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

November 30, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

PORK INDUSTRY

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

HEALTH CARE

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN STUDENT FEDERATION

VISITORS

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

HEALTH CARE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

MINISTRY OF LABOUR SPENDING

INTERNATIONAL AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

CONTAINMENT LABORATORY

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

TRENTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

RESIDENTS' SAFETY

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN / SALE OF BEER AND WINE

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HIGHWAY 520

CONSERVATION

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

WATER SAFETY

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

GASOLINE PRICES

FIREARMS SAFETY

GUN CONTROL

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

COBALLOY MINES AND REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994

COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994

S.A.W. GALLERY INC. ACT, 1994

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING / HEURES PROLONGÉES DE SÉANCE

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today on the occasion of the first Take Our Kids To Work Day, an initiative created and organized by the Learning Partnership.

The Learning Partnership is a non-profit organization of business people, educators and community leaders whose goal is to create challenging learning and career opportunities for young people. The partnership works with schools and communities to create bridges between the world of work and the world of school.

Today, over 65,000 grade 9 students from 17 area school boards are making that voyage of discovery from their school to the workplace; a pathway to new learning, new challenges and better understanding of the opportunities and realities of the workplace.

At a time when concerns about education, the concerns of students, parents and educators, are too often front page news and not always good news, it is a pleasure to recognize an initiative which builds on partnerships, which celebrates our community strengths and which recognizes that our schools and our workplaces share the responsibility for ensuring that our children have a prosperous and interesting workplace to go to when they graduate from Ontario's schools.

I know that a number of members have students with them today. My colleague the member for Eglinton has Brendan Haley with her. I'm also pleased that my leader, Lyn McLeod, is participating in today's program. I would ask members to recognize all the students here with us today. Sitting behind the Speaker's chair is Reeshe Binda, who is spending his day with the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature of the province of Ontario. I know we wish all of these students the very best today.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): It is recognized throughout the North American agricultural industry that Ontario pork producers provide consumers with the best-quality product available anywhere.

In recent times, producers and processors have come a long way towards improving the industry. However, a recent severe price slump associated with an extremely large North American supply has brought to light some very major inequities faced by the Ontario industry.

While the national tripartite stabilization program for pork has been wound up, producers in competing provinces, especially the province of Quebec, have been receiving very generous government subsidies. Quebec has ignored an agreement among provinces to limit additional subsidies for producers, with the effect that Ontario producers face severe losses while Quebec producers receive subsidies to remain in business.

We don't have a level playing field. We need one to maintain the industry. Our producers are more efficient than others, but that efficiency does not make up for the subsidies that their competitors receive. This government must eliminate the undermining of Ontario producers by other provincial treasuries. We need penalty clauses for provinces which fail to live up to agreements. Clearly, the Premier must address this issue.

This government should also work with the pork industry to ensure that Ontario pork has an effective price-protection mechanism in place similar to that for most other major commodities, such as dairy, grains, horticulture and poultry. Let's keep pork on our fork.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm delighted that the Leader of the Opposition was in my riding recently to speak to a group of people in Tilbury.

During her visit, the honourable leader promised to lobby for a fuel tax exemption for ethanol. Very interesting. I would remind the honourable leader that this government has already removed all the fuel taxes from ethanol. This government has undertaken in writing to maintain this tax exemption for 15 years as requested by the Chatham-Kent ethanol consortium.

What we would like to see and what the folks of the Chatham-Kent ethanol consortium would like to see is for the federal government to give the same undertaking. Then the project could proceed. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to tell us whether or not she has indeed lobbied her Liberal friends to remove the tax on fuel ethanol, and if so, for how many years.

At the OFA convention last week, the leader of the Liberal Party claimed an NDP government would raise minimum wages to $10 an hour. I am told that the honourable leader received this piece of intelligence from a reporter for the Toronto Sun. Has the Toronto Sun become the principal research for the Liberal Party?

When Bill 90 was debated in the House, we heard repeatedly from the Liberal opposition that the NDP was set to unionize all the farmers. Today, none have been organized.

It is obvious that the Liberal Party has no agricultural policy. They have promised to do many of the things the NDP government has already done. Imitation, as the saying goes, is the greatest compliment.

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

Mr Hayes: Please keep up the praise.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In just a few days, Bill 173,

an act dealing with long-term care in Ontario, will be forced through the Ontario Legislature by the NDP government of Premier Bob Rae. What began as a good idea, a necessary reform of an important aspect of the health care system, has headed into a direction that could be harmful to volunteerism in communities across the province.

By excluding organizations such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross and Meals on Wheels from all but 20% of the service, the government could see the number of volunteers in this field decrease, the degree of local control diminish, and the quality and quantity of care for seniors and others reduced.

To impose closure to end the important and necessary debate on this bill is an extremely unwise decision as the views of those who have worked in this vital field should be heeded, not only concerning the original provisions of the bill but also on the amendments submitted by the Minister of Health and by members of the opposition.

I call upon the government to withdraw the time-limiting motion and to agree to the proposal of the volunteer and private sector people who have played a major role in the delivery of long-term care in this year and in years gone by. Please leave the ideology in the cabinet room and listen to those who have been in the front line of health-care delivery in Ontario.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Non-profit housing requires competent, dedicated and accountable boards to prevent the widespread mismanagement found by the Provincial Auditor in his review of the non-profit housing program.

It is alarming, then, that the Ministry of Housing dictates that by the end of next year a third of the board members of all non-profit housing corporations shall be residents. Voluntary resident involvement is a worthy and critical part of managing any housing project. However, to mandate that residents hold a third of the board seats can cause serious problems.

Consider Peel Living, the municipal non-profit housing corporation and the founder of non-profit housing in Canada. Every board member is elected, so the board is accountable to all citizens of Peel. Why would we want to move away from elected boards towards appointed boards? For the past four years, Peel Living has promoted and supported resident involvement, but most residents don't want to get involved if their building is well-managed and well-maintained. Peel Living, in fact, is the largest non-profit housing corporation in Canada.

Interjections.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Bravo.

Mrs Marland: And I can hear the former Minister of Housing making her usual comments.

We must also remember the troubles of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority where the board, while meaning well, did not have the necessary skills and experience to manage MTHA's complex affairs. Non-profit housing requires professional management. Resident involvement should be voluntary.

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

Mrs Marland: Finally, the province should not tell municipalities how to run municipal non-profit housing.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I would like to mention that today is a special day for grade 9 students as well as for many working people in the greater Toronto area. Instead of heading off to school this morning, approximately 65,000 grade 9 students accompanied their parents, relatives, and other adults to their workplaces.

The organizers estimate that about 5,000 workplaces have opened their doors to students for the day. This is the first event of its kind in Canada to involve students in workplaces on such a large scale. Take Our Kids to Work Day is a unique opportunity for young people to find out what their parents and other people do for a living and the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs.

The program is modelled on successful programs in the United States and the region of Durham. It was organized by a non-profit group of educators, business people and community leaders called the Learning Partnership and sponsored by the ministries of Economic Development and Trade, and Education and Training, with corporate sponsors Bell Canada, Northern Telecom and ScotiaMcLeod financial services. For the ministries and agencies that are participating it is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the wide range of services that they provide to the people of Ontario.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that in our changing economy career education is more important than ever. By welcoming grade 9 students into our workplaces on this special day, we are helping them gain a better understanding of the working world and the need to stay in school and get a good education.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Over the past few weeks we have heard Conservative radio ads as they desperately attempt to calm public fears over the damage their American-style revolution would inflict on our health care system and the pain their cuts would cause our seniors. Unfortunately for Conservatives, it will take more than a few weeks of commercials to end these fears.

People are scared because they remember that Mike Harris has spent his political career supporting and fighting for health care user fees. They remember that Mike Harris won the leadership of his party by arguing for a new tax on the sick. People are scared because they remember Mike Harris standing in this Legislature and voting against the Liberal ban on extra-billing in 1986. Yes, Mike Harris opposed the ban on extra-billing. He argued then that there was nothing wrong with the poor and the aged being forced to pay.

Ontario's seniors have a right to be scared. They remember how Mike Harris supported and applauded Brian Mulroney's move to claw back old age security benefits. They remember Mike Harris promising, in 1990, the same with the province's sales tax credit. When Mike Harris, a political chameleon, boasts that now is not the time to cut back on health care funding, that now is not the time to introduce user fees, that now is not the time to further punish Ontario's seniors, I say listen carefully. Mike Harris isn't saying that he opposes these moves; he is simply saying they should have happened years ago. The public will not be fooled.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): As of September 1994, all school boards must implement junior kindergarten programs as required by provincial legislation. The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the decision to provide junior kindergarten should be made by local school boards, based on the community's needs.

The Minister of Education and Training received a letter from the chairman of the Carleton Board of Education, Carol Parker, dated June 28, 1994. Ms Parker stated that the Carleton board continues to feel the pressure of the financial problems facing the province and local taxpayers. In this regard, they again respectfully request that the mandatory policy for the JK program be reconsidered in light of alternative strategies for early childhood development. They made three resolutions:

(1) That the ministry change the legislation to make it optional for boards to offer the junior kindergarten program.

(2) Subject to consultation with parents and subject to enabling legislation, that the board reconsider its delivery of the junior kindergarten program for the next budget year.

(3) That the board request that the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Community and Social Services open discussions with the public to explore alternative ways of delivering educational programs to four-year-olds.

As well, last week my colleague Mr McLean from Simcoe East made a statement on behalf of the Simcoe County Board of Education requesting that the minister review junior kindergarten programs. Trustees have suggested that nursery schools are perhaps a more efficient and more effective way of delivering education to four-year-olds.

I urge the minister to consider the recommendations of both the Carleton and Simcoe county boards of education.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN STUDENT FEDERATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to celebrate the formation of the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation, which will have its inaugural meeting this Sunday, December 4.

The formation of the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation is an important and significant step for the community. Students such as Tony Dias, Helen Aguiar, Celia Santos, Cina Marques, Dina Isabel, Manny Bettencourt, George Silva, Katerine Ponte, Chris Ferreira, Paul Defreitas and Helen Pereira have worked tirelessly on this initiative.

The Portuguese Canadian Student Federation will encourage and promote the education and advancement of the Portuguese Canadian community. The federation will strengthen the cohesion among individual Portuguese Canadian student associations. It will promote and preserve Portuguese culture and language. In effect, the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation will combine the resources to encourage partnership and harmony among the students, members of the Canadian Portuguese community and other ethnic communities. This federation will bridge the different generations in the Canadian Portuguese community.

I actively support and endorse the work of the Portuguese Canadian Student Federation. Only through the endeavours of our youth will we be able to fully utilize the cultural and economic potential of the Portuguese Canadian community.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber and indeed to our country a very special delegation which is seated in the Speaker's gallery. It's a parliamentary delegation from the Czech Republic, headed by Dr Milan Uhde, MP, chair of the Chamber of Deputies, and accompanied by His Excellency Stanislav Chylek, the ambassador of the Czech Republic in Canada. Please join me in welcoming our special visitors.

I would also invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, also seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Elections Ontario commissioner, Mr Warren Bailie, who is accompanied by two of his grandchildren. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I have today released the 1994 Ontario Economic Outlook, which shows that Ontario is on track for solid growth this year and over the medium term.

The outlook details our latest forecast, which shows real expansion of 4.5% in Ontario in 1994. Like private sector forecasters, we see Ontario leading the G-7 economies over the next four years, and expect average growth of more than 4% a year in that period.

To me, the most vital measure of our performance is job creation. The forecast shows the Ontario economy will create 570,000 jobs over the medium term. That will drop the unemployment rate to 7.8%. The rate has already fallen in 1994 to its lowest level in three years with the creation of 137,000 new jobs, almost all of them full-time, between February and the end of October.

The basis of this growth is confidence in Ontario as a place to work, to live and to do business. We have played a role in building that confidence by forging partnerships throughout the Ontario economy that have given it a solid foundation for growth. We are making growth sustainable with sound management that balances the needs of Ontario both today and in the future.

From the start, our first priority has been creating jobs, and our track record shows we're succeeding. Ontario is creating the kind of high-skilled, high-tech jobs that the global market demands for success in the 1990s.

We have achieved this goal by thinking and acting strategically and by building partnerships. We've given Ontario one of the world's strongest incentive systems for vital spending on research and development. We cut the employer health tax on new workers for their first year on the job, permanently creating 12,000 jobs. We are building the public assets that Ontario needs to compete globally, investing more than $14 billion in capital in the past four years alone. We have created 65,000 private sector job opportunities, many for the long-term unemployed, with Jobs Ontario Training.

And we have demonstrated a unique ability to bring together workers, businesses and local communities to work together for their common good.

We have also created a climate for growth by managing our own affairs wisely. We have cut program spending for two consecutive years, something that no Ontario government has achieved for more than 50 years. We have worked very hard and continue to work very hard to make sure that vital services are preserved and public sector jobs saved as we achieve these savings. With the economy expanding, now is the time to finish the job of putting our fiscal house in order. We must continue our commitments to more efficient government and to no new taxes so that today's growth helps to build tomorrow's successes.

In the next several weeks, my colleagues and I will be travelling throughout Ontario to talk to people about what they want to see in the 1995 budget. With the economy expanding, we are committed to making sure that everyone benefits from Ontario's continuing growth. We have to help young people get that vital first job, and continue to take down the barriers that keep people who are willing to work out of the labour force.

Only by ensuring that everyone shares in Ontario's growth can we achieve our vision: a revitalized Ontario economy that continues to create high-quality jobs. We know we can do it. Our investments have given Ontario the skilled workers and the infrastructure that an expanding economy needs. Most important, we see, and the figures in our Economic Outlook prove, that people and businesses across Ontario are willing to work as partners to create a better future for all of us.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will say in responding to the Finance minister's presentation of the Ontario Economic Outlook that we can indeed welcome some good news. The prediction of economic growth at 4.5% is indeed, finally, some good news. I think the people of this province need some good news after four years of the deepest recession this province has ever seen.

As much as I know that people in this province need to feel some sense of optimism about the future, I also know that this optimism has to be based on some sense of reality and some real sense of certainty about the strength of the recovery. I don't think the people of this province are feeling very much sense of security yet, because they have simply been too hard-hit by four years of complete economic mismanagement on the part of this government.

I suggest, as the Finance minister tries to present the brightest parts of his Economic Outlook, that we look at the other facts that are also realities that are facing this province today; that we look at the other facts that are contained in this Finance minister's Economic Outlook.

The first fact that the Treasurer glossed over in his statement, for some reason, is that in 1994, even with the economic growth he is predicting, we will just get back to where we were in 1989. We have had no net growth for five years, five years where the province of Ontario has been going absolutely nowhere. We have been running, for five years, just to stay in place.

I would suggest that we contrast that with the rest of the country, because the rest of the country, in the meantime, over that same period of time has had real growth, substantial growth of some 7%. Again, compare that to what's happened in Ontario: zero growth in Ontario over the past five years -- Ontario, the province that used to be the economic engine of this country.

The second fact from this document is that while the rest of Canada is running a trade surplus internationally, Ontario continues to show a trade deficit of over $11 billion. Not only is Ontario the province that runs a trade deficit while the rest of the country runs a trade surplus, but this report shows us that Ontario's trade deficit has gone from about $7.5 billion in 1992 to over $11 billion in 1993. Tell me how that reflects real economic growth.

If the economic recovery is going to be sustained, we have to be more globally competitive. We have to have a government that does what it can to make sure that our businesses can be competitive so that we can be exporting; so that we can turn a deficit into a surplus; so that we can grow and create the jobs people need.

There is a third very startling fact that comes from this Economic Outlook, and I can understand why the Treasurer did not highlight that in making his statement. It has to do with jobs. I would suggest that no economic recovery is good enough until it is felt by the people of this province and that this economic recovery that the Premier and the Finance minister like to talk about has simply left too many people out: too many young people, too many people in Metro Toronto, too many people in northern Ontario, too many laid-off workers who are not getting back into the workplace.

No recovery is good enough if it doesn't reach people, and while this Treasurer's recovery is clearly a statistical recovery, and we acknowledge that, there are too many people left out.

We know, and this document tells us, that while the rest of Canada has seen job growth of about 235,000 since 1989, Ontario still today has 100,000 fewer people working than in 1989. There is another shocking fact that comes out of this document, and that's the fact that in 1994 there are going to be fewer jobs created than were created in 1993. In 1993 there were 79,000 jobs created. In 1994, the Treasurer tells us, there will be 54,000 jobs created, less than was in the budget figure. We are falling behind again, and we are falling behind in the area that counts most, and that's the ability to create jobs for people and to get the people of this province working again.

For the past four years this government, this NDP government, has dug a hole so deep in this province's economy that it will take us years of sustained economic growth to get out of it; it will take us years of sustained solid economic growth to get the people of this province working again. That won't happen until we have a government really ready to focus on what we do to make this a competitive place where people will invest.

Applause.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Don Mills.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines with a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Indeed the member for St Catharines has a point of order. Is there unanimous consent for an additional five minutes for the opposition?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. The honourable member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Mr Speaker, I didn't realize it was so easy to get a standing ovation in the Legislature. Let's all clap one another. It is nice to see the Leader of the Opposition in the House, I must say. We all share in the joy to see her here.

I think today we are witnessing Floyd's last stand. This document has all the appearance of being a budget. It even has the same trees on the cover as the 1994 budget.

I'm delighted and the Progressive Conservative Party is delighted to see growth in the economy, no question about that. The minister has indicated that job creation is one of the key points of this particular outlook, and I must say I have to agree. Isn't it some achievement of this government that there are about 100,000 fewer people working today than there were in 1990? Isn't that an achievement to be proud of? Isn't it an achievement to be proud of that there will have been more new people employed last year than this year, that the rate of growth of employment is less this year than last year?

Those are the kinds of achievements we have with this particular government. Isn't it an achievement that we have the Jobs Ontario program? Isn't that a wonderful program? Isn't that the way to create employment in the province of Ontario?

But I was delighted that the minister mentioned the cuts in the employer health tax for new positions. Now he is singing our tune. I can advise the minister that if he really wants to create jobs in the province of Ontario, we have a plan to do that: Cut taxes, cut the red tape, do away with Bill 40, do away with the labour bill. If you really want to create jobs in the province of Ontario, look at what is discouraging employment in the province of Ontario: high taxation, the high cost of doing business, the red tape, Bill 40, the employment equity bill. These are the aspects of government that you have to tackle.

Our platform is to reduce the income tax, to reduce the employer health tax to zero for small businesses, to cut the workers' compensation premiums. If you're sincerely interested in creating jobs in the province of Ontario, that's the kind of platform I can advise you to follow.

The minister talks about the climate for growth and the fact that this government has managed affairs wisely in the province of Ontario. I wonder what he's referring to. Is he referring to the fact that the debt in the province of Ontario has doubled under this government, from $45 billion to $90 billion? Is he referring to the achievement of this particular government that the total debt, including Ontario Hydro, including the unfunded liability of workers' compensation, including the unfunded liability of pension plans, is $150 billion? Is that the achievement the minister is referring to?

Is he referring to the fact that in the operating budget this year there is $8 billion for interest just to pay the debt and that four years ago the comparable figure was $4 billion? It's doubled simply to pay the interest -- not to pay down the debt of the province of Ontario but simply to pay the interest on the debt to keep the debt rolling over. Is that the kind of success this government has brought upon the people of the province of Ontario?

Employment growth this year is forecast to be higher. I believe it. The growth in the economy over the next four years is lower than the growth projected by the Ontario budget, yet the minister is forecasting that employment will grow. Even though he's not projecting that the economy will grow faster than the growth in the budget, he's projecting that the rate of employment will grow faster. Now, how can that be? We can't have it both ways.

We will not have growth in the economy sustained, we will not have employment sustained, until we cut taxes, until we cut the red tape, until we eliminate Bill 40, until we freeze Ontario hydro rates, until we eliminate all the burdens to business in the province of Ontario. That's what we need.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We understand that today around 12:30 the Premier made an announcement concerning a drug program for people across Ontario suffering from catastrophic illnesses. We had hoped there would be a government announcement in ministerial statements with respect to what was in the announcement, who benefits, what user fees are involved, what cost is involved and what impact this announcement will have on the drug benefit --

The Speaker: No. The member does have a point of order to ask for us to revert to ministerial statements if there's unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to do so?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. The government House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make some comments on the White Ribbon Campaign.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Today I rise in this house to express our support for the White Ribbon Campaign. The white ribbon symbolizes our deep concern with the violence against women that is still so prevalent in our society. Today we in this House draw special attention to this issue, but we do so in an effort to remind all men that we should be addressing this issue every day.

Some may be cynical about our statements. They say, "There go the politicians again, mouthing nice words but doing nothing." So little has been done about violence against women for so long, I think we can all understand that frustration, to some extent.

But it is also true that through the women's directorate, the Attorney General, the Ministry of Education and other ministries, considerable attention is being paid to promoting public education and providing an integrated strategy to prevent violence against women.

And we've put resources behind that commitment. We have doubled our spending on violence against women and maintained that commitment in the face of very, very tough fiscal circumstances. We've established core funding for women's centres, increased funding for women's shelters, expanded funding for rape crisis centres and created new sexual assault treatment centres. We lead the nation with a $100-million commitment to this issue, and we're very proud of that record, but we also recognize that there are always more things to be done.

The crime of violence against women is not going to disappear tomorrow, and it will not disappear because this Legislature and this government say it should. Individuals in their daily lives and their personal relationships have to take up the challenge. I take hope in the knowledge that it is not just the Legislature speaking out today. In our workplaces, business and labour are speaking out on this problem. Educators are addressing this matter in our schools, colleges and universities. People are talking about this issue because women fought a long, often unaided and always difficult battle to put this issue so clearly in the public mind.

Today we call on men to do their share to solve this pressing problem. Men must play their

part in addressing one of the most prevalent violent crimes occurring in our society today. As men, we must take responsibility to tell other men that violence against women is wrong. There is no excuse to use violence to vent frustration or to resolve arguments.

Men must speak out and challenge other men who use violence in their relationship with women. As men, we must also challenge sexist jokes and language that degrades women. We must identify and challenge sexual harassment in our workplaces and schools. Each of us must take on this challenge with our family, with our friends and with our co-workers.

Members wear a white ribbon today as our personal pledge never to accept, condone or remain silent about violence against women. We commit today to carry out that pledge as MPPs and in all our relationships. Justice and equality demands no less of us.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to join with the government House leader in expressing our strong support for White Ribbon Week.

I think, as we rise again to recognize the sad anniversary of the slaying of the 14 women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal, as we have done now for some five years, that we recognize the tremendous loss that event caused not simply to the families of the 14 young women who were slain, but to all of us, and perhaps in particular to those of us, as we think not only about our wives and our daughters and our mothers, but to everyone who sees

an act of violence that is carried out in such a random and ruthless way, it reminds us that this issue of violence against women is with us and that we as men must take a particular responsibility in ensuring that we address the causes and that we find ways to ensure it doesn't happen. I think one of the strongest elements about the White Ribbon Campaign is that it works best when men and women work together to end violence against women.

We know that as men the concerns that we have over our safety are nothing as compared to those of our wives and our daughters, our mothers, our relatives and friends, and that is a reality that we must always consider.

J'aimerais aussi lever mon chapeau aujourd'hui aux organisateurs de la Campagne des rubans blancs. Le ruban blanc est le symbole de l'appel des organisateurs à tous les hommes pour qu'ils déposent les armes de la guerre contre les femmes, nos soeurs.

Il est en effet effrayant qu'il ait fallu attendre que le massacre à l'École polytechnique se produise pour que les hommes prennent conscience d'un événement qui peut se passer à tous les jours chez les femmes. Ces événements incluent le viol au foyer ou lors d'une sortie, des coups que les femmes reçoivent sans pouvoir se défendre, du harcèlement sexuel au travail ou à la maison, des agressions sexuelles contre les enfants et des menaces qui peuvent finir par des meurtres. Il est important que les hommes sachent qu'ils sont

partie intégrante du problème, de la solution.

But it is important I think also that in a very personal way we look at the kinds of things that we as men can do to work against violence in our society. For many of us, that may mean helping out in our communities with shelters that exist in so many parts of the province, and particularly at this time of year there is a need for financial support. There is a need for gifts for the Christmas season. There is a need for food. These are real and tangible ways.

It is not, as at times people seem to feel, that men are completely responsible and should feel guilty about everything that happens. That is not the point of this week, that is not why we are speaking today, but that we as men must recognize that we do have a responsibility and this will only end if we work together with women to make sure that it ends.

Another important way in which we can help in this struggle is to go back to one of the specific acts that grew out of the massacre in Montreal, and that was the creation of the Canadian Engineering Memorial Foundation. This foundation was created under the stewardship of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, and the foundation is a living memorial to the memory of the slain students through national scholarships and awards for engineering students across Canada.

The foundation provides scholarships for promising women engineering students at the undergraduate and graduate level. The selection of the scholarship recipient is based on academic achievement and community leadership.

In addition, the memorial foundation has created an award, the corporate award, to a company judged to have made significant contributions to promoting the advancement of women engineers. The scholarship awards and the corporate award are presented on an annual basis. I will be passing on to members the foundation's address so that those who would like to assist the foundation or provide information to their constituents will know where to find it.

I would also like to point out that the president of the Canadian Engineering Memorial Foundation is someone who is well known to many of us in this House. Claudette MacKay-Lassonde is a graduate of l'École polytechnique, a resident of Ontario, and she was the first woman engineer to serve as the president of the Ontario Association of Professional Engineers.

It is I think one tangible way whereby we can show our support to White Ribbon Week and to the battle against violence against women. I think if we look at that personally and act in that way, then we can make a real contribution to ending violence against women.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): White Ribbon Week represents a conscious effort by men to begin combating the violence perpetuated against women by members of their own male gender. The need for men to join with women in this battle has never been more compelling than it is today.

Today we recall the horrific anniversary of December 6, the day of the Montreal mass murder when 14 women were killed. Today we recall the tragically short life of Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy, constituents of mine from Burlington, and countless other women and children who have died at the hands of violent men.

Violence against women is unlike any other crime that exists in our society today. Unlike other forms of violence, violence against women is rooted in the values and the assumptions of a society controlled by men that has had the privilege to tip the scales of power between the genders in their favour. As I said in this House on November 2 when we were acknowledging Wife Assault Week, domestic violence and the words "wife abuse" do not exist in any of our law books; they exist in our social values. Unfortunately, our courts make the distinction.

The psychology of male domination views women as objects, as male property and therefore as extensions of men. Male socialization has traditionally reinforced this attitude, and it has even been used as reaffirming a form of male identity. That's why pornography, as well as other sanctioned forms by which women are continually denigrated, promotes this form of male socialization and superiority. It is almost deemed a legitimate enterprise when it is couched in the terms of liberal democracy or freedom from censorship.

The symbol, therefore, of the white ribbon runs the risk of being overly simplistic at best and problematic at worst. The wearing of a white ribbon does not even begin to address the problem of male-dominated values in institutions in our society if it is left at this symbolic level only.

Many women wonder how far men are actually able or willing to separate themselves from their privileged positions of dominance in our society in order to begin to address the suffering experienced by them at the hands of men, who tend to see acts of violence against the female as individual acts, as acts unconnected to wider societal values or even to their own rationalization that it was their gender role socialization.

Women themselves have a role in helping men understand how their position of power and domination over women is a source of oppression for both genders, and men must begin to see that they lose as human beings in their relationship to others and to women as a result of their possessive and abusive attitudes towards women.

Towards this end, we have had outstanding in this province one of the last known additions to the goals of education in this province, one which I was pleased to table in this House six and a half years ago, and that was to develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society. My hope is that as this government continues to deal with the difficult issue of violence in our schools it will examine it from this perspective as well and not just upon the narrow issues around racism and discrimination.

The White Ribbon Campaign is a call to men to lay down their arms, which they continue to use against women. These arms include not only the guns and other physical means of inflicting harm but also the weapons of officially sanctioned attitudes by men, attitudes that are reinforced in our legal system, which delivers uneven justice to far too many abused women simply because they are women. Included in the attitudes I'm suggesting here is any government which would be afraid of taking decisive action against hard-core pornography or to hear the cries of battered women seeking access to basic shelter and support anywhere in the province of Ontario.

The very fact that men are beginning to take a collective responsibility for their gender for violence is a positive step in the right direction, but it is now time to move from ribbons to legislation, to move from legislation to program implementation, to practically begin to address the issue of violence against women and its root causes in our society.

The fact that Ontario is the only province in Canada without a crime victims' bill of rights sends just one more message that the rights of men who are the perpetrators of violence against women enjoy greater protection under the law than those, the women, who are its victims, for the truly sobering reality of violence against women is that it's the only form of violence which has more subtle societal sanction in its favour than against it.

We, therefore, as legislators must have a greater responsibility than most to move quickly and decisively to make those changes. We need tougher laws and stiffer laws. That is what is required to change the actions of violent men in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. People in Ontario woke up this morning to discover that making decisions about specific diagnostic tests and procedures that they might need was suddenly somehow their responsibility. The assistant director of communications in the Ministry of Health is quoted in today's paper as saying that patients are getting unnecessary tests simply because they want them. He seems to be putting the responsibility for unnecessary tests squarely on the patient.

Minister, do you agree that it is up to patients to bear the brunt of the burden for scrutinizing and controlling costs in the health care system and, if so, how do you expect patients to know exactly what tests and procedures are available and appropriate for them?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say that I do not agree that the responsibility lies with patients. I think that the responsibility is one that we all share, both physicians, as the people who prescribe what is necessary to help their patients, and patients, who have a responsibility to make sure that they understand what's being prescribed, that they question advice that is being given to them, and that we all do our best to stay healthy so that we won't need the system at all.

Mrs McLeod: I agree with the minister, but I think that what is needed for patients, as for professionals, is some information about what is appropriate and what is necessary. We have all agreed that we have to get health care spending under control and we have all agreed that we have to make sure that every dollar in the system goes to what is medically necessary care, but surely that can only be done if there is a real effort made by this government to work with the medical profession to determine what is indeed necessary, what's cost-effective and what the government is prepared to fund on that basis.

Minister, I ask you, given the concern that people are going to have about the story in today's paper, that somehow they're going to have to decide whether they are asking for unnecessary tests, where are the government's guidelines? Where are the guidelines that set out what is necessary, what is effective, what you believe should be funded? When a physician recommends a test for a patient, what hint does he have as to what your ministry believes to be necessary and effective and, therefore, should be funded?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't think that the public of Ontario, unlike perhaps the members opposite, take all of their information from the headlines in one of our notable daily journals. But I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that I'm in danger of agreeing with her again. I think we do need to know what tests are effective and we do need to know what is in fact medically necessary.

I'm tremendously proud that our government was the first government to sign an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association to create the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, to have a public process for deciding which procedures are in fact medically necessary and should be funded by OHIP, and I think we have made some very real progress over the last four years in both managing our health care costs and delivering better health care. All of us on this side are very proud of that.

Mrs McLeod: What the public is concerned about, what people are concerned about, is what assurance they have from their government that they're going to get access to the health care they need when and where they need it. The kind of stories we read in today's paper don't give them that kind of assurance, Minister. The kind of stories we read in today's paper simply suggest that what we have here is more ad hoc cuts without any real attempt to understand how our health care dollars can be used most effectively.

Minister, maybe we also misunderstood an acknowledgement that you hadn't actually read the social contract when it was originally signed, but there are enormous consequences of that social contract for health care in this province.

When you signed that copy of the social contract, did you understand, did you really understand, what the consequences of that agreement would be for health care and for the access to health care for people in this province? Have you done anything -- give people the assurance they're looking for, Minister -- to ensure that the $240 million that you're taking out of the health care system will not affect essential health care services?

Hon Mrs Grier: Absolutely, and I think the people of this province know the health care budget for this province is still $17 billion, is still a third of all public expenditures, is still the highest per capita spending of any province in this country. They also know that a cap on physicians' billings as part of the social contract was the same kind of contribution to the betterment of this province that was made by ambulance workers, by municipal workers, by school teachers, by any other person who was paid by the public purse.

If the member is suggesting that doctors should somehow have been exempt from that social contract, I have to say to her that I profoundly disagree. I also disagree with her fearmongering about the state of the province's health care system at a time when expenditures on community and public health have risen by 5.3% this year, expenditures on long-term care have risen by 5.4% this year and the Ontario drug benefit program has risen by 2%. That's good management of the health care system, and that's universal access.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: That was such a simple question: What does the Minister of Health believe is necessary, what does she believe is unnecessary, what's she going to pay for to make sure people get health care?

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier on another matter. Premier, proponents of the Kirkland Lake dump site have asked for an opportunity to make presentations to the hearings of the Interim Waste Authority's proposals to establish mega-dumps for Toronto's garbage. The IWA has said that it simply doesn't want to hear from this group.

Furthermore, they argue that they don't have to look at the alternatives that the Kirkland Lake people would be offering, that they have been told by the government and indeed by this government's laws that all they have to do is look at local sites for Toronto's garbage, if a region in York can be considered a local site for Toronto's garbage. But that's what the government has directed them to do.

I would remind you in asking this question that in another role with a different hat on, you were very critical of any exemption from full environmental assessments. You called for full environmental hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act to deal with this critical issue of how we manage Toronto's garbage.

Premier, I ask you today then, as the IWA says, "We don't want to hear about this other alternative," how do you believe that fits with your belief about the fundamental principle of environmental assessments, that all the alternatives must be considered?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would say to the honourable member that, first of all, as she well knows, this matter is now being heard by the chairman of the assessment panel, Mr Kingham. Mr Kingham has stated in -- I saw in the media today that --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, you read the media.

Hon Mr Rae: I read with continuing great interest and occasional amazement, but always with a sense of the accuracy which pervades all the organs of the media.

The reports that I have seen are that the chairman stated clearly that he would consider the requests that have come forward with respect to intervenor status and with respect to other views being heard.

I would only say that the views of the IWA are the views of the IWA. The views of others will be considered and it's now up to the chairman of the panel to decide on what the fairest process will be. I don't intend to interfere in that process in any way, shape or form. I've made a point of not doing that and I would say to the member that my views on this are quite consistent. We want a fair process, we want a neutral process and we want a process that's going to resolve the issues in a timely fashion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I believe the citizens of the province are entitled to such a process and I believe very much that's the process that's been created by the very able work of the Environment ministers.

Mrs McLeod: I am more than amazed that the Premier should stand up this House and say that he reads in the paper that the IWA is not prepared to consider the Kirkland Lake alternative or any other alternative.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You had no process.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham West come to order.

Mrs McLeod: What's the point in Kirkland Lake making a presentation when your government has directed the IWA from the beginning to consider no other alternatives but a search for a mega-dump for Toronto's garbage? Premier, I don't understand why your government absolutely refuses to look at any alternatives.

Mr Wiseman: You don't understand.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham West come to order.

Mrs McLeod: I confess that we read not only newspapers but books. There's a book that I might say has been a bestseller, at least for people on this side of the House, which suggests that maybe the reason why you're not prepared to consider any alternatives is because the previous Minister of the Environment persuaded you she would be embarrassed if you opened up the process to consider any other alternatives.

The fact is, Premier, that people are raising legitimate concerns about the environmental soundness of the recommendations that are being made by the Interim Waste Authority. I ask you, if you are so sure that your approach to dealing with Toronto's garbage is going to come up with the best environmental solutions, why will you not today allow that process to be put to a full and an open test and allow all other options to be fully and openly considered?

Hon Mr Rae: I find it interesting. I happened to be in Marmora the other day, where there is a large quarry which the people of Marmora were very concerned for many, many years was going to be used as a dump site by the Liberal government of the day for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. I've also been in Lambton county, where all of Lambton county was worried because they were concerned that their entire county was going to be turned into a dump site, that any site within Lambton county was going to be subject to the possibility of being used as a dump site by Metropolitan Toronto.

If that's the policy the member wants to advocate, let her say it in Marmora, let her say it in Lambton county, let her go around the province and say, "We believe that Metropolitan Toronto's garbage should go anywhere at all around the world."

We have a neutral process, we have an objective process that I hope will produce a timely result and an effective result, and I think it's a better and fairer way to proceed than creating anxiety over the entire width and breadth of the province of Ontario about where Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is going to go or where the GTA garbage is going to go. We've created an objective process and I think we've done it in the fairest possible way for the people of the province.

Mrs McLeod: I have been across this province in community after community, region after region, where people are completely and absolutely frustrated that they can't solve their garbage problems because of the misguided ideological policies of this government. I can tell you, Premier, I have been in Durham, I have been in Peel and I have most particularly been in York region, where there are people who are saying, "We don't believe that it makes sense for us to have to take Toronto's garbage." There should be better solutions and this government should be prepared to look at them.

You have a situation where there are people from one part of the province who are arguing that they don't want their community considered for a dump site; you have people from another part of the province who say they would at least like you to consider letting them offer a solution, and you don't want to hear from either one of them. You have manipulated the environmental assessment process to shut out the views of both those groups.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham West come to order.

Mrs McLeod: We have just seen this past week a 14-year, $140-million effort by the Ontario Waste Management Corp, a process to which three governments contributed.

Hon Mr Rae: What is your point?

Mrs McLeod: The Premier is asking my point. My point is that that process, after 14 years and $140 million, was thrown out because all the alternatives were not considered. I have a very real fear that the same thing is about to happen again. This government has tried to protect itself by ramming through a law that shuts out the alternatives, and that law is being challenged in the courts.

Premier, why are you continuing with a wasteful, expensive, futile process that no one believes makes economic sense and which is likely to be ruled entirely invalid because there is no full environmental assessment? Why not scrap the IWA process right now?

Hon Mr Rae: We're seeing around the province the amount of garbage being reduced dramatically. Just earlier on, in Cornwall, we've seen the creation of a new factory, which is going to be turning cardboard into fine paper, by the Domtar corporation. We've exceeded our targets with respect to the reduction of waste. We're seeing a very substantial reduction of waste all across the province.

This is all good news, and because it's good news, we know it will never emerge from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, who is incapable of expressing a positive thought about events that are taking place across the province of Ontario. She is incapable of expressing a positive thought.

Her federal counterpart has no such difficulty. For him everything is great in Ontario, everything is great in Canada, everything is improving, everything is wonderful. For the Leader of the Opposition, everything is terrible, everything is bad, everything is falling apart.

Mr Bradley: I have the picture, Bob.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member, it's precisely because we want to create a fair process that is going to be neutral from politics, that's not going to have interference from any political party, that's going to be allowed to come up with the answer.

I am not going to comment on the work of the environmental panel. They will decide on the basis of the evidence before them where the best place is for a dump site. That's precisely what they will decide. I am not about to decide it and I don't think the Leader of the Opposition should be the one to decide. I think we should leave it to an objective process.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR SPENDING

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm glad we're on the topic of waste. My question is for the Minister of Labour. I recently received a letter from an individual in London who has approached your ministry for assistance with regard to a complaint against his previous employer. In response to his complaint, the London office of the employment standards program sent him a form letter which states in part, and I quote:

"Your file has been logged and will be dealt with in a sequential manner. We must advise you that because of the high number of claims now being investigated, it takes an average of 12 months to investigate and complete a claim."

Minister, I'm sure that you would agree with me that people who have been forced to approach your ministry for assistance not only require the money that is owed to them but also a response in a more immediate fashion than in one year's time. That's why I'm glad we're on the topic of waste. Will you explain why, when your employment standards offices are so obviously short on staff and resources that it takes an average of one year for them to process complaints, you saw fit to approve the expenditure of $10,000 on the party at the Ministry of Labour to celebrate the 75th birthday of the ministry?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): As your first question to me in the House, you don't give any details; no additional information. How do I know this is a story that is accurate? If you would provide me with --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It is a one-year delay. How much more detail do you want? One year, one day and two hours?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- that information I would be very glad to deal with it. I am only taking the information that you're saying in the House that it's going to take one year to settle this claim. I don't know that for a fact. You haven't provided me with any kind of information and I think that you should. Cross it over in the House, send it with a page, and I will be very glad to get back to you on that.

You're talking about waste and you were talking about the party at the ministry to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Ministry of Labour, a ministry that has done so much for all people in this province, for working people, for employers. I think the member is being very harsh when she says that it was a total waste in the expenditure of money. If you would like --

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

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- tomorrow I would come back to the House with a list of celebrations your party had when in power and you would find that this was a minimal expense. Also, for your information, most of the money was spent on literature and a book that will be kept for reference.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, obviously you didn't hear the entire question. I stated it was a form letter. This form letter is sent to thousands of people across this province. The reality is, the average wait is 12 months. The reality is, it's totally unacceptable. You continue to waste money on parties and you've just had a fully catered employment equity party by the Ministry of Citizenship.

I want to tell you about some other area where you're wasting money. Every day I receive by Sameday courier copies of news releases from your ministry. These could just as easily be faxed to me.

When I looked into the issue, I found that you also send copies to the Premier's office; the Office of the Premier, policy and issues; Office of the Premier, communications; the Premier's press office and the Premier's special adviser -- four copies, all delivered by courier at a cost of around $3 per copy, that were sent to your Premier's office when they could have been sent by fax. That doesn't include --

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

Mrs Witmer: -- what you send to the government caucus office and the government members' lobby.

Minister, while workers wait for a year for investigations to take place regarding their claims, you squander scarce resources on couriers to deliver endless streams of inconsequential news releases. Instead of Sameday, why don't you use a fax?

Hon Mrs Coppen: I'll start saving money tomorrow and make sure that the member doesn't get any more of our clippings. We'll start off that way. We have a very good, cost-effective contract with the courier company.

I apologize. When you asked me the first question, I did not hear the beginning of it. I apologize for that, and I agree with you: A form letter that says that anyone has to wait one year to have their claim settled is unacceptable.

When we talk about waste, for the member's memory too, when you were in government there were two employment standards offices in the Niagara area, which didn't even have 300,000 population. So let's not nitpick on waste, because we can show to the public of Ontario the wanton waste that you had for 40 years.

Mrs Witmer: I've never been in government, but I would suggest to you that your government has no sense of priorities whatsoever. Important front-line services such as employment standards investigations that impact on human lives -- and yesterday we heard that shelters for women such as the Redwood Shelter in London go without funding while your government continues to waste millions of dollars.

I want to give you one more example. We recently learned that you spent $100,000 to finance four labour videotapes. One of them commemorated the 30th anniversary of the postal workers' strike. One was entitled Mapping the Workers' City: A Walker's Guide to Hamilton. I was amazed. You have no money for women's shelters, you have no money to help workers who have filed complaints, and yet you find $100,000 for videotapes.

Minister, don't you agree that the money you waste on parties, couriers and videotapes could be better spent on front-line services which are actually helping people?

Hon Mrs Coppen: With all seriousness, going back to the first question, because it does bother me that there was a form letter sent out that someone would have to wait one year to have their case investigated, on courier service expenditures we have as a government been very, very careful with our expenditures. It has been proven that we have. Over the last four years, this government has spent less than any other government that was in power. That is a true statement.

The videotapes she's talking about are videotapes, yes, that will be left for the history of young people here in this province, a history of the trade union movement. That's one part of our education that is lacking, that young people can feel proud of what working people did, what trade unions did to make this a great province. That is money well spent when we educate our youth.

The Speaker: New question. The honourable member for Oakville South.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I tell you where we waste money. I tell you we waste money when we pay that person to be the Minister of Labour in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Carr: That's where we waste the money.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South was recognized so that he would have an opportunity to place a question.

INTERNATIONAL AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. It's on waste as well.

Minister, a year ago your government spent $300,000 fighting the North American free trade agreement by going around with a committee to fight it. You also spent $80,000 producing this crazy video fighting the North American free trade agreement. You also lodged a court challenge to fight the NAFTA agreement. Will you now admit it was wrong to spend taxpayers' money to fight the NAFTA agreement last year?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): This one's for you, Mr Speaker. No.

Mr Carr: I'm glad we're being very brief, because your junior minister, the minister from Sarnia, is quoted in a press release: "'As one of our closest neighbours, Mexico offers a huge potential market for Ontario goods and services,' said Mr Huget."

My question to you is this: Will you send a clear message around the world that Ontario is open for business and that you are in favour of freer trade between Ontario and the rest of the world? Will you stand up today and say you support your junior minister having freer trade between Ontario and the rest of the world?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes. I certainly support Mr Huget's comments. I've made comments similar to that myself. We are a country that depends on trade. We are a province that depends on trade. We're very trade-reliant in terms of our economy. In fact, it's our exports that are helping pull us out of the recession right now, and investments in the auto industries and others. It's incredibly important.

We believe in free trade. We happen not to like the FTA and NAFTA. The agreements that were negotiated by former federal governments were bad agreements. I have no problem saying that. There are problems with respect to the jurisdictional issues that are raised in that agreement. But none of that takes away from the commitment of the members on this side of the House to fair and free and liberalized trade.

Mr Carr: I think I heard the minister say she's in favour of freer trade. Then why in the heck did you spend $300,000 going around the province fighting it if you believe in it? Speaking of trade she can do something about -- interprovincial trade barriers -- the GATT council spent two days in discussion of its report, and it said that in Canada interprovincial trade barriers are "hampering economic growth and job creation as well as reducing competitiveness in Canadian firms."

My question to you is this: Why are you spending $300,000 fighting the North American free trade agreement? Wouldn't that money be better spent trying to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers here in Canada rather than wasting money on something you can't do anything about?

Hon Ms Lankin: With respect to the money that has been spent in a public awareness and public education campaign about the significant problems in what was negotiated under the FTA and NAFTA and its impact on businesses and workers here in the province of Ontario, I'm proud of the leadership role this government played with respect to bringing those issues to the public of Ontario. I don't apologize at all.

With respect to interprovincial trade barriers, I'm really glad the member raised that, because that's where I wanted to go in my opportunity in responding to his third supplementary, because that in fact shows this government's commitment to freer, liberalized trade. This government played a leadership role in trying to push for bringing down barriers in those negotiations. I remind the member opposite of our relationship with the province of Quebec and the barriers that existed for years and years and years which prohibited contractors from being able to do work in Quebec, to bid on work, prohibited workers from crossing there.

I see members pointing fingers everywhere. Did your party do anything about it? No. Did the Liberals do anything about it? No. Did we do something about it? Yes, and the problem is resolved. We showed leadership. That's an example of real dedication to liberalized trade, not to phoney, ideological and bad trade deals like NAFTA.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, through your amendments to the long-term-care bill, Bill 173, you've guaranteed that a multiservice agency will not be able to purchase nursing and other home care services from other service agencies in the event of a strike. I remind you that people who need care in their homes are frequently alone, they're vulnerable, they're isolated, and they're very sick. Many could not cope with any kind of interruption in the nursing and social services that are so necessary for their health and their quality of life.

Your parliamentary assistant indicated in committee that it is possible that home care workers could be considered as essential workers in the event of a strike. We want you to confirm that you will designate home care workers, whether they're nursing or social workers, as essential workers if there is a strike, so we can assure our disabled, our seniors and our children who need long-term-care services that they will receive those services under any circumstances.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm quite sure the member is well aware that it is not for me to designate who are essential workers. That's something that, under the labour laws of this province, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would, I'm sure, deal with. What I said and what I still say is that of course people who need care under our long-term-care reorganization will get it when they need it, where they need it, and as close to their own home and in their own community as they can.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister well knows that included in Bill 173 she has emasculated the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the powers it has. Home care will be treated in a very different way from any other part of the government and the government's operations. Part of long-term-care reform is to ensure that people have the choice of the services they need and will participate in decisions about those services. Why would an individual opt for services in a home care situation rather than a facility if they cannot be guaranteed that those services would continue uninterrupted under any circumstances, including labour strife?

People want to know what plans you have so that people will be able to receive those nursing and other services in the event of labour strife. What discussions have you had with hospitals, with nursing homes, about admitting long-term-care patients who cannot receive those services at home; with ambulance services about transferring patients; with your own officials about the Ministry of Health directly providing those services; with physicians and other professionals --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're going on four minutes here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Yorkview.

Mrs Sullivan: -- about what services they will provide in an emergency situation which would happen in a strike scenario?

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

Mrs Sullivan: What have you done to make certain that people will receive the care they need when they need it? What are your plans, and how will you assure people, rather than through words, that you in fact have plans in place?

Hon Mrs Grier: This member's persistent attempts to frighten the seniors of this province about the effect of the reorganization of long-term care are quite frankly disappointing; in fact, probably disgraceful, although that's a word I don't normally use.

Under her government there was a fragmentation of services. It was impossible to find out how you could find out what service was required. There was no commitment of funding to expand or to enhance long-term care so that people could stay at home.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's not true. Tell the truth, Ruth.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mrs Grier: What this government has done is invest another $600 million in long-term care. What this government has done --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister complete her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: Our reorganization of long-term care is in response to what the people who get long-term care said they needed and said they wanted across this province. The seniors and the disabled told us they didn't like the system they had and they didn't like the proposals of the Liberals when they were the government. They came to us and they said: "We don't want to be patronized. We don't want to be told what kind of care we need. We want to participate in the planning, in the delivery and in the management of the services of long-term care." That's what Bill 173 does and that's what the seniors of this province will get and deserve.

CONTAINMENT LABORATORY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Health as well. Madam Minister, on November 14 in this Legislature, with respect to the containment laboratory in the city of Etobicoke, you said, "In view of the concern of the residents of the area, it will not open until they have had an opportunity to have their fears addressed." You said you'd delay the opening until the end of this year. People are still phoning my office, and I'm sure yours, and they're asking the question about when they are going to have their chance for a public meeting.

They wanted an environmental assessment and you said no. You've gone to the city of Etobicoke -- you didn't; your staff did -- and given them an undertaking that a committee would be struck, public hearings would be held --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: What? Sorry, Mr Speaker, there's a mouse in here.

Madam Minister, I just want to put it to you very directly: The constituents would like to know when these public hearings are taking place and when their concerns are going to be heard, because the elected officials in the city of Etobicoke I've spoken to have said categorically that they have not heard from your department on what's going to happen.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me first of all correct something in the

preamble to the member's question. He said that I had said the laboratory would not open until the end of the year. In fact, I said the laboratory would not open until the concerns had been addressed. I agree with him: They have not yet been addressed.

The city of Etobicoke has asked us to do an environmental assessment. The government of which members of the Conservative Party were a part waived the environmental assessment, gave an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act so that there would not be an environmental assessment of the construction of this 1,200-square-foot laboratory within a laboratory that had been there since the 1960s, for which no environmental assessment was done when the building was first built, because the act didn't even exist then.

Secondly, the city of Etobicoke has asked us to build a hospital next door to the laboratory, should there be a leak of viruses. I don't decide overnight whether or not to build new hospitals. In fact, I haven't had the privilege of deciding to build new hospitals since I became Minister of Health. I would have to look at that particular request very carefully.

The city of Etobicoke has asked for a quarter-of-a-million-dollar indemnity fund for the residents around the laboratory. That of course is something that would have to be considered very carefully, and the city of Etobicoke has had a public meeting where all the residents voiced their concerns and which was the origin of these kinds of requests from the city.

When we have had a time to analyse them, when we have had a time to sit down with officials from the city, then I can assure the member that all of his constituents will be advised that in fact the public health officials in the city of Etobicoke believe they have nothing to fear from this laboratory --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and were part of the implementation committee set up three years ago to in fact make sure that the laboratory was constructed safely.

Mr Stockwell: I'm very pleased with the response. As I understood it, when I asked you this question on November 14, you ruled that you wouldn't have an environmental assessment hearing. I'm pleased to hear that you're in fact considering having an environmental assessment hearing on this site. I'm sure the people in the city of Etobicoke will be real pleased to know that you've decided that you've got to review the environmental assessment hearing and whether or not you're going to have it.

The other thing I'm glad to hear about is that you're considering the request for a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar indemnification.

Interjection: Billion?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar indemnification for the area. I'm really pleased that she's considering that too.

Hon Mrs Grier: I said million.

Mr Stockwell: I'm also real pleased that you're going to strike this committee and you're going to consider hearing from these constituents full-time.

I'm also really pleased that you have agreed not to open it by the end of the year, that it's going to be some time in 1995.

I guess the question that stands is, while you're considering all this stuff, when do you think you might come to a potential date just to have a public hearing to hear from the constituents so they can express their concerns while you're contemplating environmental assessment hearings and quarter-of-a-billion-dollar indemnifications? When do you think you could just take a few minutes of your busy

schedule to have a public hearing so these people may speak to you first hand and outline their real concerns about the opening of this viral containment centre?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in response to the first question, the city of Etobicoke has had a public hearing. All of the people expressed their concerns to the city of Etobicoke and to the board of health of the city of Etobicoke. As a result of that public meeting, the city council has forwarded to us a series of recommendations based on those concerns. I said I would look at them.

I think it would be foolish for the member, and I'm quite sure, given the Common Sense Revolution, that he wouldn't want to be advocating a quarter of a billion dollars in indemnification for something that might happen should something else happen should something else happen, but maybe he does. And I certainly don't know how the Environmental Assessment Act can be applied retroactively to something to which a Conservative government gave an exemption.

But I'm pleased to know that the member is pleased, and I'm pleased to tell him that when we have come to some conclusions I will be pleased to share them with him.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's nice to stand up after the member for Etobicoke West. I hope I can keep his ratings up.

The question I have is for the Minister of Health. It has to do with Bill 119, the Tobacco Control Act. While I've heard a number of very positive comments about the Tobacco Control Act from a number of groups and people throughout my riding, there has been one concern that has been expressed to me that I think should be discussed here. That has to do with the schools and the fact that a number of young people are found loitering outside the school property and disturbing area residents.

This issue has been raised with me by a couple of people, so my question to the minister is this: What are the options for those residents who live next to the high schools in dealing with the increase in the number of students loitering outside, off school property?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member is indeed right. Under the legislation that was proclaimed at midnight last night, schools and their properties are in fact smoke-free zones. The objective of the legislation is not only to prevent young people under the age of 19 from getting access to tobacco but also to make sure that areas that are frequented by the public and by non-smokers are smoke-free.

All I can say to schools, many of which fully support the legislation and appeared before the committee indicating their desire to have this legislation, is that, working with their public health units, they may in fact be able to deal with this problem, because we have funded public health units to provide smoking cessation and smoking education for pupils. In addition, the schools that have been having difficulty from neighbours who complain that students are perhaps smoking on adjacent properties I think will find that the problem diminishes today, when people under the age of 19 find it much more difficult to obtain cigarettes in the first place.

Mr Wiseman: Minister, my supplementary has to do with how this is going to be funded and how the public health units that are responsible for enforcement under Bill 119 are going to be funded. How will this system work? As a former educator myself, I know that all educators are anxious to make this system work. So how can they relate to the inspectors, and how will this whole system work out in terms of funding?

Hon Mrs Grier: When I referred to public health units doing smoking cessation and education programs, that has been part of ongoing funding to public health units. But I think it's very important that this legislation be enforced and not be like the federal legislation that has said, "You can't smoke under the age of 18," and for which they have 10 inspectors for the entire province of Ontario.

Those 10 inspectors, as well as existing public health inspectors, as well as enforcement officers who will be hired by public health units with the addition of an extra $2.5 million from my ministry, have all been part of education programs to inform them about the legislation and will be part of the enforcement. So the public health inspectors and the enforcement officers, who know their own communities, who know the shopkeepers in their communities, will be part of making sure that those who sell tobacco will respect the legislation, which makes it an offence to sell or give tobacco to anyone under the age of 19.

TRENTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question today is for the Minister of Health. Minister, back in June of this year, approximately 500 people travelled to Queen's Park from the Trenton area to voice their concerns about the future of the Trenton Memorial Hospital and to ask for your help. At that time we came away feeling hopeful that you would make things happen. It is now the end of November, and we still have not heard from you.

In 1989, the government gave approval for the needed changes to the area hospitals in Trenton, Belleville and Picton. Since then, it seems that your government and staff have done everything possible to delay those needed changes, which would guarantee not only the health of the patients but also the safety of those within.

Your staff promised that the second phase of the rationalization study would be completed by April, and it is now November. You, along with ministry officials, said we would have a response no later than the end of October, and in a conversation I had with you earlier this month, you told me it would likely be delayed until December.

There is absolutely no excuse for those delays, which are jeopardizing the health of our community. We have waited patiently through three functional programs, one CHO or comprehensive health organization study, two rationalization studies, and thousands of hours of discussion and debate in order to receive approval to redevelop our grossly substandard and outdated facilities.

Based on reports from the fire department, the city's building department, architects and unions, Trenton Memorial Hospital is in critical condition and the health and safety of staff and patients are at risk as a result. Minister, I ask you to address these matters immediately. What do you intend to do?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this question which, as the member has said, I've had an opportunity to discuss with him and with representatives of the community who he brought to visit me. I can assure him that the member from Prince Edward-Lennox and the member for Hastings-Peterborough are vitally interested in the results of the work that is being done by the district health council, and let me repeat that. The planning and restructuring of health care facilities within this province is the responsibility of district health councils with which we work very closely and whose advice we rely on.

I'm delighted to be able to tell the member that I have in fact received the recommendations from the district health council. They are recommendations that our ministry feels will go a long way to address long-standing problems, problems that were identified, I think, in 1986 for the first time, and we now have had a comprehensive evaluation of the needs of that district for the future.

I can say to him that I hope very shortly to be able to report back to the district health council with our response which, I can assure him, will enable the institutions about which he is concerned to be put on a firm footing for the years ahead.

Mr O'Neil: Madam Minister, the problem is that you're throwing this back on the district health council, and I believe the district health council replied to you back in August of this year. They are so frustrated that they are talking about resigning en masse because you and the ministry staff have not acted upon those recommendations.

I'm going to send over both to you -- because the member for Northumberland, Mrs Fawcett, and myself met with the hospital board in Trenton on Thursday evening -- and to the Premier reports that came from the fire department and the city building department of Trenton talking about the danger of that establishment.

You've had this for too long now, you have not dealt with it and the thing is that you need to get moving and give the district health council and the people of Trenton and area an answer on what you're going to do with this. You've been delaying for months upon months. There's a real danger to the health of the people who are in that hospital if you don't give us an answer very shortly so they can go ahead with the building and the repairs that need to be done.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member began his question by saying that I was throwing it back to the district health council. Let me assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. We have had from the district health council a first-rate report that deals with a number of issues that have been of long-standing concern in that community and that make some very concrete recommendations to the ministry.

We've had that report, we have almost completed our evaluation of that report, and I can assure him he will have a very concrete response, as will the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and the member for Hastings-Peterborough, all of whom share his concern. I've seen the clippings; I know the concerns of the fire department.

There has been funding in order to make some improvements to the essential components of that hospital. It's a hospital that's very old and that needs a lot of investment, the one in Trenton, and we will be addressing that just as soon as we can get the letter drafted and out to the district health council.

RESIDENTS' SAFETY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the new Minister of Housing. Bill 120, which came into force last summer, brought care homes under the laws governing rental housing, but as I have said many times, this is like putting a square peg in a round hole.

If you apply laws designed for apartments to care homes, you endanger the health and safety of the residents who are under care. For instance, as a result of Bill 120, residents must be given 24 hours' notice before staff can enter their rooms. This means that night-time security checks are no longer possible.

One of the many letters I've received on this issue is from 36 residents in the Pinewood Retirement Residence in Pembroke. They write: "We depend on these night checks for security and our peace of mind. This is clearly not in our best interest." Minister, how would you reply to these residents' concerns about their personal safety overnight?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Housing): I think everyone is concerned about the safety and welfare of people in care homes. There's no question about that, and I think that the provisions in question grew out of studies undertaken by Dr Lightman in the Lightman report, where he made a number of recommendations that made it very appropriate for those residents to be brought under the Landlord and Tenant Act and to be provided with a whole range of protections which that piece of legislation provides for them.

I understand perfectly that managers of care homes brought under new legislation would have some concerns about how that legislation would apply to them and their performance of their proper activities with respect to their clients. It will take some time to get used to new provisions as they come under that legislation, but there are a number of provisions and understandings around that law which make it quite accessible and useful for them with respect to the needs of their clients.

If there's not a 24-hour advance notice, the staff person can always knock and get a response. That's the first provision: You can get in if you have a response. The second is, if you have a reason to believe, knowing the client in question, that there is an emergency in the room, be it by virtue of the condition of that patient, that person, then you have a right to enter, and you may enter and seek that condition. Under those circumstances, it's very unlikely that there will be an action taken against you.

Mrs Marland: Well, I can tell you that Dr Lightman never referred to these people as clients; he always said "patients."

A woman whose husband has Parkinson's disease writes that restricting access to her husband's room is "nothing short of madness. He falls continually and unexpectedly and therefore would not be able to call for the staff to help him. He could be lying on the floor for hours."

In another letter, a man whose mother-in-law is 91, senile and has several serious health problems writes, "If your mother were in this place and if she suffered a stroke in the middle of the night or a heart attack or was choking on her vomit and no one could enter her room on a regular basis every night, even several times during the night, to check on her or to give her assistance when and if needed, would you be happy because your mother died in order that the act be upheld?"

Minister, if this is what it is like and if this is what it will take, a tragedy, even a death, before you will admit that your government made a grave error when it brought care homes under laws that were designed for rental apartments -- we are talking about people who are in care homes, frankly, because they need care, and they're paid for by your government for that special care, and you're happy to leave them alone all night with --

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

Mrs Marland: I am hoping that this new Minister of Housing has concern and is willing to reverse this very wrong decision to include care homes under Bill 120.

Hon Mr Allen: Nothing that I have heard convinces me that common sense will not prevail, and that indeed the appropriate roles that people, as caregivers, are expected to give under those circumstances will in fact prevail in the exercise of their responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act, but as caregivers.

There will of course, quite inevitably, as always happens with new legislation, be the development of a whole new field of case law around this, but I would expect and I would urge that caregivers exercise common sense in the application of the law. I think with that understanding there will be no harm to either the caregiver or to the patient.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I am aware that the minister and this government continue to support the further development of an ethanol industry in Ontario. However, I have in my hand a letter from a constituent, Bruce Jewell, rural route 1, Carrying Place, who's keen to see this industry start and who also says he believes this alternative fuel is a step in the right direction.

Since 1992, Seaway Valley Farmers' Energy Co-operative has conducted numerous investigations into the feasibility of constructing and operating a 50-million-litre-per-year ethanol production facility in eastern Ontario. In the past six months I understand that Seaway Valley has carried out extensive market searches and that it has developed a comprehensive business plan. The cooperative would like to begin construction of its facility this spring.

Given the potential rural employment and economic benefits generated by this project, not to mention a market for five million bushels of Ontario corn, can the minister confirm his support for this project for eastern Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): We have responded to a number of questions in this House about the project that everyone has heard about in Chatham, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond regarding this initiative in eastern Ontario, which is badly in need of jobs.

I want the member to know that I've met with the Seaway Valley co-operative members a number of times over the last few years. In fact, I think a couple of members of the opposition have sponsored trips for the farmers from eastern Ontario to come to this place, and we've actually met in this building to talk about their ideas and their projects.

This is essentially a group of farmers coming together investing some of their own money, and hopefully they will get to the stage where they'll be able to create an ethanol plant somewhere in the Cornwall region. It's unfortunate the member from Cornwall is not here today, because he's done a lot of work on helping the farmers to initiate that project.

We are very supportive of the ethanol industry, and I look forward to a meeting probably before the new year with the group from Seaway Valley to look at their plans for the construction of a plant. We will try to assist them as much as we can, because ethanol is a very good way to create jobs in rural Ontario.

Mr Paul Johnson: Mr Jewell also states in his letter that he feels the NDP government has been stalling. He feels this government has been stalling and he wants to know how it is that Jean Chrétien could approve a similar facility in China.

As the minister has noted on many occasions, the province has been supportive of the industry on many issues, and in particular in encouraging the federal government to match Ontario's commitment on long-term tax concessions on alternative fuels such as ethanol.

To date, however, there has been no federal announcement on the excise tax issue. Many people would like to hear something from the federal government. Can the minister update the House today with respect to this very important issue?

Hon Mr Buchanan: This is a very important question. Some of us have been waiting now for about a year, after the election of the new Liberal regime in Ottawa. One of the first announcements that came out for rural Ontario was that there was an expected announcement within a week or two and they were going to take a couple of weeks to review the process that had taken place under the previous administration.

We waited a couple of weeks, we waited a couple of months, and now we keep hearing that the announcement will be made soon. We hear the fact it will be made in a couple of weeks. We heard that back in September. It was going to be done in the summertime so the construction could start this fall in Chatham, and quite frankly --

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- now we keep hearing that the announcement of this stage will be made before Christmas. The people of rural Ontario, Seaway Valley as well as Chatham, certainly would appreciate an announcement --

The Speaker: New question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister is not present in the chamber. Is there any other minister to whom you wish to direct your question?

Mr Mammoliti: Perhaps the Minister of Finance would answer the question, the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I'm listening.

The Speaker: Place the question.

Mr Mammoliti: Minister, today I brought down a constituent of mine by the name of Frank Casser. Frank's history of the Workers' Compensation Board goes back a long way. Frank is here in the gallery with me today. He got injured in 1986, back and neck. Four claims later and nine years later, Frank's claim has been denied. If it weren't for a subsidy, some compensation from an insurance company, Frank would have been on welfare.

My question to the minister, of course in the absence of the Minister of Labour, is, what is the government doing to help alleviate the problems within workers' compensation and what can we do to stop nine-year waiting lists from happening once again? I'll bring over to you, Minister, Frank's file that he has built up over the last nine years. Can I have a page, please?

I must mention as well, Minister, that Frank has done this all by himself. He could not hire a lawyer or a consultant to do this, and I'd like you to base your answer on what perhaps we're doing as a government to help alleviate individuals like himself.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the member for Yorkview, who is carrying on a long tradition of concern on behalf of this party for injured workers in this province. There is no question that from time to time injured workers who come into contact with the Workers' Compensation Board have enormous difficulties having their claims settled.

I myself represent a constituency with many injured workers, representing an area with mining and forestry predominant, so I do appreciate the problems that injured workers have from time to time. And it doesn't have to be a very large percentage of total claims for it to be an important but small percentage, and I appreciate that fact.

As the member for Yorkview would know, I suspect, we have worked extremely hard to do two things. One is to reform the structure of the Workers' Compensation Board so that it's a bipartite structure, and work is ongoing on that. Second, and perhaps in the long run more important, although it may not satisfy the immediate problems of your constituent, and I appreciate that, is to have struck a royal commission which will look at the whole existence of the Workers' Compensation Board and the way in which services to injured workers should be delivered in the long run.

There are many models of workers' compensation and all governments in this province have struggled with the whole question of how to deliver services humanely and also at the same time affordably for the business community. We can't just ignore that.

I appreciate the question from the member for Yorkview and can assure him that we will continue to work to try and streamline and get rid of some of the problems that currently exist at the Workers' Compensation Board.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This petition is addressed to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing services in the long-term-care field; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services even though they are best able to determine local needs,

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across the province."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further petitions? The honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The boss himself.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Conway.

I have a petition here today signed by in excess of 500 people in my riding that says:

"Petition to the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Muskoka believe that the present system of funding education in the province of Ontario by property taxes is unfair; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario established the Fair Tax Commission to review and make recommendations regarding Ontario's tax system; and

"Whereas said commission concluded that education should not be funded from local property taxes; and

"Whereas said commission proposed four potential sources -- the provincial payroll tax, the corporate income tax, the retail sales tax and the personal income tax -- of core funding for education; and

"Whereas the allocations of the general legislative grant to the Muskoka Board of Education have decreased by $7.7 million since 1991; and

"Whereas Muskoka's average family income is approximately 20% lower than the provincial average;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, do petition the Legislature of the province of Ontario as follows:

"To implement immediately the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission regarding a new system of core funding for education; to recognize that the average family income in Muskoka is such that some residents are unable to pay increased property taxes in order to fund quality education for Muskoka students; to reassess the allocation of the general legislative grant to the Muskoka Board of Education for 1994."

I too affix my name.

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN / SALE OF BEER AND WINE

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Encore une fois aujourd'hui, j'ai 821 noms -- 829 names -- de quatre dépanneurs, du Mini-Marché Laurier à Rockland, du Marché du Coin Lefaivre, du Marché Côté à Saint-Eugène et du dépanneur Legault à Casselman, des pétitions des gens de la circonscription qui demandent humblement à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario que l'on appuie un projet de loi pour autoriser les dépanneurs à pouvoir vendre du vin et de la bière à leurs clients dans les dépanneurs.

There again:

"We, the undersigned, humbly beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support legislation authorizing convenience stores to sell beer and wine to their clients."

J'ai appuyé ces pétitions-là très fortement, j'y ai apposé ma signature et c'est avec plaisir que je vous les présente.

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Stop the implementation of the mental health reform as outlined in Putting People First;

"Stop the plan to transfer hospital staff workers into the community;

"Start funding free, non-medical, non-traditional autonomous community services;

"Start serious discussions with psychiatric survivors, abuse survivors, feminist service providers, community service providers, providers of ethno-specific and multicultural services and community service clients;

"Allocate at least 50% of the multibillion-dollar mental health budget in Ontario to non-medical, non-traditional, autonomous community services which are controlled and guided by the communities which they serve; and

"Recognize and address the societal origins of people's problems. These origins include: poverty, sexism, racism, homelessness, lack of affordable and safe housing, all forms of abuse -- sexual, ritual, physical, medical and psychiatric -- and emotion abuse, violence against women and children, homophobia, ageism and ableism."

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm proud to present today probably the largest petition I've ever presented as a member in the Legislature, a petition signed by some 15,884 people in the city of Pembroke and elsewhere in the upper Ottawa Valley. It is a petition that was gathered together just in the last few days, and it concerns the very sensitive and controversial question of hospital restructuring in the city of Pembroke.

The petition reads in part:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the hospital services review committee of the Renfrew County District Health Council was established to restructure hospital services in the city of Pembroke; and

"Whereas consumer participation and input is an important component of the study;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned consumers recommend as following:

"(

a) That no Pembroke hospital be closed;

"(

b) That each hospital restructure to avoid duplication, that each hospital develop their programs of excellence and become as efficient as possible; and

"(

c) That all hospital staff affected by the restructuring be treated in a fair and equitable manner."

I repeat, this petition has been gathered together in just a few days and it is signed by almost 16,000 of my constituents who are obviously very seriously concerned about any hospital restructuring that could injure health care and hospital services in the upper Ottawa Valley.

HIGHWAY 520

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents and cottagers of McKenzie, Hagerman and Ferrie townships in the district of Parry Sound in the province of Ontario do hereby sign this petition for the following reasons:

"

(1) The highway commonly known and duly mapped as Highway 520 from the village of Dunchurch to the village of Ardbeg was, until this past summer, a paved road;

"

(2) Highway 520 is now a gravel road due to resurfacing by MTO personnel and other contractor input;

"

(3) The gravel road has caused windshields to be broken from passing vehicles, dust to residential adjacent properties and a rough surface.

"We, the undersigned residents, therefore request that the afore-noted highway be paved as soon as possible."

The petition is signed by many residents in the area, and I have affixed my signature thereto as an MPP.

CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition and I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the Centennial Community and Recreation Association in my riding for doing a lot of work to pull this together.

It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Centennial waterfront of Lake Ontario between Highland Creek and the Rouge River is an important natural asset that needs to be protected and kept accessible;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to initiate discussions with other governments and agencies, including those of Canada, Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Scarborough as well as the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and local school boards regarding the acquisition of lands and appurtenant properties for the protection of the environment and enjoyment by future generations."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by numerous people from Port Hope and Cobourg district:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to help us to protect our children by changing the current maximum penalty of 10 years for sexual interference to a minimum of five years with mandatory counselling and up to and including life imprisonment as a maximum penalty."

I have signed the petition.

WATER SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition that states:

"We, the undersigned, are requesting much tougher boating legislation after Cody Speaker's life being taken away in a boating accident at age 7. We want to see all boat and personal watercraft drivers having to get operators' licences, and an age limit for drivers. We want them to take courses on how to operate their watercraft and enforce these regulations.

"We are doing this in memory of Cody Speaker in hopes that we may prevent this from happening again."

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation as it is in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services even though they are best able to determine local needs;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across Ontario."

I agree with this petition and therefore I affix my signature to it in agreement.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This petition is from some of the Toronto Islands residents:

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a whopper of a petition here, thousands of signatures, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions," and this government's done nothing about it, "and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to equalize the price of gas across the province have not been kept; and

"Whereas Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash has called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high price of gas in the north;

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

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

I proudly affix my signature to this.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition, which reads:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the minister of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination;

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and hunted for years;

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

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

"To amend 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."

GUN CONTROL

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): One final petition today, and this petition says:

"Instead of changing Canada's gun laws, the government should enforce existing laws and deal more severely with criminals that use illegal weapons."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

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 Pr146,

An Act respecting the City of York

Bill Pr148,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga

Bill Pr150,

An Act to revive Mississauga Synchronized Swimming Association

Bill Pr151,

An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of London

Bill Pr153,

An Act respecting the Simcoe County Board of Education

Bill Pr154,

An Act to revive Oshawa Deaf Centre Inc.

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

Bill Pr117,

An Act respecting the J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

Bill Pr147,

An Act respecting the City of York.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr117,

An Act respecting the J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

Bill Pr154,

An Act to revive Oshawa Deaf Centre Inc.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the 32nd report and moved its adoption.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member wish to briefly state what's in this report?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, Mr Speaker, thank you, I do not have any comment on the report.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

Your committee recommends that the following bills be not reported:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé

Bill 151,

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition /

Loi sur la réglementation des munitions.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COBALLOY MINES AND REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr143,

An Act to revive Coballoy Mines and Refiners Limited.

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

COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr144,

An Act to revive Columbia Metals Corporation Limited.

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

S.A.W. GALLERY INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr152,

An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, which I intend to call as government notice of motion number 38, the House leaders have had a discussion about this item and I think it's been agreed, so I seek the consent of the House, to proceed in this fashion: I will move the motion and I will do the opening remarks for the government and, when I have finished, the other two parties will split the remainder of the time in the two hours that are allotted for this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent to the government House leader's suggestion? Agreed.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING / HEURES PROLONGÉES DE SÉANCE

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 38:

That, pursuant to standing order 6(b)(i), the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on December 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1994, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I don't intend to speak at any great length this afternoon, but I thought there were a few remarks that I should make this afternoon simply because of a number of things that have been said in this House over the last couple of weeks that I think, for the public, need to be clearly set straight on the record.

There