canada; central also because it plays an important

part in our economy, bringing in millions of dollars every year and creating some 65,000 jobs.

I rise today to recognize the greater Kingston area Tourism Awareness Week, a celebration of the work people living in the Kingston area have done to welcome the some one million visitors we see every year. The event is sponsored by the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, downtown Kingston and the Rotary Club of Kingston.

Kingston, a former garrison town and port, became the seat of the government of Upper Canada in the last century. This history and the fact that many of the beautiful limestone buildings from that time still grace area streets has afforded the Kingston area a special place in Ontario's tourism industry.

We have more museums than any community of comparable size in the province. We have a beautiful waterfront setting at the head of the Thousand Islands. We have plenty of first-class entertainment, some as old as the Folklore multicultural festival, celebrating its 25th year on June 10 to 12, and as new as the Kingston Summer Festival, set for its inauguration this summer.

As part of Tourism Awareness Week, there's a historic city cycle tour to promote our community's potential as an excellent bike touring area. A bike ride to Kingston Mills will follow that event to acknowledge that this is also Bike to Work Week.

This year Tourism Awareness Week is marking the pivotal role such services as marinas, public transit, restaurants and gas stations play not only in serving our visitors but in heightening the awareness of area residents that tourism in the Kingston area brings in some $273 million every year and creates more than 13% of our jobs. This is a reminder that, as the tourism week slogan goes, "Tourism Is Everyone's Business."

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today we wear green ribbons to show our support for the Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign, which runs from May 1 to May 31, 1994, and allows us to show our solidarity with the families of the thousands of children missing across the country. We especially wish to recognize that May 25, 1994, will be National Missing Children's Day, a day of tremendous importance to all of us.

Every time a child disappears not one person in the community, in the province or in the country is left unaffected. We all share a sense of fear, horror and sadness, especially on those tragic occasions when a missing child becomes a murdered child.

In 1993 almost 56,000 children were reported missing; only 50,000 of them have been recovered. On May 5, 1992, when the people of St Catharines said goodbye to Kristen French, I said on that occasion in this House that life seemed so unfair when a kind, gracious, innocent girl is taken from her family, her friends and her colleagues at school in broad daylight. These words apply to all missing and murdered children taken from their families.

Violence against women and children and the attitudes that breed them must be stopped. This issue must be addressed now and it must be addressed with commitment and determination. We owe it to the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy and to the thousands of missing children across Ontario and Canada.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I too would like to join all members of the House because May 1994 marks the third annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign by Child Find Canada, which seeks to increase public awareness about missing children everywhere and works to ensure their safe and speedy return to their families.

The campaign, which culminates on May 25, National Missing Children's Day, was developed soon after the tragic abduction-murder of 15-year-old Kristen French of St Catharines on April 16, 1992. Kristen's teachers and friends mobilized their community to search for her and chose as their symbol the green ribbon, which has now been extended to represent all missing children.

No community in this province is immune from the grave tragedy suffered by the families of victims such as Leslie Mahaffy, Nina de Villiers, Christopher Stephenson and many, many more. The green ribbon is also a call for government action to make community safety a priority and to enhance police investigations against violent sexual offenders. On behalf of my Burlington community, countless legitimate pleas have been made to this government to reverse the trend towards the early release of and temporary passes for violent sex offenders.

The Green Ribbon Campaign also provides a sense of urgency for a victims' bill of rights for Ontario, like the one that was blocked by the Liberals in 1990 and then by the NDP government in 1992. This would give the right to families of crime victims to have automatic standing at coroners' inquests and to be closely involved in all stages of police investigations.

Today we join all families of child victims in calling on the NDP to move from the symbolism of the green ribbon to concerted action on their behalf to curb the tragic increases in premeditated murders of young women and children in Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Guess what? I got a letter in my mailbox to join a revolution, the Harris revolution. Usually the people who join revolutions are the downtrodden who want to escape some yoke of oppression. These people are appealing for money, and it says here that I've got to send $100 or more, $50 or $35, and I'm supposed to team up 10 more people to join this wretched revolution.

I want to tell you that I met over the weekend with the fine Liquor Control Board of Ontario workers who are in my riding. These people serve the community, they coach the hockey teams, they coach the baseball teams; they're there in the community when you want them. This revolution wants to put all those people out of work. They want to put the liquor component of the liquor into little stores like Miracle Food Mart and Loblaws, and they'll be on the corner. These people will be getting minimum wages and they've got mortgages like you and me and they've got children to send to university.

I'm telling that crowd over there, you won't have 10 people join your revolution. The liquor control people will get 100 people, every one of them, and you'll have the revolution, the mother of all revolutions on your hands that you'll wish you never had. Shame on the lot of you.

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

Mr Mills: Shame on the lot of you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Today I'm releasing legislation, policy statements and administrative changes that mark the beginning of this government's reform of the planning and development system in Ontario.

I'm proud to say the changes to the Planning Act and other amendments represent a major reform of the current land use process. I'm also pleased to tell members of the House that the provincial facilitator, Dale Martin, will head up a committee of municipal leaders, developers, builders and environmental groups that will work on the practical details of implementing our new system.

People in this province have lost faith in the planning system. There are concerns about the integrity of the process, there are very accurate perceptions in the community that the system is inefficient, slow and very costly, and there is the fear that the planning system simply doesn't have the teeth to protect the environment.

These changes will cut red tape in the development process so jobs can be created. They will provide stronger environmental protection for natural features and agricultural land and they will give municipalities more authority and accountability.

In the new system, the government will shift towards better consumer and customer service, with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs the lead, one-window ministry for land use planning.

The system will also favour cooperative resolution to disputes before they enter the system and create lengthy, costly delays that are in no one's best interests.

Municipalities will be given greater control of the development process. We believe planning and the development of Ontario cities, towns and rural areas can best be done by people living there. In this context, the provincial government will set broad policy direction, municipal governments will make development decisions and the Ontario Municipal Board will adjudicate disputes.

A set of provincial policy statements clearly stating the provincial expectations for planning is also being released today. Other changes are focused on promoting more open and accountable local governments, including improving procedures for conducting council business and disposing of property.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Get on with the job.

Hon Mr Philip: The Liberals, who have no policy on anything, want to keep on interrupting me, but I'll continue.

Finally, the new planning system will set out clear rules for achieving a balance of environmental, economic and social interests. This means environmentally sound development proposals can proceed more quickly, creating jobs in the construction industry and other sectors.

Today's events are the culmination of more than three years' work by hundreds of extremely dedicated people. The work began in 1991 when the government appointed former Toronto mayor John Sewell to head up a commission on planning and development reform in Ontario. Last June, the commission delivered its final report to the government. We studied the report very carefully, and in December we released a preliminary outline of our reforms and a set of proposed policy statements for consultation. During that time, we heard from more than 600 people and groups from every area of the province. Many of their ideas have been incorporated in the final documents.

As with any issue this large and complex, it has been tough to please everybody on every detail, but I believe we have reached consensus on most of the important aspects of our proposed new planning system for Ontario.

I would like to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work done by John Sewell and his commission, as well as by Dale Martin. My ministry staff have put in long hours and many weekends, as have the many hundreds of volunteers who have worked in some way in developing this set of proposals. My predecessor, the Honourable David Cooke, has also played a very significant role in the development of the policies and in promoting them in the caucus and cabinet. I want to thank all of these people.

I believe the people of Ontario will be better served by this new system, a system that is clearer, easier, more accountable and more accessible.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): They will be better served by calling an election.

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

Mr Sorbara: Let's have it: the ultimate turnaround, the ultimate copout.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Centre to please come to order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Last month, the Premier announced that this government would be making major changes to the workers' compensation system to help restore its financial health and to improve benefits to those injured workers most in need. At that time, the Premier outlined the package of immediate and long-term reforms, which had five key components. They were:

(1) a new bipartite structure for the WCB board of directors which will be more arm's-length from the government;

(2) a stronger emphasis on rehabilitating injured workers and getting them back to work safely and quickly;

(3) cost-saving measures which include changes to indexing and establishing government-directed financial targets;

(4) special indexing protection for the most vulnerable injured workers and an additional $200 a month --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre. Sorry. I must caution the member for York Centre that if he refuses to come to order, he will be named. There will be an opportunity for responses to the statements made by the ministers.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To continue, special indexing protection for the most vulnerable injured workers and an additional $200 a month on the pensions of many older injured workers; and

(5) the establishment of a royal commission to take a wide-ranging look at the workers' compensation system.

Today I am pleased to introduce for first reading in this Legislature the Workers' Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, 1994. This is one of a number of immediate steps the government is taking to act on workers' compensation reform.

I am also pleased to announce today the appointment of Ken Copeland as interim vice-chair of administration for the Workers' Compensation Board. He will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the board and, with the board of directors, will help judge and implement workers' compensation reform.

I'd like to summarize for the House the major elements of the bill I'm introducing today.

First, we are introducing a purpose clause which will establish fair compensation, vocational rehabilitation and early return to work as the overriding goals of the Workers' Compensation Act.

We are also proposing amendments that will require the board of directors to act in a financially responsible manner, with a view to the best interests of the Workers' Compensation Board.

We are proposing a series of amendments to the act to enhance vocational rehabilitation services and improve early return to work.

They include, for example, a proposal that physicians, with the worker's consent, release prescribed medical information that will help employers and their employees plan for safe and early return to work; a proposal that will clarify the role of the board in enforcing existing re-employment obligations; a proposal that will improve the board's incentive programs by measuring a broader and more meaningful range of workplace programs and practices; and an amendment that will establish a time-limited process for mediation and decision-making in matters that require resolution.

We are also proposing that the act be amended to formally introduce a bipartite structure so that both labour and business have an equal say in the governance of the WCB.

We are proposing amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act that would provide a $200 increase to the permanent partial disability awards of workers injured prior to Bill 162 who are or become entitled to receive, or have been entitled to receive, subsection 147(4) supplements.

We are providing an amendment that would result in the adoption of what is known as the Friedland indexing formula, but with provisions that would ensure that the most vulnerable workers could continue to receive benefits fully indexed to the consumer price index. The Friedland formula indexes pensions to 75% of the CPI, less 1%, with a cap of 4% a year.

Certain groups will continue to receive fully indexed benefits. They are those people who receive survivor and dependant benefits, those receiving 100% pensions for injuries that occurred prior to 1990, those receiving 100% wage loss awards for injuries that occurred after 1989 and those receiving the $200 increase I have just mentioned.

We believe the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act that we are introducing today will help us achieve the three main objectives we have set for reform of the workers' compensation system. They are ensuring the future financial viability of the system, early return to work for injured workers, and protection for the most financially vulnerable injured workers.

It is clear that we can no longer afford to ignore either the serious plight of the many older injured workers who live in difficult circumstances or the financial crisis towards which the system has been heading. We cannot afford to do so either in economic terms or in human terms.

This untenable situation has been brought to the province's attention a number of times over the last decade, but to date no government has been willing to take the necessary steps to address it. As the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee on workers' compensation made very clear in its framework agreement, however, we must act now. The business and labour members of the committee accomplished a tremendous amount of work and laid the foundation for the package of reforms that this government announced last month. The amendments we are introducing today are an important step towards putting these reforms in place in this province.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering if there is a standing order that requires opposition members who then become government members and Labour ministers to introduce policies that are at all consistent with --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. Would the member please take his seat immediately.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): We now have the minister's proposal for the Sewell commission report. We've been waiting for his response to the Sewell commission's $2.2-million review of the Planning Act, which was not well received either by AMO or the municipalities across this province.

I have to point out that the minister says one thing and does another. He is promising to speed up the planning process, make it simpler and make it less costly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I apologize to the member for Brant-Haldimand. It would be helpful if members on both sides of the House would allow the member for Brant-Haldimand to respond to the minister's statement.

Mr Eddy: Mr Speaker, thank you. I listened politely to the minister, but they don't bother me. I don't listen to them.

This legislation will only make land use planning more complicated, more time-consuming and indeed much, much, much more expensive for the municipal governments in this province. He is going to force every municipality to go through a complicated process of redrafting its official plans. Every inch of land in every municipality will have to be reviewed to see if it meets provincial policy statements like:

"In decisions regarding development, every opportunity should be taken to: maintain the quality of air, land, water and biota; maintain biodiversity compatible with indigenous natural systems; and protect natural links and corridors."

Development may be permitted only if it does not negatively impact the features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified. Development will not be permitted on adjacent lands if it negatively impacts on the ecological functions or the features listed above.

It sounds like a lot more studies, doesn't it, Mr Speaker? It's as clear as mud, as clear as Haldimand clay. How much is it going to cost every municipality to decipher these dictates? Who is going to pay for these reviews? I expect it's the municipal governments.

The minister says he wants to make the rules of the planning system clearer. The only rule he has made clear is that the province will be calling the shots and of course downloading tremendous provincial planning costs on to the backs of local municipalities.

The legislation will not let local communities decide local issues. The minister's plan says mandatory contents will be stipulated for all municipal and planning board official plans. It's going to be more complicated, time-delaying and very costly.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): To the Minister of Labour's announcement, this is just him announcing what the Premier already announced on April 14 and trying to wrap it up as being some new kind of great move on the part of the government. Unfortunately, Minister, you've done nothing and said nothing about service delivery to injured workers.

As the minister knows, I recently completed a three-month tour of the province and meetings with people on workers' compensation. If there's one thing I heard from injured workers and from business, from employers, it's that they are fed up with the lack of service delivery and accountability at the board.

Minister, I have released a report, which I sent to your office but apparently you didn't get, called Back to the Future, with some ideas on WCB reform. I'm going to have a page take that over to you. You might find some interesting late-night reading in there to give you some ideas.

You talk about making this accountable by setting up what you refer to as "a new bipartite structure for the Workers' Compensation Board." Fascinating. How is it new? It's half labour, half business. There are supposedly two citizen reps appointed, but guess who they're appointed by? They're appointed by labour and they're appointed by management. It's not new; it's just trying to recycle the same old problems.

There are more than just two stakeholders, Minister, I submit to you, involved in workers' compensation. The medical community has a huge stake. Injured workers themselves deserve a specific spot on the Workers' Compensation Board because they know at first hand what's happening.

You pretend, Minister, that you're not trying to fix this on the backs of injured workers. Who do you think is paying for the $200 supplement? It's the injured workers you're making pay ultimately.

The real tragedy is that by tinkering with this, you are failing to recognize that there is a long-term requirement to fix this system today.

I would, however, having been somewhat negative about this announcement, congratulate you at least on the appointment of Mr Ken Copeland. I understand from my colleagues that he is a competent individual and I wish him well.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): These changes announced today will do nothing to restore the Workers' Compensation Board to financial health or address the urgent problems plaguing the system. It's simply a rehash of what we've heard before. Meanwhile, we have a system that is drowning in an undertow of fiscal mismanagement. This government has stumbled in the dark for four years and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for injured workers, employees or employers. You have done too little too late for a system which the management caucus of the PLMAC declared to be technically bankrupt.

You have an unfunded liability of $11.5 billion. You have failed to respond to their demand that a financial responsibility framework be established.

This plan is fiscally irresponsible and it puts the future security of benefits for injured workers at grave risk, as well as all future jobs for people in this province. Instead of responding to the concerns, instead of responding to the mismanagement problems, you have deliberately proceeded to place your own political agenda ahead of the interests of the total workers' compensation system.

This province is still suffering today from the consequences of the Liberal Bill 208, which was never analysed and costed, and we still don't know the real financial impact. We do know it has given us the highest assessment rates in all of Canada.

You should have listened to the constructive proposals from the PLMAC management. I want you to know that they do not support this package. It is not the result of joint labour-management agreement, and this government should not be allowed to perpetuate the myth that it is. They feel betrayed by you and by the Premier. The original PLMAC agreement was to cut $3.3 billion off the unfunded liability. What you have done is to cherry-pick off that agreement, and the result has been that you've given $2.6 billion back to labour.

This is a cynical move that demonstrates that this government has no real commitment to cutting the cost of the system. You are not and never were concerned about the future viability of the system or the workers or the employers.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Planning Act should provide tools to municipalities to create good planning in the province of Ontario; it should not dictate the end result of planning. Unfortunately, that's what this particular document does. It dictates the ends rather than providing the means to good planning in the province. That is apparent through the fact that municipalities will have to be consistent with the policies of this provincial government. Local autonomy should be permitted to provide good planning.

The environmental policy created in this document takes priority. Again there's no flexibility at the local level. There's a particular concern in rural Ontario with regard to wetlands, with regard to agricultural land. There's a perception that this statement will close down development in rural areas of the province.

Downloading: Not only will new official plans have to be created, in some cases where there are no plans, but municipalities will be required to do more technical studies, get more information from more bureaucrats. Today that process is painfully slow; in the future, it will be even slower.

In rural Ontario there's considerable concern about the ability to sever land. In many cases there may have to be an environmental impact study, at great cost. Local land owners are being treated in the same fashion as major developers through this document.

There has been no cost-benefit analysis. Will this plan provide benefits to the environment? What are the additional costs to municipalities and to property owners in Ontario associated with this plan? The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is most concerned about the cost-benefit analysis.

Three of the existing policies in place today will remain in place, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has expressed particular concern that they may conflict with the new policies.

Finally, the Toronto Home Builders' Association has pointed out that there is a considerable amount of imprecise wording. Words such as "adverse impact," "every opportunity" and "wellbeing" are in this document. What do they mean? There'll be an endless number of challenges and more cost associated with that kind of wording.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question today is for my favourite minister, fearless Frances, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who today will continue to answer for the out-of-town Minister of Environment and Energy. I want to take the Minister of Economic Development back to the Costa Rican rain forest.

Yesterday the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro I dare say were pleased and I suspect proud to hear Ms Lankin say in this House, in response to a question concerning Ontario Hydro's investigation of taking a part of the Costa Rican rain forest, the following, and I quote her directly on that subject: "I find it astounding that we would be considering, particularly in these times, to spend ratepayers' moneys in that way." Minister, you couldn't have been clearer, and I dare say the people of Ontario agree with you.

At 1 o'clock today, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Maurice Strong, said that he's running Hydro and he's continuing to investigate that particular option and others.

I ask you, as a minister in the government, is Hydro's adventure in the Costa Rican rain forest dead? If it isn't dead, will you make it dead this day?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I wonder if my favourite member opposite is also directly quoting Mr Strong. I didn't see him read that, and I'm unaware of exactly what Mr Strong has said, except to say that I would agree with him completely that he is running Ontario Hydro.

The member opposite will know that I, out of courtesy yesterday, acting in the absence of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, undertook to respond to their questions, and indicated that the minister responsible was out of town for two days and would be back on Thursday to answer questions directly on this.

I do think that there is an area of controversy emerging. I think it would be respectful of all of us to allow the minister responsible for the portfolio to deal with the question and to respond. I don't retract any of my comments or opinions; they're on the record and I stand by them. But I would suggest to the member that it would be appropriate to stand down further investigation of this matter until the Minister of Environment is here tomorrow to answer your questions directly.

Mr Conway: I repeat that I think the people of Ontario were pleased to hear a senior minister say what she said yesterday, and I agree with her. She's forgetting something that perhaps her colleagues are forgetting. Two years ago, the Rae government amended, by virtue of Bill 118, the Power Corporation Act to give the government a clear directive power to tell Hydro what it ought to do in these kinds of circumstances. You did it; it was your policy, you said because you wanted to make it clear to everyone who's running the show.

Minister, clearly you as a government have the power to direct Hydro to cease and desist from what you rightly called an astounding adventure. Will you do so?

Hon Ms Lankin: My recollection is that the member opposite was deathly opposed to the amendments to the Power Corporation Act and the government taking more control with respect to Ontario Hydro.

While I completely, completely agree with the member with respect to how he has supported me in the comments I've made, and I appreciate that support, I also think, to be fair and respectful, the minister responsible, who has a corporate relationship with Ontario Hydro, will be here tomorrow to answer questions in the House. It would perhaps be overstepping my bounds, as the minister here not responsible, for him today to make a statement with respect to how you invoke that legislation.

I'll be quite honest with the member. In the area in which I work and the portfolios I have responsibility for, I know in great detail the working relationships with the agencies. I'll tell you honestly that I don't have that same working knowledge, and I think the minister responsible should be able to answer, and he will be here tomorrow.

Mr Conway: After the minister's declaration yesterday, Ontario Hydro issued a statement and the chairman confirmed it today. The ratepayers and taxpayers of Ontario Hydro would be interested to know that this adventure in the Costa Rican rain forest is but one of several international sorties that the Ontario utility is examining.

We have the new ads, "The new Ontario Hydro: a global enterprise." We've all seen those new ads: Maurice Strong, like Atlas, holding the world in his hand. The taxpayers of Ontario wonder. We've got a $35-billion debt at the corporation, and now we're going out to buy a piece of the Costa Rican rain forest.

Minister, will you table today a complete list of the other parts of the world in which Ontario Hydro, your Hydro, a Hydro that you control more completely than any government because of what you did with Bill 118, table today or at your very earliest convenience a list of all of the other international adventures, so that the hard-pressed Hydro ratepayers from Beaches to Pembroke, from Shining Tree to Windsor, will understand the imperial ambitions of your new Ontario Hydro?

Hon Ms Lankin: A couple of points in response: I am sure that's not Maurice Strong holding it. I know that picture. That's not Maurice Strong.

Second, I'm glad the member brought up the $35-billion debt his government was directly responsible for creating, with respect to Ontario Hydro, and that he points out the kind of effective leadership we've put in to restructure Ontario Hydro to try and do something about that.

I think the maligning of the head of Ontario Hydro, a very well known and respected environmentalist and corporate leader, is uncalled for in the exchange that's going on here.

The minister responsible will be here tomorrow, can respond to requests for the tabling of information, and I'm sure they'll put the question to him at this time.

I will say, however, as ineffective as pine trees are, given that Hydro has told me that one mahogany tree would be 20 times more effective than 20 pine trees, I still say plant the 20 pine trees in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Conway: Ah, Mr Speaker, what 24 hours did. Yesterday an astounded lion roared and today a mouse retreats. Who would have thought --

The Speaker: A second question, please.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question, to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will recall that a few weeks ago you and I had a discussion over a couple of days. You will recall our discussion a couple of weeks ago about ongoing problems with small hospitals in rural Ontario and northern Ontario, in their ability to attract and maintain physicians to support a whole range of their services, including emergency services.

At that time, you regrettably reported to the House a couple of weeks ago that eight months after your announcement last summer, you were unfortunately not able to report progress in terms of a new Ontario Medical Association agreement with respect to a new, improved underserviced area program.

In the intervening days, have you had any greater luck in dealing with the very real concern in most of rural and northern Ontario, and if so, can you report any progress on that matter to the House this afternoon?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): What I reported and commented on in response to the member's question some time ago was that our attempt to work in a tripartite way with the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry to resolve a very long-standing issue of coverage by physicians in rural areas had not borne fruit, because the OMA had withdrawn from those tripartite discussions last February.

I am happy to be able to tell him that with respect to some specific localities and some specific hospitals, I think we are making some progress, but I don't have anything of a comprehensive nature at this point to report to the House.

Mr Conway: I want to follow up, because I was talking to one of those hospitals just this morning, and it is a very real problem, particularly as we head into a long weekend and summer. My friend the member for Kenora talks about his situation at Red Lake. We've got the member for Elgin talking about his situation at Four Counties General. I've got a couple of hospitals in the region of Algonquin Park, and they are having real problems.

One of those hospitals got a letter from you yesterday that said the following, and I quote you directly from your letter:

"We would like to encourage the hospital's administrators and the physicians to continue to explore other means of settling issues affecting remuneration for physicians. They could examine alternative payment methods for doctors when they provide medical services through the hospital emergency ward and in the community."

Minister, that one hospital said to me, "We don't know what the minister means." Will you explain yourself to these hospitals?

Hon Mrs Grier: Part of our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association has been attempting to provide payments to physicians on emergency hours in a way that adequately compensates them for being there. What we are hearing from the physicians is that they sometimes, in a small rural hospital, see between only one and five patients over the evening hours or the 12 hours between 6 and 6 in the morning, and because they are paid on the basis of how many people they see, they don't earn enough to warrant being in the emergency rooms.

This is really an issue about the doctors who have for years served and covered emergency rooms in hospitals now saying that they don't earn enough, by being there, to warrant continuing that coverage.

What we want to work with them to do is to find a much more sensible and modern way of compensating doctors for their services, by working out a global budget and then allowing the physicians in a hospital to decide whether one would work Monday, one Tuesday, one Thursday. Then they would be sure they had a compensation package that adequately dealt with their needs and was the appropriate remuneration as opposed to being paid, as they traditionally have been, on a piecework basis, that the more people they saw, the more money they earned, and if there weren't emergency cases, they didn't earn enough to warrant, they believe, their time in the emergency room.

Mr Conway: This is very interesting policy, and the 40 or 50 or 60 hospitals serving rural, small-town and northern Ontario are going to be very interested in what the minister just said. What she has said is that her policy is that those hospitals are going to be expected to meet these requirements out of their ever-compressed global budgets. That's what you're telling people, and I want you to be clear, because in Red Lake, in Barry's Bay, in Deep River and in Newbury they want to know what your policy is.

They had expected that, as Minister of Health, you would do something along the lines of what you suggested last summer. You are clearly not willing, or capable, to do that. All right. So am I clear, because the hospitals in those communities need to know, that your effective policy is simply this: In Red Lake, in Barry's Bay, in Wingham and in all those other places, you meet those needs by simply taking the money, whatever you need, in whatever amounts, out of your global budget, notwithstanding the fact that that global budget has been contracted for a whole host of reasons over these past number of years?

Hon Mrs Grier: I gather the member is lately come to this issue and perhaps has not followed the progression of policy of myself and other ministers of Health in saying that we believe there ought to be a better way of compensating physicians, particularly in small rural hospitals. It's happening in Kingston; it's happening in other areas on a broader basis.

To deal with the rural emergency area, what has been happening traditionally is that hospitals have had to do as the member describes and pay from their global budgets for med-emerg or for locums. We believe they ought to be able to have a more global arrangement with their physicians covering all the physicians' service. That's what we were attempting to talk about with the OMA and the OHA as part of dealing with this issue.

We have been unable to come to that agreement. We are talking about it in that sense in Red Lake and in other areas, but until we come to some comprehensive agreements, either on a local basis or over the entire province, hospitals have to have in place contingency plans and ways of meeting those needs themselves, because the Ministry of Health cannot unilaterally say to a doctor, "You will work there, because that's where you're needed." We do not have the power to do that to this particular group of public servants.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm going to have to direct this question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade -- it's related to Mr Strong's activities -- although I think it would more appropriately go to the Deputy Premier. He may refer it, but I'm going to direct it to him, because this has to do with more significant concerns about the decision, above and beyond the question of it perhaps being a bad spending decision.

Deputy Premier, it's been three days since my colleague from Etobicoke West disclosed an offer by Maurice Strong to purchase a tract of jungle in Costa Rica. Since then, Hydro's explanation of the scheme has been, shall we say, tortured, perhaps even inventive.

Today, the Toronto Sun has disclosed details of Mr Strong's extensive business holdings in Costa Rica. These include a $35-million hotel complex which, according to the Sun, was built illegally on native land. Minister, has anyone in your government raised this issue with Mr Strong, and if so, what can you report to the House on this matter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I'm pleased to be back in the Legislature. I have been travelling the province in the last week, so I was trying to catch up this morning on the whole issue of Ontario Hydro and Costa Rica. I came to the conclusion, after having read the newspaper clippings and having listened to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade in the last few minutes, that the best course of action for me to take would be to indicate to you that the minister will be here tomorrow and will be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

Mr Runciman: The best course of action apparently is to run and hide.

I do have a supplementary. In June 1992, the Costa Rican press indicated that a Mr Alberto Vasquez, who's a director of refuges for the ministry of natural resources in Costa Rica, indicated that he planned to press charges against Mr Strong for illegally building a hotel in a wildlife refuge. I quote, "Mr Strong had absolutely no permits and he hasn't even presented a single document."

In October 1992, after a meeting with Mr Strong, the minister miraculously -- not a civil servant, but the minister -- said, "It's okay; we misread the maps." I have a document here from the Tico Times, dated October 1992, which indicates that Mr Strong has submitted plans for expansion of his hotel complex.

Without responding to the details of the allegations, I'm wondering if you are not, as the Deputy Premier of your government, personally concerned about what appears to be a conflict between the private interests of Mr Strong and his public responsibilities.

Hon Mr Laughren: If there are indeed conflicts between personal interests and corporate responsibilities, of course not only I but the entire government would be concerned. I do not yet, at this time at least, have any information that would indicate that's the case. That's why I think you personally will be better served when you hear from the minister tomorrow.

Mr Runciman: I hope that's indeed the case. I would think certainly, once these concerns are raised, we will have very full and adequate explanations.

We know that Mr Strong has significant business investments in Costa Rica. We know he has run into legal difficulties with a hotel development in Costa Rica. We know he has submitted plans to expand his hotel. We know he has offered the Costa Rican government $12 million of our money and we know Ontario Hydro has a $35-billion debt.

Minister, this raises very, very significant concerns. What's going on? What's the real story? When are you going to intervene and have Mr Strong come forward with a full public explanation?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'd be somewhat cautious, I say to the member from Leeds, in drawing the kinds of conclusions he's drawing in such a categorical way that indicates there is a conflict because Mr Strong has some property in Costa Rica and the fact that Ontario Hydro is looking at the purchase of a portion of rain forest. All I'm saying to the member from Leeds is not to be too categorical until the entire story has been told. The Minister of Environment and Energy will be in the Legislature tomorrow afternoon to respond to questions.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, you're directly responsible for the third-largest budget of any portfolio in the government of Ontario, and that makes you one of the most qualified public officials in the province, I think, to respond to our question.

Let's say that you discover almost 35 cents on every dollar spent on a program in your ministry went to bureaucratic overhead. That's 35% of taxpayer funding which never makes it to the people that use it. I would ask you, Mr Minister, is that to you a benchmark of failure for a government program and, if it is, would you pull the plug on that program?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Perhaps I should wait to hear what program the member's referring to.

Mrs Cunningham: There are a number of programs, but the minister's right, I am speaking of one specifically today. We believe that any program whose bureaucratic overhead eats up almost 35 cents on every dollar fails the fundamental test of value for money, and so would the public. Yet this is exactly what we found in a recent analysis of your budget of the Jobs Ontario Training scheme, and I'm going to send it over by the page.

By your own numbers, your government spends more than $10,500 for every job created, but the average subsidy to employers is only $7,000. These are numbers that all of the members of this House should memorize: $10,500 on every job created, but $7,000 to the employer.

That means the administrative cost of every job created is more than $3,500, and spread over the full $346-million cost of the program to date, that amounts to $115 million in just one of the Jobs Ontario, that is, the Jobs Ontario Training program: $115 million in overhead alone or almost 35% of the total cost of this Jobs Ontario Training scheme.

On that basis, will you immediately cancel the Jobs Ontario Training scheme on behalf of the angry and totally exhausted taxpayers of this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I do know is that the kind of superficial analysis that the member is presenting is simply incorrect. From a first look at this, she's adding everything into what she calls administrative. Pre-employment training, for example, which we provide, you're throwing into the administrative category, which is absolutely wrong. There has to be pre-employment training in order to get people into the workplace.

All I know is that we're approaching 50,000 jobs created under this program. All I know is that we're approaching $200 million in saved or voided welfare costs as a result of this program. All I know is that in another jurisdiction, New Brunswick, where they've tried to provide training programs to get people off social assistance and into the workplace, they're spending between $60,000 and $100,000 per job. That is the kind of examples.

This is a cost-efficient program that is helping thousands of people in the province, no matter how you try to spin it in the opposite direction.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, everything you talked about is part of the cost of training people for these jobs, so the pre-training you're talking about is part of the job. It is a training job. Don't use that as an excuse. We're talking about administrative costs.

There are a lot of things wrong with your Jobs Ontario Training scheme. It's fallen far short of your own goals, and you know that. There are widespread allegations of fraud and abuse throughout the program. Many believe the scheme simply throws money at employers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I don't think I should have to put up with that crap; I really don't.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Durham East please come to order.

The member has a valid concern about the interjections. I have a valid concern about the unparliamentary language. I would ask that the government members allow the member to pose her question and I would ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary language and continue with her question.

Mrs Cunningham: Most reluctantly, I will withdraw if you personally feel it's unparliamentary. I think it was a compliment to some of the language that I've had to listen to. I really want you to know that.

Interjections.

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

Mrs Cunningham: I can't; I'm not going to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister should know that in spite of his objections there are all kinds of allegations of fraud and abuse. He knows about it; he's investigating these things himself. Many believe the scheme simply throws money at employers who would have created these jobs anyway. That's very important, because then the 35% is more important than anything.

According to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April 13, it's even possible for a social assistance recipient to refuse an offer of work from an employer under Jobs Ontario without consequence. I'll send that over to the minister as well.

But these serious flaws, all of them, pale in comparison to its administrative cost, which is, in spite of this kind of language from the minister, 35 cents on the dollar. It can only be described as scandalously high.

Minister, given this latest and most serious disclosure, will you admit that the Jobs Ontario Training jig is up and kill the scheme once and for all?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll just repeat that the member is entirely wrong. When I look at her sheet, the average training subsidy --

Mrs Cunningham: The sheet was provided by your staff.

Hon Mr Cooke: Now, look, Mr Speaker, she asked our side to be quiet when she was speaking and now she can't keep quiet while I'm trying to answer.

Mrs Cunningham: You're right.

Hon Mr Cooke: The average training subsidy per job, according to the release that the Tories put out, is $7,000. Then she goes on to say that it's a cost of $10,500 per job and therefore the $3,500 must be administrative costs. She's wrong. There is pre-employment training, which is a major and significant component that is not part of the $7,000. The $7,000 is what goes to the employer.

I know that the member talks to my deputy quite often and she seems to be able to trust my deputy. Perhaps she should go spend some time and have the program properly explained to her and get a briefing, so that we can show her clearly that she is totally inaccurate and Tory research has failed again, just as they did on their propaganda called the American Revolution.

FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the financial situation in the budget and the Provincial Auditor's comments.

The minister will know that historically the construction spending in this province on our schools and hospitals and sewers and water was reported as an expenditure each year in the deficit. The government has moved to a new way of handling reporting these expenditures and has now got the school boards and the hospitals and the municipalities borrowing the money and the province committing to repaying 100% of that money.

What it means is that five years from now the province will owe $8 billion to these municipalities and these school boards. That's how much the loans will be. They will not be reported as expenditures in the provincial numbers, they will not be shown on the books as part of our budgetary deficit, but the province will owe $8 billion, more than the debt of most of the provinces in this country.

My question is this: The auditor said this is wrong. What possible justification does the province have for running up $8 billion of debt on someone else's books?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member chooses to characterize it in a certain way with which I'd like to

part company. What is happening is that we are indeed capitalizing or amortizing the cost of these major investments over a longer period of time rather than all up front.

That is the way that it has been done. We didn't invent this way of showing capital expenditures; it has been done in the private sector for years and years and years. It seems to me that when the province is making major investments in the infrastructure of this province that will be investments for competitive purposes and for the quality of life in this province for many years to come, it makes sense to amortize the payment of those expenditures over a period of time.

I'm not sure the member is aware of this, but every year there will be payments made on the principal and interest of those loans. Every year that will be part of the operating expenditures that will be shown in the budget. There's nothing unusual about that. As a matter of fact, I think it's common sense. Other jurisdictions do it and I think it should have been done this way a long time ago in the province of Ontario.

Mr Phillips: The auditor doesn't agree with the minister. The auditor has said you must change the way you're reporting these numbers. The auditor is demanding that. It's one of the reasons why the auditor has indicated that he has severe reservations about the way the books are reported. There is no doubt that in five years we will have hidden debt of $8 billion and in 10 years hidden debt of $14 billion. There's no question about that.

I'll follow up with some specifics from the budget. In the last three years, the minister will know, the cumulative reported deficit was $30 billion. That's in the last three years. But you have actually gone out and borrowed $37 billion. You have actually borrowed $7 billion more than your reported deficits. The minister is shaking his head, but that is the case.

If the budget truly does reflect the financial situation in the province, why is it that the province has had to borrow $7 billion more money than its reported accumulated deficits over the last three years?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess it's because the member for Scarborough-Agincourt wants to hark back to a different era. I don't know. But it seems to me that when you read the budget, first of all, there's absolutely nothing hidden, and I don't think he does a service to anyone, to the auditor, to himself or to me, when he talks about hidden deficits or hidden debts. There is no such thing as a hidden deficit or a hidden debt. It's all in the budget; it's crystal clear.

As far as the auditor is concerned, I have said to him, in writing and in person, that when the financial statements of this province are brought forward at the end of September this year, as they are in every year, they will comply precisely with what he has requested us to do.

I agree with the auditor on the financial statements of the province, but I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, to be perfectly clear, that a budget is a government document that lays out the intentions of the government and how it will do that. It is not an audited set of books. The budget never has been and, I suspect, never will be.

The financial statements of the province are the audited financial statements and it is with those statements we've said to the auditor, "We will comply precisely as you request." There has never been a dispute over that except sometimes, I think, in your mind.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Chair of Management Board and it concerns the sweetheart pension deal that has been arranged with OPSEU.

In March of last year your ministry assured the non-union members that you would not raid their pension plan. You told the non-union members at that time that, if the plan was split, there would be a valuation that would be performed and that you would consult with the non-union members and mutually agree upon who would perform the valuation. Thirdly, you indicated to them that, prior to doing it, you would receive the consent of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

Minister, I feel that you have violated each one of those assurances that you gave to the non-union members, to the OPP and the non-union members. Would you confirm that that is true and in fact that you sold the non-union members down the river to achieve an extra $350 million to fudge the deficit and to get back into the good graces of OPSEU?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question, although I would suggest that the member is a bit misled by others in terms of the way he has focused his question.

Firstly, he raised the question about the valuation of the plan. The valuation has been done and has been tabled, the member should know, with the pension commission.

Secondly, the discussions that we've had, both with OPSEU and with other recognized bargaining agents, and the consultations that we've had with those non-bargaining unit persons who are also involved in the public sector plan have made them aware of the valuations and the numbers and the actuarial opinions around the package that was negotiated with OPSEU.

It is my view and it is the view of all of the actuaries who have made formal comment to date, and that includes far more than our own, that the package that was negotiated with OPSEU is a fair one, that the agreement to split the plan was done on a fair basis. From our perspective, those other partners are still at the table, for the most part, with us in discussions around how to handle the rest of the plan.

Mr David Johnson: Part of the question was that you agreed to mutually find and agree upon someone to do the valuation. You haven't addressed that. My understanding is that there was no mutual agreement on who did the valuation, and indeed the non-union members feel that they've been shortchanged to the tune of at least $200 million.

If that's true, this is very shameful and shabby treatment of long-term employees of this provincial government. If somebody with the name of Conrad Black had attempted this kind of manoeuvre, you would be the very first to stand up and bitterly complain about it, but now it's good public policy.

Mr Minister, the problem is that the non-union members' plan has the responsibility for all the current retirees, number one. Number two, the non-members' plan reinvestment rate will be about one third that of OPSEU's.

What I'm going to ask you today is, can you assure all of us that the non-union-members' plan, the OPP's, will not have to incur a heavier contribution rate after 1996, because they're very concerned that the contribution rate is going to go up as a result of your agreement with OPSEU, and can you assure us that the taxpayer --

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

Mr David Johnson: -- is not going to have to pick up the tab for this sweetheart deal?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are three pieces in the member's question that need very carefully to be understood by the member.

First of all, the member has confirmed in his supplementary question that he doesn't understand the process or the issue that's been put to him. The valuation was not done by the government or by the actuaries for OPSEU; the valuation has been done and always has been done by the actuaries for the Ontario Pension Board, and that's the way the process is set out in legislation in this province. So the valuation was not done by the government.

Secondly, with reference to the member's

preamble on the imbalance that he sees in the splitting of the plan, all of the actuaries that have reviewed the documents in the valuation done by the actuaries for the Ontario Pension Board and the way that we've used that valuation to split the plan agree that both of the plans are fundamentally viable and will be into the future, that there are no problems with the fairness in terms of the way that we've split the plan. It has been done in a fair and equitable fashion.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I understand that last Friday you were speaking to the people in the community of Sudbury in regard to some plans that you and this government have in regard to forestry policy. I want to bring to you some of the concerns that I've heard within the forestry community.

In the riding of Cochrane South, as you know, forestry plays a very, very significant role in the economy of my region, as it does in yours. You would know, for example, that companies like Abitibi in Iroquois Falls have undergone tremendous change within the industry because of the commodity prices. Newsprint has been low over the past number of years and that company, and many others in pulp and paper have really had to struggle to try to keep their heads above water.

You would also know, quite candidly, that the number of seedling contracts that have gone out from the MNR over the past number of years has been going down because of dwindling funds of the ministry because of a lack of revenue within the treasury of Ontario. Places like Energreen Enterprises in Ramore, Lafleur Gardens in Timmins, and the Millsons have really had to cut back on the amount of work that they're doing within the forests, and that has not only meant hardship for those companies but it also has brought into question some of the difficulty that we have in regard to reforestation.

The question I have is that when the industry is going through such tremendous change as we've seen over the past years because of what's happened in the economy --

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

Mr Bisson: -- and if the Minister of Natural Resources goes into a community to make a statement, many people would get nervous. I would ask the minister if he can clarify to my constituents and the people of Ontario exactly what he's talking about when he's talking about sustainable forestry development.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The reality is that the forest products industry is going through a period of great change. That's acknowledged everywhere. For example, on the US west coast, over 58 plywood mills have closed down in the last 10 years and a number of sawmills have closed down. Everyone recognizes there are a number of stresses out there. As well, there are pressures from the environmental side to look at our forestry practices more carefully than ever before.

Through our sustainable forestry policy, what we've tried to put together are some opportunities for people across northern and central Ontario to take advantage of markets that are beginning to open, an opportunity to restructure some of the industry, and as well we've tried to look at some of the environmental issues that are out there.

Mr Bisson: I'm obviously interested in what you have to talk about in regard to new opportunities in the sector because you would know that the company Malette OSB in Timmins has an application now before the Ministry of Natural Resources in order to secure new timber that would become open within our area.

The minister was there back in February, meeting with the people at Malette's. You did a tour with workers at Malette who demonstrated not only the viability but the need of that expansion at that mill, supported by the Timmins Economic Development Corp, the chamber of commerce, the labour council, the mayor of the community and others.

There was supposed to be an announcement on this particular issue back in April. I was expecting it in May some time. I'm just wondering if the minister can declare his hand a little bit at this point and let us know when we can hear some of the good news that we'll hopefully be hearing in the community of Timmins regarding the Malette OSB expansion.

Hon Mr Hampton: It is true that traditionally across northern and central Ontario, we've harvested the coniferous forests -- jack pine, spruce, white pine, red pine -- and we've left behind the hardwood species, principally white birch and poplar. Now, due to changes in market conditions and some new technology, we're able to utilize the poplar and white birch species.

Some of the 58 plywood mills that have closed in the United States have created a real market opening for manufactured wood products and there are a number of companies, both Ontario companies and Canadian companies, that are interested in investing in northern Ontario. We are working with those companies.

We announced a new hardwood specialty mill in Thunder Bay on Monday that will account for approximately 189 new jobs. We estimate that we will see four or five, and possibly more, mills that will deal with these kinds of manufactured wood products, and negotiations are proceeding at this time with a number of proponents.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In the past few months, I've been speaking to groups of farmers from Northumberland, Norfolk, Middlesex and Quinte and one question seems to keep coming up. They are asking, "Whose idea was it to bring in Bill 91?" Minister, I would like you to answer that question. Who in the agrifood industry and farming community asked for Bill 91, the farm labour bill, and why do you as Agriculture minister feel that it is needed?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I think it's important to get it on the record as to why we're doing this. When Bill 40 was brought in, in terms of modernizing the Labour Relations Act in this province, it was noted at that time that agriculture was treated differently in Ontario than it was in most other parts of Canada. In fact, there's only one other province, I believe, at this point in time where agriculture is exempted from labour laws. There was an attempt to bring agriculture under a similar umbrella when it comes to labour relations.

At the same time, it was noted, because of the farm communities' input, that agriculture was somewhat different and needed to be looked at differently. We made a commitment at that time, when we were doing labour relations with Bill 40, that we would look at some separate legislation that would deal with the specifics of agriculture. Farm workers would be allowed to organize, but it would be done in a different fashion than it is in the manufacturing sector. We made a commitment at that time to bring forward legislation that would do that and we are going to do that.

Mrs Fawcett: It's an interesting answer, because you didn't really say who asked for it in the farm community. I was really wanting to get that kind of answer. Who in the farm community asked for Bill 91?

Minister, you are aware, because I believe you were a former teacher, of the government brochures that explain how laws are made. There's that little lightbulb, an idea. An idea for a law has to come and it has to come from somebody somewhere. For Bill 91 there had to have been an idea from someone, somewhere. Farmers say it's not their idea; every farmer I've talked to. In fact, they are calling the office, "This thing is not our idea." Therefore, it's got to be somebody, and really, I didn't hear you say, so maybe you don't know where this originated.

My supplementary to you is, why don't you just ask your cabinet colleague the Minister of Labour to withdraw Bill 91 and put the agricultural exemption clause back into the Ontario Labour Relations Act, or is there some kind of deal here that we just don't know anything about?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member, I believe, is reporting concerns that she has heard from the farm sector and that's fair game. There is another side to this equation, though, and it's the farm workers who are, in some cases, working on farms in large numbers. They're working in operations, in situations which most of us would not consider really as farms. There are a few operations in this province, four or five in fact, which employ over 100 people, and those aren't really family farms, and those are the kinds of operations this new legislation is expected to include.

The member should note the fact that there is another sector of people involved here, and that's the farm workers. Those people who run around and make claims about the family farm should take note of the fact that if there is a very large commercial operation that employs 50 or 100 people competing with the family farm, this bill will at least entitle the workers to get a reasonable wage through collective bargaining, so that in fact the family farmer can compete with the large commercial operations, which will have to pay a fair, decent wage.

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General. You may be aware, or at least Hansard will confirm, that in June 1989 I raised with the then Attorney General of the day, the Liberal government Attorney General, Ian Scott, about the creation of a provincial victims' fine surcharge for Ontario, since many provinces were seeing this as an opportunity to expand services to victims.

Madam Minister, you'd also be aware that in October 1992 on the Focus Ontario show, your government's Attorney General Howard Hampton indicated -- I won't quote the

article that reports it, but he was establishing a special provincial fund to collect fines from criminals.

Minister, in London, Ontario, in June 1993 you announced that you were in fact creating a provincial victims' fine surcharge and I quote from your speech, "That the legislation establishing the provincial fine surcharge will be introduced this fall," which would place it in 1993.

Minister, that was about a year ago. Could you please tell the House how much revenue you have raised from a provincial victims' fine surcharge for crime victims in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member is well aware that the legislation has not yet been introduced. It will be introduced today and we expect that it will have the results we had announced last June and in the budget of last year.

Mr Jackson: Minister, I received a letter from you; it's about the sixth letter I've received from your ministry with you as the minister, trying to track down the federal victims' fine surcharge numbers.

What has come out of a disturbing letter that I received from you is that in 1990-91, when your government assumed office, revenues were about $500,000, a little better than $500,000, and that the last complete year we've collected, or we were eligible to receive, in 1992-93, only $12,000. By your own admission, under your own signature, you indicate that this decline was due to the absence of the creation of a dedicated fund and the absence of a clear policy statement from the provincial government on how to handle these funds.

My question, Minister, is simply this: Given the fact that every province in Canada except Ontario has cooperated with the federal government up until this year to create this fund, and secondly, given that we're one of the last provinces to create a provincial fund, will the minister not admit in this House that probably a more appropriate priority for her government and her ministry in this spring session would be to complete as quickly as possible the legislation to create a victims' provincial fine surcharge infrastructure for crime victims rather than, say, some of the other priorities which you plan to table either today or later this week around additional spousal benefits?

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

Mr Jackson: Could I ask you, Minister, would you not make this a priority for your ministry and for your government in the interests of victims in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The two issues are by no means mutually exclusive. I have said to the member that the legislation will be introduced by the Treasurer today. It is a budget measure. It will confirm the move that we have made to set aside a special account to account for the dollars that come in, in terms of both the federal and the new provincial fine surcharge. It is a priority, and we do fully expect to see it operational in this term. That is the action that we will be taking. It has no relationship to any other legislation that may or may not be introduced.

SUMMER EXPERIENCE WAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, as you are aware, a large portion of Wentworth North is rural and at this time of year many of the young people in rural areas are looking for jobs. I know that you have recently announced a wage assistance program that's supposed to be of great benefit to both farmers and young people in rural Ontario. However, I am being told that many of these young people must still look to towns and cities for employment when they would prefer to remain close to home and work on local farms.

Why is this, Mr Minister? Is the program deficient when it comes to creating jobs, or are Ontarians simply not aware of the composition of this program?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member is quite right. I think it was about a week ago that we announced the summer Experience wage assistance program for youth. It's part of the Jobs Ontario Youth funding that's available. This year, for the agricultural sector and for youth in rural Ontario, we were able to receive $969,000, which is actually almost a doubling of last year's allotment that we received.

This is a program that allows farmers to receive a wage assistance allotment for hiring youth, and I think this is important to provide opportunities for youth in rural areas as well. We know that farmers in the summertime, in harvest season, have opportunities to employ youth, and this will allow them to do so with a program that's quite modest in terms of the amount of money but will provide young people the opportunity to get experience working on a farm.

Mr Abel: I appreciate the comments made by the minister, but I think there's a very important factor that Ontarians should be made aware of, and that is, how can farmers and students alike apply for this program?

Hon Mr Buchanan: For young people who are interested, or indeed for farmers, because we certainly would like farmers to explore the opportunities under this program, they can contact the local office of our ministry or they can contact their local agriculture employment services office, which is also in the phone book, because it's important for farmers to look at this program.

I might add one point which I think is important. Last year, because we had a little less than $500,000, we just made this program available for horticultural farmers, who have a need to hire a lot of people. This year, we've opened the program up so it's available to all farmers across the province, in southern and northern Ontario. So people who are aware of this program and think they may not qualify should take note of the fact that all farmers are eligible and all young people too. We are quite willing to have people from the cities come to the country and work on a farm.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Finance, sometimes known as the Treasurer. Given the lateness in question period, I hope you'll pardon me if I try to weave a couple of threads together. I know that the Treasurer's been away and so he is in particularly good form.

My question deals with the social contract. Minister, at the time the social contract discussions were completed, it was agreed that there were going to have to be continuing sectoral negotiations, discussions in the key areas such as education, municipal government, health and others. I think there were eight all told.

There have been concerns expressed by a number of people that these negotiations are not in all instances going very well. It is also said -- indeed, you set out in your budget -- that you're somewhere around $600 million short of your targets on the savings from the social contract, so I would think that trying to get those negotiations completed and have all the details worked out and finalized would be very important to you.

Specifically, in the education sector there is concern that the arbitration process is not working very well and that there may be arbitrations going on well beyond the end of the social contract period, April 1, 1996.

My question to the Minister of Finance: Can you give us an update on how you believe the sectoral negotiations are proceeding? Will they be completed by the end of this calendar year? In particular, are you concerned about what is happening in the educational sector and are you going to take steps to make sure all of the outstanding issues are decided upon before April 1, 1996?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question, which is an important one, dealing with the sectoral negotiations. I certainly would hope and anticipate that by the time the Social Contract Act has expired on April 1, 1996, those issues will be resolved. It would be strange indeed for that not to have happened by the time the act expires.

If there are particular problems in any given sector, I would be more than pleased to look into them personally. I know there are delays and there are problems from time to time. It's a very complicated thing to do, to have a Social Contract Act that applies to about 900,000 public servants in the province of Ontario, so I'm not surprised there's the odd glitch in the system. But I would be prepared to inquire into the specific problems raised by the member opposite.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, I have attached my name to that petition as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): It's hard to be seen with all these people standing in the way around here.

This is an important petition and it is signed by people from Markham, Unionville, Maple. If more people had time to sign, they would, because people are very concerned about the same-sex issue. I am pleased to attach my name to it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values" --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Here it is.

Mr Cousens: You know, if you don't have those values, then that's another thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: "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 and supported by the Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod; and

"Whereas this bill would compromise the whole understanding of marriage; 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 no PC support in the second reading on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill" --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I'm sorry. Mr Speaker, I ask for that to be withdrawn. That is not right for someone to start calling me that in this House. I challenge this. Mr Speaker, I was just called a hypocrite by that member over there and I will not tolerate that.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are many, many conversations. The Speaker did not hear the interjection. If someone has something to withdraw, please do it now.

Mr Cousens: Mrs Coppen called me a hypocrite.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I withdraw it.

Mr Cousens: If that's the way they're going to win the battle, by calling people names rather than dealing with the issues, there's a battle to confront in the province of Ontario, and I'll be fighting it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham, we're on petitions.

Mr Cousens: "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 to consider its impact on the families in Ontario."

I affix my name to this bill.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition signed by a number of people, including constituents of mine such as Edward Love, Penny Thompson and Bruce Roberts, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. It talks about Bill 119. I affix my signature in support of the petition.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I also have a petition in support of plain packaging identical to the phraseology that was just used. I just want to table it.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by dozens of people from Ontario. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923 seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed native people would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas the treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment,

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation to respect our native and non-native ancestors and respect the Williams Treaty."

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by many hundreds of residents of Ontario, people from Toronto, North York, Mississauga, Guelph, Tilbury, Grimsby, Caledon East, Clarksburg, Georgetown, Acton; indeed, I could go on and on. They're all friends of the Niagara Escarpment.

"We, the friends of the Niagara Escarpment, wholeheartedly support Noel Duignan's private member's Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment."

As you can already figure out, Mr Speaker, I gladly affix my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establishing gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in full agreement with it.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): "Whereas Loretto College school, a secondary school within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, is presently forced to divide its staff, students and resources between two inadequate facilities, some 1.5 kilometres apart, and to require said staff and students to commute between these two facilities, sometimes as frequently as three times a day; and

"Whereas Loretto College school has provided excellent education opportunities for young women, despite obstacles, in downtown Toronto since 1915; and

"Whereas Loretto College school is now ranked number one on the capital expenditure forecast submitted to the Ministry of Education for the province of Ontario by the Metropolitan Separate School Board,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce a bill giving the Metropolitan Separate School Board a capital grant for the purchase of land and for the building of a new secondary school facility for Loretto College school, thereby ensuring the continued provision of quality education to the future leaders of our province."

It is signed by students as well as parents and community leaders, and I affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

This petition is signed by several hundred representatives from the province, and I affix my signature to it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from Middlesex county constituents who utilize emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury. Unlike some members who talk about Newbury, I have been there. Approximately 16,000 people depend upon the services of Four Counties General Hospital, and they respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of 24-hour emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments across the province and to ensure that rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are most certainly entitled.

I have signed my name to this petition.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a number of residents of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens; and

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm; and

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate; and

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Bob Chiarelli's private member's bill, Bill 151, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

I affix my signature to this, as I agree with it.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature, Mr Speaker.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a petition signed by several of my constituents from places like Pembroke, Petawawa and Beachburg, which reads in part:

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

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

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

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report on dialysis treatment in Ontario and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Mr Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr90,

An Act to revive Wordz Process Corporation Ltd.

Bill Pr96,

An Act to revive The Hamilton and Region Arts Council.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr53,

An Act to revive The Canneto Society Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF PICTON ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr112,

An Act respecting the Town of Picton.

COUNTY OF BRUCE ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr115,

An Act respecting the County of Bruce.

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 160,

An Act to amend certain Acts to provide for certain Measures referred to in the 1993 Budget and for other Measures referred to in the 1994 Budget and to make amendments to the Health Insurance Act respecting the Collection and Disclosure of Personal Information / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant des lois pour prévoir certaines mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1993 et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1994 et modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé en ce qui concerne la collecte et la divulgation de renseignements personnels.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Very briefly, the Budget Measures Act, 1994, includes a number of amendments to existing acts, and initiatives to implement proposals in the 1994 Ontario budget. Let me briefly highlight some of the key measures in this act.

Our amendments to the Employer Health Tax Act will provide an important incentive for employers to hire.

Through the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Pension Act, 1994, we will establish a separate pension plan for union members.

Our access-to-capital plan will accomplish two goals: (1) making it easier for small and medium-sized businesses and co-ops to grow, thrive and create jobs, and (2) increasing investment opportunities for loan and trust companies and labour-sponsored investment funds.

REVENUE AND LIQUOR LICENCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS FISCALES ET LA

LOI SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 161,

An Act to amend various Taxation Statutes administered by the Minister of Finance and to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi modifiant diverses lois fiscales appliquées par le ministre des Finances et modifiant la

Loi sur les permis d'alcool.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This Revenue and Liquor Licence Statute Law Amendment Act puts into effect proposals contained in the government's 1993 budget.

A major part of this bill was originally introduced in November 1993 as Bill 127. This bill also contains amendments to the Liquor Licence Act to combat the smuggling of alcohol. The amendments will increase maximum fines, create a new offence for the illegal possession of liquor, including smuggled liquor, and strengthen investigation powers.

Other amendments include a reduction in tobacco taxes, announced earlier this year, and a change to the Fuel Tax Act to cancel the refund of tax paid on clear fuel for off-road unlicensed use.

The bill also formalizes this government's intention to join the international fuel tax agreement, or IFTA, in January 1996.

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

On motion by Mr Philip, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 163,

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

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

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

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la

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

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I made a lengthy statement earlier today, so I'll be brief. I hereby introduce for first reading a bill to amend several acts, among them the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Ontario Planning and Development Act, and to create a local government disclosure of interest act.

Today's legislation sets the government's initiatives to reform and streamline the planning and development system, to give municipalities greater authority and accountability, and to provide better environment protection on land use matters.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr79,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Mackenzie, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): This is clear indication that we intend to move on an issue that the other two parties have not done in 15 or 20 years.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Mackenzie has moved second reading of Bill 91. Would the honourable minister have some opening comments?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The development of this bill has been an exercise in consultation and consensus involving the government, the industry and its workers over the last four years. All parties agree it is time for a system of labour relations in the province's agricultural sector.

Members may recall that the bill was drafted on the basis of a consensus among a task force of key labour and farm groups. This task force was formed by the government in recognition of the unique characteristics of the agricultural sector.

The original bill, introduced last July, not only prohibited the right to strike or lockout, but it has a provision ensuring that collective agreements could not prevent family members from working on the farm. The bill also included a unique provision setting up a labour-management committee to advise the government of labour relations reforms and educational programs for this important sector.

Over the past 10 months, the farm industry and labour groups have given further consideration to Bill 91. Their representatives on the newly established Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee, ALMAC, have been looking at ways to amend and improve the bill. They have made a number of recommendations which the government is going to incorporate into the bill.

The most important of these recommendations include a clear understanding that the Agricultural Labour Relations Act is separate and distinct from the Ontario Labour Relations Act; amending the

preamble to recognize the distinctive features of the agricultural sector; the creation of an expert agricultural division of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to adjudicate disputes in the agricultural sector; and an extension of the review period of the dispute settlement mechanism to five years from three.

I am pleased to advise this House that in a letter dated April 15, 1994, the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee, which represents more than 35 agricultural groups, strongly supported the ALMAC report:

"ALMAC's recommendations build upon the work of the previous agricultural labour relations task forces and, if successfully translated into legislative form, would establish a satisfactorily separate and effective labour relations framework for the agricultural industry."

Bill 91 is now ready for second reading. It will give farm workers rights and opportunities that their counterparts in several other provinces have enjoyed for years, and it will do so in a way that is agreeable to all parties. Workers gain rights and benefits that have been long denied, farm owners are protected against work stoppages, and there will be virtually no impact on the historical independence and character of the family farm.

I want to congratulate and thank the task force and ALMAC members for all the work they have put into fashioning a labour relations package that is reasonable and workable, and I urge this House to give its speedy approval to this important bill.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to participate in this debate. The Agriculture minister has said that legislation currently before the House, Bill 91, will, and I quote, "make sure that there are not animals left untended or food rotting in the fields." This is a direct excerpt from the Financial Post, dated March 23, 1994.

I agree that those two purposes are worthwhile and laudable. However, the majority of people, farmers and otherwise, including myself, do not believe that to be the full intent of Bill 91. In my travels, I cannot find anyone supporting this bill except the Minister of Labour.

To start, the full title of the bill is

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry. Traditionally, agriculture has been exempt from the Labour Relations Act -- that is, until the union-fest came to roost. Now the province's 18,000 year-round employees, and perhaps somewhere down the road its 14,000 seasonal workers, stand to be unionized by this NDP government.

Farmers want strong organizations, and they do have, with community involvement. They do not want Bill 91. If we as consumers and farmers have managed to exist so long without this legislation, we should ask, why is it necessary now, and what do farmers have to say about it?

Tom Corbett, executive director of Ontarians for Responsible Government Coalition, has said: "Who wants the legislation? The farmers don't want it. The farm workers don't want it. It's an attempt by Bob Rae to appease unions he has already alienated."

Ian McRae, a grain and beef farmer in the Woodstock area, has been quoted as saying: "We will be forced to pay wages we can't afford. It will put the prices of our products up and make us uncompetitive."

I believe Vince Speziali of Bruce county said, "Basically, what it amounts to is, the union hall is going to dictate what farmers can do and can't do," when they already have weather conditions and competitors to deal with.

The member for Oxford has apparently said that Bill 91 will recognize the rights of farm workers to collective bargaining. Well, that is the real purpose of the bill. It is about unionizing, not the safety of animals and food safety.

The member for Oxford apparently also said that Bill 91 will have a minimal impact on the family farm.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Good member he is, too.

Mr Cleary: I see I've got an audience over there -- a few; three or four.

I say, wake up. You can't alter the foundation of agriculture and not expect change. I can't believe the difference in the attitudes of this member for Oxford, this NDP member, and the former member for Oxford. The former member for Oxford was concerned about his farmers and his agricultural people.

The member for Huron, who also serves as a parliamentary assistant to the Agriculture minister, is quoted as saying, "The flap may be overblown because Bill 91 is intended mainly for corporate agriculture workers and an advisory panel with farm groups on it is helping legislators iron out some areas of concern."

Perhaps the member for Huron also needs a wake-up call. Is he aware that this very committee wrote to the Labour minister to indicate its disappointment that "Bill 91 failed to translate the committee's consensus on a number of critical points"?

Right now, we are waiting for additional input from the committee as well as other agricultural organizations on the NDP's recent attempt to appease unions and farmers. I am not certain if they are satisfied with the motions made by the Labour minister last week.

I do know, however, that Joe Colasanti told a Windsor Star reporter, "Bob Rae thinks he's going to make farmers' lives better." Can you believe it? He says, "That's baloney," and I agree. "These people are going to be out of a job."

Mr Bisson: Do you know baloney comes from farms?

Mr Cleary: Some of your people don't know that.

In the same article, cash cropper Don Ferguson said: "It's just going to eliminate jobs. Larger farms won't be able to afford the higher wages. They will have to bring in machines to do the work."

Another Essex area farmer said: "We'll have to guarantee labourers their pay, but who's going to guarantee our pay? This bill is going to discourage people from going into farming." I agree. We sure have that problem right now, with the falling prices, the weather conditions and now your labour legislation.

On that note, I was told last month by an agricultural marketing board, which wished to remain nameless, that it would like to construct a new processing plant here in Ontario, but due to NDP regulations and legislation, it does not want to proceed with plans in this province. They said very clearly they would like to proceed with this plant but they were looking at the United States and then would return the finished product to Ontario.

To me, this screams volumes. We have an Ontario-based marketing board eager to construct a plant in the United States to process commodities grown here in Ontario, simply because it is afraid of the NDP government and its job-killing and restrictive labour legislation agenda.

Down my way, the president of the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-op, Bud Atkins, told me that he thinks, "Farmers cannot afford labour legislation and that if Bill 91 goes through as is, there will be a lot less people working on farms." Williamstown cash cropper Robert Smith said, "Unionizing the farm is not the answer."

On the other side of the fence, some farmers do admit that while Bill 91 is full of holes, it is not entirely without merit. They acknowledge that employees deserve rights too, but at the same time these very people have said that labour relations have to work both ways and be positive for both the employer and the employee.

I am afraid, however, that Bill 91 will not be good for farmers. There's already plenty of evidence this government is not interested in agricultural and rural Ontario. The most recent and glaring illustration has to be the 1994-95 provincial budget, which saw the NDP slash funding to agriculture once again.

Essentially, Premier Bob Rae and Finance Minister Laughren stole another $34 million from the farmers. The budget reveals that the NDP plans to spend $34 million less on rural initiatives in this fiscal year, and it reduced funding by $31 million last year. A two-year cutback of $65 million is offensive, particularly as it cannot be explained away as an overall government cutback.

What's worse, many people have suggested the $65-million figure is actually much higher, but with the NDP creative accounting method it is difficult to unearth an absolutely correct figure. Over all, I believe the agriculture budget has been reduced by more than $80 million --

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Say it again and say it's not so.

Mr Cleary: That is $80 million since the Liberals were in office.

Interestingly enough, however, while the NDP hasn't any more money for rural Ontario, it increased spending on its own Management Board of Cabinet, government administration, by $17 million. Can you believe that? The problem is that we only have four or five NDP members in the House at this time to listen to this. So much for the gospel on restraint.

Throughout the budget, Finance Minister Laughren did not say any of the words central to our provincial economy such as "farms," "agriculture" or "rural Ontario." Instead we heard many references to subways, highways and urban centres. The government seems to think the province revolves around Toronto.

Even with the release of estimates, we have no idea where the Agriculture minister and the Minister of Finance or Premier Bob Rae intend to make the cuts. All we know is that another $34 million have been slashed and farmers can expect to feel more pain.

Also, earlier this year the Agriculture and Food minister broadened the man