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

March 23, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

DAFFODIL FESTIVAL

JOBS ONTARIO

NEW LISKEARD COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

FOOD BANKS

PRINCE EDWARD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

QUESTION PERIOD

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

MARY WESTLEY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

TUITION FEES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

TUITION FEES

TUITION FEES

ONTARIO HYDRO

SOCIAL CONTRACT

YOUNG OFFENDERS

PENSION FUNDS

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

ST MARYS PAPER

SOCIAL CONTRACT

FIREARMS SAFETY

INFERTILITY

EDUCATION FINANCING

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HAEMODIALYSIS

HUMAN RIGHTS

FERRY SERVICE FEES

FOREST INDUSTRY

HEALTH SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

HAEMODIALYSIS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

LONG-TERM CARE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

STATUS OF BILL

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1994

NORTH TORONTO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (INTERDENOMINATIONAL) ACT, 1994

EDEN COMMUNITY HOUSE OF TORONTO ACT, 1994

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AIDE SOCIALE

TUBERATE HEAT TRANSFER ACT, 1994

FINANCIAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 PORTANT RÉFORME DE DIVERSES LOIS RELATIVES AUX SERVICES FINANCIERS

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Partout dans le monde cette semaine, on célèbre l'appartenance à cette grande famille qu'est la francophonie. À Hearst, à Port-au-Prince, à Bruxelles, à Port Louis on fête, mais aussi on s'interroge sur ce que deviendra cette langue dont nous sommes tous si fiers dans notre petit coin de la planète.

J'aimerais souhaiter à tous les francophones, d'où qu'ils soient, une bonne et productive Semaine de la francophonie. Je m'en voudrais de ne pas avoir une pensée tout à fait spéciale pour nos frères et soeurs qui font

partie des minorités francophones canadiennes. Je voudrais leur dire qu'il y a des raisons d'avoir de l'espoir. Je souhaite aussi qu'ils auront, au cours de la semaine, l'occasion de réfléchir sur la façon dont chacun d'entre nous peut contribuer au mieux-être de nos collectivités respectives.

DAFFODIL FESTIVAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I would like to take this opportunity to make members of this Legislature and residents of Ontario aware of the Daffodil Festival that begins today and runs through to Saturday. April is cancer month in Ontario, and the Daffodil Festival is a precursor to this important time of the year when cancer societies band together to make Ontarians aware of the importance of fighting this deadly disease.

This week, provincial cancer societies are selling daffodils in an effort to raise money to stem the tide of cancer that grows annually in Canada. The numbers reflect this growth. More than one in three Canadians will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime. This probability has increased from one in four since 1977. As well, an estimated 121,300 cases of cancer and 61,000 deaths from cancer will occur in Canada in 1994.

But there is hope. The daffodil embodies precisely that, a sense of hope and a renewal of life. Last year more than 6.2 million daffodils were sold and millions of dollars were raised in an effort to find a cure and to develop new treatments to battle cancer. There is hope, because the people of Ontario have given generously in the past, and an army of volunteers will knock on virtually every door in the province during the month of April asking for the public's help in this fight against this deadly disease.

I urge all members of this assembly and citizens from all across Ontario to join the crusade against cancer and to purchase daffodils this week from their local cancer society.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): In the time since we recessed, I've had the good fortune to attend two Jobs Ontario graduations in the London-Middlesex area. I would like to thank the Jobs Ontario brokers, trainers, employers and students for making the program so successful.

I've had much positive feedback from Middlesex employers and graduates regarding the benefits that both business and trainees have derived from Jobs Ontario.

In Middlesex, more than 1,000 people have moved from unemployment insurance and social assistance rolls to long-term employment. Province-wide, the number of jobs created is almost 40,000. That's a success story.

I also think we should congratulate the trainees who had the courage to go back to the classroom to upgrade their skills. Some of those from Middlesex are: Simone de Schiffert, Carrie de Smit, Karen Haggis, Linda Jones, Doris Jordan, Linda Josh, Susan Kemp, Mary-Anne Lopes, Linda Moss, Debbie Pierce and Bev Wilcox.

I think the graduates say it best. Valedictorian Bev Wilcox told her class and proud family members, friends and instructors: "I would sincerely like to thank Jobs Ontario for providing us with this opportunity to return to school, and to be able to learn the appropriate skills which will allow us to re-enter the workforce. We have discovered areas of talent that we never realized, and we have proven to ourselves that we have the ability of setting goals and reaching them. New doors have been opened, and we truly do appreciate that and everyone for all that's been done for us."

Jobs Ontario graduates have given us much and we thank them.

NEW LISKEARD COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I stand in my place today to ask the government to delay by at least six months the disposition of the assets of the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology.

Since April 23 of last year, when the government brought that fatal blow to that college and closed it, the community has gathered around to try to pick up the pieces, and presently there is a proposal being put forward by Northern College and our federal MP with regard to opening this school up in another guise; that is, we're looking at the federal government, and it has agreed to put some money towards a feasibility study to redirect some of the foreign aid money this country spends in other countries to bring students over to that New Liskeard campus site to train them here in this country.

I think it's an idea that deserves attention. Unfortunately, the government is moving with, I believe, undue haste in trying to sell these assets. I'd ask the government if it would delay that by six months to give the community in Timiskaming the opportunity to see if this proposal can be brought to fruition.

I'd also ask the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs that the resource material in the resource centre be frozen there in northern Ontario, so to speak, and be left in New Liskeard and at the college; that all that documentation and the studies and the resource material on northern agriculture remain in northern Ontario, remain at that site so that Northern College, if this deal is successful, can use that to carry on northern agriculture in another forum in the Timiskaming district. I would ask this government to slow this down so that we in the north can look at this proposal and see what we can make of it.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): One of the NDP's first election promises in 1990 was to eliminate food banks in Ontario. While food banks help the needy, they fail to provide a sense of personal economic independence and fulfilment in actively earning one's daily food. This is why those most involved with food banks are also most vocal in calling on government to help end the need for them.

The NDP could have done much more in the intervening years to realize this noble goal. In this assembly, however, PC leader Mike Harris has been the sole voice in promoting school breakfast programs for children in need, and I acknowledge his leadership and support in developing four such programs in my riding.

As the chairman of Burlington Food Share, and on behalf of our food bank coalition, including the Salvation Army Family Services, St Vincent de Paul, Burlington East Emergency Food Bank and Partnership West Family Services, I wish to announce our annual Easter food drive that will continue until April 2 and will help replenish our severely strained food supplies.

Tonight at 5:30 I will host the official start of our food drive at a lasagna dinner and family night at St Mary's Ukrainian Catholic hall. In this annual event, which is cosponsored by myself and the Burlington South Provincial Progressive Conservative Riding Association, adults are asked to bring a non-perishable food donation while children are free to enjoy pizza, ice cream and a visit from the Easter bunny. Easter is a time to celebrate the renewal of life. At Easter, may we all make an effort to renew our compassion for those in our community who experience true need, through no fault of their own. I can think of no better way than this to spread the message of a truly happy Easter.

PRINCE EDWARD REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I would like to talk about the Prince Edward Region Conservation Authority. PERCA, as it is known locally, is doing some very important work in maintaining the natural environment in Prince Edward county. They are doing this through such programs as Clean Up Rural Beaches, or CURB, which contribute in a large way to cleaner waterways, and through the Trash Bash, a day organized to clean up county roads, which will be held this May.

I would also like to say that PERCA is about to hold its seventh annual dinner this coming Saturday, in cooperation with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the local dinner committee, and that this event has been a very successful fund-raiser for the conservation authority in past years.

Dini Petty, the television talk show host, will be the master of ceremonies, and wildlife artist Mia Lane of Adolphustown will be the featured artist. Many items, such as paintings, carvings and other works of art donated by the community, will be auctioned to raise funds. This is the kind of event that unites our communities and makes them better places to live.

I hope we will all recognize the kind of work done by our conservation authorities and the contribution they make to our respective communities. I'd also like to make a special mention of the staff and board members of PERCA who work so hard to make events like this happen so our conservation authority can go on doing the important work it is doing.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I've got a proposal to speed up question period for you, Mr Speaker. It's clear that the Premier, on virtually every question now, is going to blame the federal government. I think we can speed up question period by letting the Premier adopt what I call the RAE answer approach. RAE stands for rapid automatic excuse. We can speed things up around here by simply allowing him to say, "The answer to the question is" -- and then I've given four typical RAE, rapid automatic excuse, answers.

Number 1 -- and he'd just have to say, "This is a number 1," -- is, "If it's a problem, it must be the fault of the federal government."

Number 2: "The Ontario taxpayers can't afford this. We'll simply get the federal taxpayers" -- as if they're someone different -- "to pay for it."

Number 3: "I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but it must be the fault of the federal government."

Number 4: "I know the federal government has absolutely nothing to do with this, but if they did, I know it would be their fault."

I think we can save a lot of time. I will hand these out to the members, and yes, to the Premier. You'll just be able to say, "It's number 4." Number 4 is, "I know the federal government has nothing to do with it, but if they did, it would certainly be their fault."

Mr Speaker, I think it will be helpful to you, because yesterday I noticed how slowly we got the questions in. I will send a page to report this to you immediately.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My community is outraged by the comments made by Jim Turk, the vice-chair of the Ontario Council of Regents, about the need to have designated group members on the boards of Ontario's community colleges who don't think like white men.

Furthermore, I disagree with the attempt by the minister to centralize control of community colleges at the expense of local autonomy.

The representatives of Conestoga College have indicated to me that they are deeply concerned that four of their appointments were rejected in favour of your political appointee and that five others were only granted one-year extensions, giving rise to concerns that they too will be replaced by your political appointees.

While I acknowledge the assurances given by you yesterday that Mr Turk's words do not reflect government policy, I am concerned that given this government's record on employment equity and the extremely biased nature of the Lewis report, there are indeed legitimate grounds for concern and that at the end of the day we will have a policy similar to the one advocated by Mr Turk. This is totally unacceptable.

I urge the minister to ensure that his new appointments policy for college boards continues to reflect an emphasis on experience, expertise and community representation rather than Toronto politically dictated representation, since this will only result in power blocs with special interests at heart rather than the best interests of the community and the college.

MARY WESTLEY

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Today, I'd like to talk about a dear friend of mine, a special person, Mary Westley, who was one of my constituency assistants.

Mary was a very giving person. She cared about people. When Mary discovered people who needed support or encouragement, she did something about it. When Mary faced challenges in her own life, she found ways to help others who were facing the same challenges.

On January 25, Mary died after a long battle with cancer.

Mary knew first hand the challenges of raising a child in a single-parent home. She carried this over into her work with the Big Brothers of Guelph. She handled recruitment, publicity and special events, including their major fund-raising event, Bowl for Millions. She also served as a board member for Big Brothers for many years.

Mary knew it wasn't easy for many parents to afford sports equipment and fees, so she helped found the Kids Can Play Association of Guelph. This organization makes sure that no child is denied sports, arts and cultural programs due to financial reasons. It is making a difference for many families in Guelph. Mary thought governments should make research and treatment for breast cancer a priority, so she helped found the Breast Cancer Support Group of Guelph to give support to women and to lobby government.

Friends of Mary Westley and the Kids Can Play Association are remembering Mary's contribution to the community by organizing a fund-raising dance to be held in her memory on May 7 at the John McCrae Legion in Guelph.

Mary started working for me shortly after my election. She helped many, many people in my riding with different problems. She organized a local injured workers' advisory group.

Mary loved her job. When I visited her shortly before her death, she talked about how she missed her work.

I will miss Mary's physical presence, but she will always be with me, for she touched my life, as she touched so many others.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I rise today to inform the House of the decisions this government has made on transfers to municipalities, schools, hospitals, colleges, universities, and on social assistance and post-secondary education.

Over the past several weeks, my cabinet colleagues and I have considered our fiscal options. In January, we were looking at the need to make some tough decisions because of a shortfall of about $1.6 billion in our revenues for next year.

Our situation has been made even more difficult by two recent decisions of the federal government. They cut tobacco taxes, forcing Ontario to reduce its own tax on tobacco products, and in its budget the federal government enshrined unfairness to Ontario by extending the previous government's cap on its social assistance funding to Ontario.

The tobacco tax decision alone will cost Ontario half a billion dollars, pushing our revenue shortfall to about $2.1 billion.

The tobacco tax blow came on top of the lingering effect of a recession that took jobs away and a recovery that has been slow to return them. We all understand that there are unique spending pressures in such an economic cycle, and we are still grappling with these.

We could have slashed transfers unthinkingly, cut into programs mercilessly and turned our backs on the most vulnerable people in our society. We could have copied the federal government in Ottawa and downloaded our fiscal problems on to our transfer partners. We could have let thousands of public sector jobs disappear. We could have ignored the sick who need treatment, the children who need schooling and the people who need a helping hand through tough times.

We refused to take that route. I am pleased to tell the House today that we are keeping the funding commitments we made to our transfer partners last year.

We acknowledge that our partners in Ontario's public sector are already working to make their services more affordable and to sustain those savings over the longer term through ongoing restructuring measures. These long-term savings flow directly from the expenditure control plan and the social contract.

We have achieved what we set out to achieve in last year's budget. With the help of 900,000 public sector workers and the contribution of Ontario taxpayers, we are preserving jobs and public services throughout this province.

At the same time we intend, in our upcoming budget, to keep the deficit on a downward track, albeit at a slower pace than we would like. Because taxpayers have already done their part, we will not raise taxes in this budget.

We have gone through the spending plans of every ministry on a line-by-line basis. We have identified, and will continue to identify, program savings that will help us meet our goal while preserving jobs and services.

We are freezing social assistance rates at their current level for the upcoming year and implementing a number of changes to the social assistance program to reduce costs.

We have also had to make tough decisions about our plans to overhaul the entire social assistance system. We cannot afford to go it alone, and the federal government does not share our priorities. Unless Ottawa steps in, we will be forced to shelve the Ontario child income program, first outlined in the white paper on social assistance reform last July. However, we have not compromised our determination to help social assistance recipients enter the workforce.

The Minister of Education and Training will also outline changes to some elements of post-secondary education as part of today's announcements.

Our measures are aimed at controlling our deficit. But we have never lost sight of our goal: to spend wisely in order to create jobs and preserve services. Other jurisdictions may make cuts across the board without careful thought about the implications, but that goes right against our idea of good fiscal management, which must also be humane management.

The need to continue our commonsense approach is one of the messages I heard in our pre-budget consultations with people across this province. In crafting our 1994 budget, we will continue to use the same common sense in managing our priorities and controlling our spending.

We have the evidence that our approach is working. The lines are all moving in the right direction: The deficit is coming down and job creation is increasing. Private sector indicators, like higher housing starts and a lower bankruptcy rate, show that the benefits are being felt throughout the entire economy. My announcement today builds on our success.

TUITION FEES

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Our colleges and universities have a vital role to play in the economic renewal of the province. Their importance is recognized in the Finance minister's decision to maintain the level of transfer payments to the post-secondary sector as previously announced. This will allow our colleges and universities to continue their restructuring efforts and adapt to the changing economy.

Post-secondary education is well subsidized by the taxpayers. Some 75% of the revenues received by colleges and universities come from the provincial government.

In addition to the transfer payments to our post-secondary institutions, tuition fees play an important role in the ability of this province to maintain high-quality post-secondary education. I have discussed tuition fees with college and university students, faculty and administrators. We have emphasized that our objective is to maintain a fair and workable balance between the revenues needed for our post-secondary institutions and the affordability of this education to students.

I understand why students are concerned about tuition increases. The cost of post-secondary education can be difficult to manage in times of economic strain. But even in these difficult economic times, we know that graduates of colleges and universities are more likely to have jobs and earn higher incomes than people who do not have post-secondary degrees or diplomas.

The contribution of tuition fees to the post-secondary sector will ensure that students get excellent value for their post-secondary investment and a lifetime of dividends from their college or university education. This is one of the reasons we must maximize access to colleges and universities. More opportunities and spaces are needed in all of our colleges and universities.

That is why I am announcing an increase in tuition levels. The increase is aimed at assisting colleges and universities to make additional spaces available and at protecting the quality of post-secondary education. I expect that our colleges and universities will follow through on their commitment to use the tuition revenues to increase enrolment.

Let me be specific. In the 1994-95 school year, tuition fees for undergraduate arts and science students will increase by $202, to $2,228. The following year, tuition fees for these university students will increase by $223, to $2,451. The standard tuition fee for college students will increase by $92, to $1,008, in the 1994-95 academic year, and the next year, the standard tuition fee will increase by $101, to $1,109. At these levels, Ontario students will continue to have tuition fees that are among the lowest in Canada.

I would like to point out that because of the social contract, this tuition increase will go directly into programs and not into salaries.

I want to emphasize that the colleges and universities must change the way that they do work. They must continue to restructure and find more --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Stop the clock, please.

The opposition will have an opportunity, under the rules, for a reply. I ask the members of the House to allow the minister an opportunity to complete his statement, and then there will be an opportunity for replies from the opposition.

Hon Mr Cooke: Maybe I should go back to the paragraph that emphasizes that even with these tuition increases, our tuitions will be among the lowest in all of Canada.

I want to emphasize that colleges and universities must change the way they do work. They must continue to restructure and find more efficient ways to operate. All of those affected, especially students, should be involved in this process.

The Ontario student assistance program will cover these tuition increases for low-income students, and at the same time the loan forgiveness level will be increased from $5,570 to $6,000. We have called on the federal government to work with the provinces to develop a system whereby graduates pay back student loans based on their income once they're in the workforce.

Finally, I am announcing that the government will be freezing compulsory ancillary fees charged to students by colleges and universities. Ancillary fees are charged by colleges and universities in addition to tuition fees and can include charges for instructional materials kept by students, student activity fees and athletic fees. We have decided not to allow increases in ancillary fees until an agreement is achieved, developed by each institution with its students.

Over the next few weeks, officials in the ministry will be consulting with organizations from the post-secondary sector about implementing this new policy on ancillary fees.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want first to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Finance. Here we are at the end of March and we're facing another end-of-March budget crisis on the part of this government. Here we have, after a whole series of rumours, of building up concern, a government that comes to the Legislature today and actually, I think, is expecting to have people congratulate it for saying, "We are now managing things so well that they're not going to be nearly as bad as we made you think they were going to be."

I for one am not prepared to congratulate the government on this because I believe this is political gamesmanship and not financial management.

I am pleased there will be no further offloading of this government's financial problems on to the colleges and universities and hospitals and municipalities and school boards of this province. This does come as a relief, since it comes from a government that has given as its first response to its budget problems every other year the cuts to all of the transfer partners. In fact, sometimes it's been twice a year that they've reached out to make cuts to the transfer partners.

I notice that once again they blame the federal government for the problems they are still facing. I categorically reject any indication from this government that after three and a half years of financial mismanagement it can blame its budget problems on a government that has been in office for five months.

I make it absolutely clear that as this Treasurer, as this Finance minister, struggles to deal with his budget shortfall, it is not a budget shortfall that's been caused by a cut in transfer payments from the federal government. The transfer payments from the federal government for health, for post-secondary education, for social assistance, as the Treasurer knows well, are exactly what this Treasurer had in his budget last spring.

There is a real concern about the budget that this Treasurer will bring in. There is a real budget revenue shortfall, but it is a budget revenue shortfall that's caused because this government has completely failed to predict with accuracy either its expenditures or its revenues.

This government has completely failed to get its expenditures under control. This government has completely failed to get the economy going again in spite of the fact that the Premier talks about things getting better. They refuse to acknowledge that this is an Ontario where there are 10,000 fewer jobs in February 1994 than there were in February 1993. I find it appalling that in the minister's statement he suggests that things are getting better because there are fewer bankruptcies. Since when did economic recovery consist of a slowing in the rate of bankruptcies? If this is economic recovery, there is little hope for job creation for the people of this province.

I am relieved that the Finance minister has indicated that there will be no taxes taken as a way of solving the budget problems the government has. I think he's finally understood, as he looks at his numbers, that after $3 billion in tax increases, when he's getting $2 billion less in tax revenue, that's clearly an approach that's not going to work. But I say to the Finance minister and to the Premier and to this government that you cannot stop here today, that you must continue to get your deficit down. Your statement today means that you must take a serious look at your own operations, at your own programs.

Again we say, how can you have been spending money on the IWA with all of its millions of dollars spent to make decisions nobody accepts? How can you have spent millions of dollars on an Advocacy Act that none of its supporters even see as a good act? Can you not find a better way of counting your computers than spending $4 million?

Government, go back and look at your own programs. Most particularly, if it is going to manage this revenue shortfall, if it is going to get its financial situation under control, this government has now got to look at how it can get the economy of this province truly growing again so that we get the jobs we need.

This announcement clearly indicates that the government is prepared to look at social assistance reform. We as a party will welcome that, since for three and a half years we've had a government that has talked about social assistance reform and has done virtually nothing. We hope that what the minister is saying today is that they are prepared now to work with the federal government, not just to continue to blame it.

But I say again, you cannot have social assistance reform, you cannot give people the support they need to get off welfare and back to work, until there are jobs for them to go to. We have got to get this economy going so people can get back to work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses, the leader of the third party.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Come on, Mike. You can do better than that.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): As the Premier has just challenged me to do, in as constructive a way as I can, I would like to comment on the statement that was just made by the Treasurer.

You know, I find it a little distressing, I find it a little ironic that we are to congratulate the Treasurer for keeping his promise. They've broken so many promises to so many transfer partners in their time in office that it's good news saying, "We told you we'd give you this, and we're actually going to do what we said we're going to do." Has it come to this, where we're to congratulate somebody for not lying?

Hon Mr Rae: You were doing so well at the beginning, Mike. The other line was a good one. That wasn't so good.

Mr Harris: Has it come to this? Has it come to this, where this is supposed to be the norm, this is supposed to be good news?

The Speaker: The leader of the third party knows better.

Mr Harris: Has it come to this level in the province of Ontario?

The Speaker: The experienced member from North Bay knows better. I ask him to withdraw the remark and to continue with his --

Mr Harris: Okay. If the remark offends anybody, I withdraw it.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Maybe they did lie.

Mr Harris: Maybe they did, the Liberals say. I don't know.

But so many promises have been broken. So many commitments have been broken. You promised the transfer partners 1%, 2%, 2%. Then last year you said: "No, it's not going to be that. We're breaking that promise." So now we're to congratulate you, a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, for saying: "We told you this is how you should budget. We told you this is what you should expect to get. Pat us on the back for actually doing what we said we're going to do."

You have broken more promises, you have mismanaged the economy of this province --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): From a Tory?

Mr Harris: That's right -- that it has come to this point where we're supposed to congratulate you for that.

What does this mean for transfers to hospitals? What this means is 2% less than last year. You promised them you would give them 2% less this year than last year. I assume you're saying, "Yep, we're cutting you 2% over last year."

I read the release by the minister. It says, "Responding to media reports that transfers would be cut..." Well, the media reported that because you told them that. This was your trial balloon. This is what you said. Nobody else said that. So you're responding to your own media reports. We're supposed to applaud you for that?

At the end of your press release, you say this: "We have the evidence that our balanced approach is working." You say, "Our balanced approach is working." Your approach and the Liberal approach for the lost decade of this province, your definition of working is half a million people on unemployment insurance, 1.3 million people on social assistance, three credit rating declines.

The two of you, your agenda for the first part and then the Liberals on their own in this lost decade, have taken the deficit of the province of Ontario from some $30 billion to $80 billion. You've added $50 billion worth of debt, three downgrades of the credit rating. I am told privately that you've abandoned the fight on the deficit. You don't think you can win an election if you carry on with that.

I want to tell you that your definition that your approach is working is not a definition that is shared by any of the Ontarians I've been talking to. It is not a definition that is acceptable. I'll tell you that if you don't change course, your definition of success is a 6% definition and that is the extent of it in this province.

TUITION FEES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to respond to the announcement on tuition. Mr Minister, I can only say one thing: This would have been an extremely acceptable plan if you had introduced it along with student aid reform. You know that the students in this province are supportive of this government if it increases tuition at the same time as it looks at student aid reform. You should be putting your ministry officials on to the income-contingent loan repayment plan with the federal government, but you should be showing the leadership. We have no leadership in this government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to ask you a question about the announcement which has just been made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I say to you that thousands of young people and their families are going to be sitting at home this evening feeling a very real sense of despair because of the announcement that has just been made. This announcement is one more blow to young people who are trying to make their way in what is a very tough world.

The minister, in his statement about tuition increases, says, "Post-secondary education matters," and it does. Students who get college and university education are much more likely to find jobs. So what has the policy been of this government for post-secondary education? I say to you, Premier, that your policy for educating our young people has been to cut funding to colleges and universities year after year, to cut grants and loan support to students, to increase tuition fees by what will now be a shocking 42% during the life of this government.

I ask you, is this the kind of value that you place on post-secondary education, and is this the kind of value that you place on a generation that is facing the toughest economic times we've seen since the Depression?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the minister.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): What I don't understand about the Leader of the Opposition's question is that it just simply ignores the facts. The fact of the matter is that in the current school year that we're in, 179,727 students are receiving student aid from this government. That's up from 100,000 students in 1989-90, when you were the government. This government is helping more students access colleges and universities than has ever been the case, because we believe in access.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition, for once, to tell us what her position is. Are you suggesting in the midst of the most difficult financial circumstances since the Depression for this province that the deficit should go up or that taxes should go up? What is your position?

Mrs McLeod: I had an opportunity to speak to my caucus's and my party's position on post-secondary education when I served as Minister of Colleges and Universities. I well remember this party that is now the government when they were in opposition and I asked them to speak for their policy. Where is the consistency in the policy that they bring to post-secondary education and tuition fees? I remember when we used to bring in tuition increases that were at the rate of inflation and this party opposite considered those increases to be absolutely unconscionable.

I remember when the people on the other side of the Legislature used to say there should be no tuition; not a 20% increase but no tuition.

Mr Minister, will you tell us what the policy of your government is and where the consistency of your policy for post-secondary education and for the students of this province is today?

Hon Mr Cooke: The leader asked what the policy of this government is. The policy of this government is to increase enrolment at the colleges and the universities and the only way that we can do that is to get more money in the system. Our decision is that it's going to be done this year by tuitions because of the financial problems that the province is in. What I'm asking the Leader of the Opposition is, does she want to freeze enrolment? Does she want to decrease enrolment? If she wants to increase enrolment, how would she fund it? That's the question. Put your policy on the record.

Mrs McLeod: At one time in the province of Ontario, there was a commitment to at least increasing student assistance so that access to post-secondary education would not be limited by ability to pay. This minister brings in an announcement of a 20% increase in student tuition with absolutely no real indication of how student assistance will increase. I cannot believe the sheer gall of the Minister of Colleges and Universities in suggesting that there are more students receiving loans in our colleges and universities today.

He knows full well that is because there is no longer grant support and the only route our students can go is to acquire greater debts to get their post-secondary education.

I cannot believe that when we are facing a student unemployment level, a youth unemployment level that is now at 19.8% he doesn't realize that the reason there are more students in colleges and universities is because there are no jobs for them. Surely he realizes that as students look towards a summer when there will not be jobs, they will not be able to afford a 10% increase in their tuition fees. This is an unprecedented tax on the students of this province. How can you justify this kind of unprecedented tax increase?

Hon Mr Cooke: The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. The number of students assisted under OSAP in 1989-90 was 100,000; the number in 1993-94 is 179,000, an increase of 80%. I suspect that the reason the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want to put her position on the record is because I have it right here, Critical Issues in Post-Secondary Education, Liberal Party, January 1994, "Tuition Policy." Let me read it. "In order to reasonably assess the issue of student tuition fees, we must first determine the proportion of cost to be borne by the province and the student, respectively. The notion of zero tuition is not something that can be considered in light of the economic situation."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, no, you have no jobs for students.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: Let me finish. Here is the zinger: "Students must contribute to the cost of their education." The policy of the Liberal Party? "The question is: how much?" What's the answer? Where's your policy?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

There was a point of privilege which escaped my eye at the moment. The member for York East with his point of privilege.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would ask both members in the Liberal and Conservative parties to cooperate a little. Your behaviour is a little unbecoming. Let's have a little smoother communication. You wake up over there and grow up. Be more sensitive to the answers.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of privilege.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro. Can the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro confirm that on Friday of this week, two days from now, Ontario Hydro will begin the orderly shutdown of facilities related to its nuclear power program in this province?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In response to my friend from Renfrew North, he is aware that the contract for the Power Workers' Union with Ontario Hydro runs until the end of this month and that we are at a critical stage in negotiations between the union representing the workers and Ontario Hydro management. We are confident that those negotiations will result in a voluntary collective agreement settlement. Both sides are working diligently to bring that about to ensure there is no disruption in service and no work stoppage.

Mr Conway: I'm aware of all that. I repeat: Can the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro confirm that on or by Friday of this week, two days from now, the giant utility will begin an orderly shutdown of facilities related to its nuclear power plant? By that I mean the non-generating facilities: the tritium processing plant out at Darlington and the Bruce heavy water plant. That orderly shutdown will begin on Friday. Can he confirm that?

Can he further confirm that by Monday morning of next week, now less than five days from this hour, the giant utility Ontario Hydro will begin an orderly shutdown of all its nuclear power plants in this province, which power plants last week produced over 70% of the electrical supply to the homes, farms, hospitals, mines and other places in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is correct in the percentage that he puts before the House in terms of the generating capacity. He will be aware that as a result of recent court decisions, the nuclear generating workers are under federal jurisdiction. He will also be aware that we are confident and hopeful that there will be a settlement prior to any precipitous decisions having to be made.

Mr Conway: A very interesting response, because the minister in that response has indicated to the House and to the province that this situation is now even more complicated than on previous occasions when we faced this kind of deadline.

My question is to the government responsible for the giant utility, the Rae-Wildman government, whose responsibility it is to keep the lights on. The clock is ticking and the orderly shutdown of the nuclear power facilities begins in less than 48 hours. What is your plan, Mr Minister, to keep the lights on so the hospital patients, so the research scientists, so the farmers and the other 10 million people in this province will have some certainty and security that, come what may next week, they are going to have a secure supply of this most vital resource, electricity?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member opposite raises a question as to what is the plan to be able to ensure the supply of electricity to the people of this province. The plan that all of us support and are working diligently to implement is a negotiated settlement.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. A year ago next week -- we're approaching the anniversary -- you announced what has become known as the social contract. You told us that the goal was to cut $290 million from the Ontario public service government payroll. You also told us, on page 77 of your budget, exactly how much you intended to save in each of the other public service sectors.

Nearly one year later, do you have any idea exactly how much you have saved of your own $290 million for our own public sector workers and how much the other sectors have been able to save of the balance of the $2 billion that they were to save? Do you have any idea?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question, because there has been some speculation on the fact that we might be losing some of the targeted savings through the social contract. I want to reassure the leader of the third party that we believe we will achieve the savings, or very close to the savings, that are laid out in the social contract targets.

It was clearly understood from the beginning that while the bulk of the savings would come from compensation in the public sector -- and as a matter of fact, we encouraged the fact that negotiations should go on that could change the balance between all public sector compensation savings and productivity savings in the public sector, both the OPS, the Ontario public service, our direct employees, and the broader public sector as well. We think we're going to come very close to achieving the savings that were laid out in the social contract a year ago.

Mr Harris: Last week you renegotiated Rae days for the public service union at a cost of $30 million. Metro child care services will spend almost $900,000 on replacement workers. Correction officials say replacement workers will cost $3 million. Patients in towns like Kincardine, where medical clinics closed last week, went to emergency rooms for more expensive examinations. With all this mounting evidence, the truth is that you don't know if savings are actually being realized by the transfer partners.

Will you, as I called for over two months ago, ask the Provincial Auditor to step in to ensure that the social contract is actually saving both the government and Ontario taxpayers and the transfer partners the money that you say it's supposed to save?

Hon Mr Laughren: I recall having an exchange with the leader of the third party before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on this very issue. I tried to explain it at that point, but I obviously didn't succeed. Perhaps it's the way I expressed myself. But I want to assure the leader of the third party that when we reduced our transfers to our transfer partners, reflecting the social contract goals, they no longer had that money to spend.

If a transfer partner out there, whether it's Metro Toronto or a social service agency, uses some other means, such as a productivity saving, that's fine, their target will already be achieved, because we've already reduced our transfers to them.

It makes no sense for them, quite frankly, to use time-and-a-half overtime. It's not in their own best interests for them to do that because we already have reduced our transfers to them. That's why I can say to you that we've already extracted the money from them and that it's in their own best interests to do as best they can within their budgets, because they have to live within their budgets.

Mr Harris: Exactly my point. If, under your legislation, as many of the transfer partners are telling us, they are unable to achieve the 5% savings, they have been given a transfer of minus 5%. Today, you told us that the transfer partners were frozen, that they're going to get the same amount of money. That assumes they can save 5% using your social contract legislation, because you have cut their transfers by 5%. They are telling us they cannot.

We have example after example after example of where your legislation is a barrier to achieving those savings. You have no internal provisions to evaluate the current savings, either for your own $270 million or for the other $1.3 billion to the transfer partners. You have no idea how much a wage bubble at the end of the social contract might cost. With your track record on budget predictions and deficit projections, Ontario taxpayers are a little sceptical, and quite frankly, I am a lot sceptical.

On behalf of the public service workers, who are taking home smaller paycheques, on behalf of all Ontario taxpayers, who are demanding more efficient and smarter government spending, will you today ask the Provincial Auditor to audit the sectoral agreements to ensure that the reality of the social contract matches your rhetoric?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, there will be a fuller accounting of the social contract savings in the budget --

Mr Harris: When?

Hon Mr Laughren: Within the next month, so I don't think there's any need to launch into a major investigation of savings, which we largely know will be there anyway.

It's the first time I've heard the leader of the third party call for what I think was an increase in transfers to our partners out there. I'm not sure if that's what he was saying, but I wanted to --

Mr Harris: I'm quite sure that isn't what I said. I said the social contract is not working.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it sounded like that's what it was. A year ago, our transfers to our partners out there reflected the $2 billion in savings under the social contract, so those savings are already built into the budgets of those transfer partners. That's all that was transferred to them, an amount minus the social contract savings targets for each sector, so I don't think there's any reason to doubt the amount of savings, because they're going to be there.

Mr Harris: Savings to you, sure. What about the partners?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess this calls for a longer debate, Mr Speaker. It's in the interest of our transfer partners to effect long-term productivity savings. That's the key. At least as important as the compensation savings in the social contract is the need for long-term restructuring of the public sector so we can deliver services more productively and more efficiently and at a more affordable level. That's the big part of the social contract.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier. During our consultations for New Directions, Volume Three, which is A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario, we travelled this province. We had open house after open house. We had questionnaires. We heard from the public. We were told repeatedly, at every stop, that the federal Young Offenders Act must be reformed.

Today, federal-provincial attorneys general are meeting in Ottawa to discuss just that. This morning on Canada AM, the Manitoba Attorney General said that she wants the act toughened, and that's the message that she has taken to that federal-provincial meeting. Ontarians we heard from agree with that position. However, your Attorney General said on the same show and in the same interview that there were too many incarcerations. She implied that the Young Offenders Act needs to be softened, and that was the message that came through.

Contrary to what the public of Ontario is asking for, contrary to what we recommended in New Directions, Volume Three, is this the message we heard this morning? Is this the message your Attorney General has taken to Ottawa?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I regret that the minister is not here to answer the question. Obviously, she is in Ottawa at the meeting in question. In a spirit of complete candour, I would say to the member that I have not had the opportunity to read New Directions, Volume Three, but I look forward to reading it. And I did not see the interview on Canada AM, as I was otherwise engaged this morning.

I'm going to try not to enter too much into the partisan bantering and just say directly to the honourable member that I think he is doing a real disservice to the minister and to what she said, in terms of the quotation he gave and his

interpretation, which I think is completely wrong and most unfair to the minister personally as well as to the government. But I accept that these things are said in a moment of partisan time.

My sense is that there is very strong support in the province for a review of the Young Offenders Act. It's not a matter of entering into clichés about what should be tougher and what shouldn't be. The federal Attorney General has indicated a direction for reform. We look forward to seeing those details and to discussing those details.

I can tell him my own personal view, which I'm reluctant to do but I feel a need to do, is that for some offences I happen to believe there is a clear need for reform in terms of the maximum sentences that can be applied to offenders who are under the age of 18 and over the age of 16.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I happen to think that for very serious offences we need to look hard, as a community and as a society, to see whether that bill is adequate. I also would say to the honourable member, as he's raised a serious question, that I happen to think that throughout the justice system there needs to be a review of whether incarceration is the best route to go in all cases.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: It may be that for some serious offences we may need to be tougher; in other areas, there may be alternatives to incarceration, and I make no apology for that statement.

We have to look at that in a balanced way, but with respect to community safety and with respect to what takes place, I think that yes --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat.

Mr Harris: It's too bad, Premier, that you didn't read New Directions, because it dealt with a number of the alternatives to incarceration. I think you'll find the document very good, because it comes from people here in this province.

In the first five years after the Liberals introduced the Young Offenders Act, violent crimes by youth increased 30%. We called for two specific measures in New Directions, Volume Three, to combat this trend. One was for youth courts to be able to sentence violent young offenders more severely. The second was for young offenders who have committed extremely violent crimes to be able to be tried in adult court.

Other attorneys general from across the country have gone to Ottawa with some specific recommendations. Our caucus and our party put forward specific recommendations. As a government, as Premier, does your Attorney General have any recommendations to take to the table?

Hon Mr Rae: The Attorney General is armed with a clear mandate from this government to act responsibly and constructively in the discussions of the changes required with respect to the Young Offenders Act. I can assure the honourable member that when it comes to federal legislation, we believe the primary responsibility lies with governments that have been in power in Ottawa for the last 15 to 20 years. Unless my memory fails me, the governments in question were occupied by Conservatives and Liberals, the people on whose behalf you were campaigning so vigorously in the last federal election.

Why didn't Brian Mulroney do something about this problem if it's so serious, at some point, at some level, in some way?

If you've got a problem, we're all prepared to deal with it. My understanding is that this is not something to be taken lightly. I would say to the honourable member that the general direction of the kinds of reforms which have been indicated by the federal government I think have the support of most of the citizens of Canada, and they certainly have mine. I can tell you that.

Mr Harris: When a young person is lost to a life of crime, I think you would agree with me, Premier, we all lose. Your Attorney General had an opportunity today to help ensure that that doesn't happen by taking a position, by being part of the solution. Obviously, it's not a priority for you. She had an opportunity to bring a position to help strengthen the act, to provide a greater deterrent.

Let me quote to you, Premier, what one 16-year-old Ontarian told the Toronto Star in a March 9 interview referring to the Young Offenders Act. "Like, the Young Offenders Act is like nothing. Everybody knows it's a joke. Like, being a young offender, the only thing that would really suck if you did a robbery and never got caught is if you didn't stash the cash."

That's the attitude many young people in Ontario have towards the Young Offenders Act. When we travelled this province, people told us it was a priority; that not only does crime cost us dollars, but crime and the loss of a young person to a life of crime is a tremendous cost to society, a tremendous burden to themselves. It's a tragic loss as well.

I got the sense from your Attorney General's comment this morning that she has no position, that she was going there in a vacuum, that she didn't know what the people of Ontario thought, and I got the sense that other attorneys general were informed and were representing the people of their province with a new government in Ottawa that needs to hear that. What is the message that your Attorney General took to Ottawa? Can you tell us that, please?

Hon Mr Rae: If the leader of the third party in the House is trying to assume that somehow he has a monopoly with respect to a concern about violence or a concern about crime, or if he is asserting for a moment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: He is saying his document discusses alternatives to incarceration. That's exactly the position that's been taken by the Attorney General with respect to some offences.

Mr Harris: What's your position? You've got no position.

Hon Mr Rae: No, you don't like the answer I've given you. What I'm telling you and what I'm telling the people of the province is that it is the view of this government and it is my personal view that there is room for considerable reform with respect to the Young Offenders Act. I would say specifically, and I would repeat the answer I gave, that with respect to serious offences there needs to be consideration. That consideration is apparently being given by the Attorney General for Canada, as I understand it and as I have heard it being expressed by him, and we look forward to a constructive discussion.

But if there is a responsibility, if there is a gap, surely it is the government that was in power from 1984 to 1992, of which you were such an advocate and supporter. Surely there's some logic in asking, where were you between 1984 and 1992? Where were you?

Mr Harris: Why didn't you send Charlie Harnick to represent Ontario? Why didn't you send Bob Runciman?

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

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): A question to the Minister of Finance that has to do with the upcoming budget and how he's planning to deal with it. We'd like some assurances from the government that you're not planning to load more of the deficit and the debt into the teachers' pension. The minister will know we passed legislation -- at least, the government passed legislation -- that allowed the government to actually withdraw cash from the teachers' pension. The unfunded liability in the teachers' pension is right now at about $8 billion. It is going, as the minister knows, to almost $14 billion.

In spite of that, the government already is taking a three-and-a-half-year holiday from making any payments against that. That bill has been passed and that's done.

But I'm looking for, from the Minister of Finance today -- because they are planning this with the teachers' pension and the same thing with the public service pension -- some assurance from the minister that he is not planning any further additions to loading the debt and the deficit into the unfunded liabilities in the pension plans.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I did notice a story in one of the Toronto tabloids this morning on the whole pension issue. I appreciate the opportunity to clear the air in that regard, because there are no talks going on with the teachers, and there is no intention to do anything more with the teachers' pension fund vis-à-vis withdrawing any kind of moneys from it for any purpose whatsoever.

Mr Phillips: I have to weigh the words carefully, when he said "withdraw money." That wasn't my question, and I have a lot of confidence in the Minister of Finance. My question was different. Are you planning any further reductions beyond your planned payments in the upcoming budget?

The reason I ask is this: You can see this unfunded liability, money that the government, the people of Ontario, have 100% responsibility for. The unfunded liability, and this is from the teachers' pension commission, is going up to almost $14 billion. There's a similar chart for the public sector pensions.

The government, unprecedented, passed a bill that allowed it to take cash out of the pension fund. I don't think it's ever been done before, where with an unfunded liability, money was allowed to be taken out of the fund.

I'll ask my question as specifically as I can. Can the minister assure us that in the upcoming budget you will not be looking at further reductions in your planned pension payments to the teachers' pension and to the public sector pension?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can assure the member that there will be no actions taken that will increase the unfunded liability of the teachers' fund. That's correct, so the answer to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt I think is clear: No.

On the Ontario public service pension fund, the Ontario public service representatives have for some time now, I suspect even when the former government was in office, been talking to government about sitting down and discussing their pension plan and ways in which there can be joint trusteeship, ways in which they are more involved in the administration of the fund. Those kinds of talks go on all the time.

To answer the member very directly on the teachers' fund, the answer is no.

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the minister responsible for the environment. Waste Management of Canada Inc has released a proposal that would see Metro's garbage shipped by rail to willing host sites in Ohio. This proposal would give the municipalities in the greater Toronto area an alternative to the three superdumps that are now going to be proposed by your Interim Waste Authority for Vaughan, Durham and Caledon.

Under Bill 143, as you know, you do not allow municipalities to ship waste beyond their borders, but WMI has shown that you, the province of Ontario, can't stop the private sector from shipping its waste to the United States. You, Minister, as a result of this, have lost control of your agenda with respect to waste management in the province of Ontario. The best you can do, at least from recent reports, is to ask the federal Minister of the Environment to tax garbage that's leaving Ontario. That seems to be your only plan.

Minister, are you prepared to admit that Bill 143 is not only inconsistent but unenforceable and should be repealed?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The answer is no, no and no.

The member should be aware that under the previous federal government the borders were opened for the export of waste to the United States. That was a most regrettable decision taken by the Mulroney Conservative government. This government campaigned very hard against that. I met with both the previous ministers of the Environment at the federal level and asked them to move to close the border. Neither one of them took any action. I've also met with the current Minister of the Environment at the federal level and asked her to take similar action.

The reference to taxing was as an interim measure to deal with the particular kinds of issues the member refers to in the meantime, before the federal government actually takes its responsibility in hand and closes the border.

Mr Tilson: The problem, Minister, is that you've got an inconsistent policy. You've admitted that today in this House. You've allowed a double standard in the province of Ontario with respect to waste.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, the feds have.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry; you have, Mr Minister. Hundreds of tonnes of garbage, as you know, are being shipped privately to the United States every year. You refuse to allow municipalities to operate under the same rules as private enterprise. Why won't you throw Bill 143 out, as you obviously can't enforce it, and allow the greater Toronto area to explore all the alternatives that are available to it, the technology that's available, with respect to waste disposal in this province?

Hon Mr Wildman: I think the member is ill informed in that he should know there are differences in the management of municipal domestic waste and industrial-commercial waste throughout the province. That's not a new situation. What is new is that we are now facing a proposal, a commercial proposal, to transport waste on a commercial basis on an ongoing basis to a site south of the border because the federal government has ignored the fact that many, many transportation companies have been transferring waste south --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Are you in favour or aren't you?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm not, and I've told the federal government it should close the border. How simple is that?

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question today is to the Minister of Health. I've had this little document come into my hands, Madam Minister, and it's from the member for St George-St David. It says that he's fighting for everybody; he's fighting for seniors. As a senior, I perked up when I read that. I said, "Holy smokes, here we've got a member who's fighting for seniors." Then he goes on to say,

"Some of the measures taken by the current government:

"...introduction of user fees to the Ontario drug benefit plan" for seniors.

Madam Minister, have I been asleep at the switch somewhere? Like, don't I know? Is this true?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me assure the member that he has not been asleep at the switch. In fact I know of no member in this House who looks after the interests of seniors better than the member who's raised the question with me today, and I'm sorry the member for St George-St David isn't here so I can set the record straight, because I think the kinds of statements that have just been quoted are exactly the kinds of statements that sow fear and concern in the minds of seniors across this province.

Let me assure the members of this House that there are no user fees for the Ontario drug benefit plan. In fact the Ontario drug benefit program pays the full cost of about 2,300 prescription drugs for our 1.2 million people who are eligible for that plan. Our government is very proud of that and continues that plan.

Mr Mills: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. It sets all the seniors straight. I think it's absolutely diabolical that someone should send this out, and I think there should be a retraction. There should be someone send this out and say, "What I said is a complete" -- I'm not going to say it's a lie because I'll get slung out. But they should retract this terrible statement. I thank you, Madam Minister, and I think the seniors deserve better than that from those people.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member very clearly that I do agree that the newsletter to which he has alluded is fiction, it is not fact, and everybody in this province over the age of 65 gets and will continue to get their drugs paid for without any user fee.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health. I rise today on behalf of the residents of Red Lake, Ear Falls, Golden and remote communities to the north of these.

Minister, these folks are totally frustrated with your refusal to address the legitimate concerns of physicians who staff the emergency department at the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital. For over 18 months now, the physicians in Red Lake have been in discussions with your officials and political staff regarding the issue of fee-for-service compensation for doctors covering emergency services in this hospital. Minister, you will recall that doctors staffing the hospital feel they are being financially penalized because of the current system.

As a result of this government's inaction, the five doctors who work at the Red Lake hospital's emergency department informed the minister, the hospital board and the communities months ago that they will not provide emergency coverage past March 31, 1994.

Please inform my constituents what arrangements you have made to ensure that emergency medical coverage continues past this deadline.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm really glad to have an opportunity to respond to the member's question, and I'm aware of his statement to this House yesterday about an issue that is of real concern to me, to the ministry, and I know to the constituents and the residents of Red Lake.

But let me say to the member that the facts are this. There are five doctors serving the population of around 6,000 in Red Lake. Those doctors want more money for the services they provide. This government negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association, which is the bargaining agent for all of the physicians in the province, to pay the province's 20,000 doctors $3.8 billion on fee-for-service in this fiscal year. That means that within that amount of money, the Ontario Medical Association, through its

schedule of benefits, determines how services are paid for.

The doctors in Red Lake want more than that. I believe that within that $3.8 billion there is sufficient to compensate those physicians for their services. The doctors are threatening to withdraw their services and the hospital is threatening it could close. That cannot be allowed to happen; I would completely agree with the member.

My ministry has been working with the hospital, with the doctors and with the Ontario Medical Association to make sure the doctors maintain their obligation in exchange for the privileges which they receive, which is to function out of that hospital. That's their responsibility, and we will do whatever we can to make sure they live up to it.

Mr Miclash: As I stated, the residents of these communities are facing the closure of their emergency department and possibly the closure of the hospital if the remaining two days of negotiations between the OMA, the Ministry of Health and the local physicians are not successful.

I will be attending a public meeting that you too have been invited to tomorrow evening in Red Lake. Again, what information will you provide me with that I will have to alleviate the concerns of my constituents?

Hon Mrs Grier: I would be very glad to have officials of the ministry meet with the member and provide him with background and briefing, and the ministry will be represented at the meeting in Red Lake on March 24. I want to assure him of that.

But let me also say to him that that hospital has a responsibility to ensure patient care, just as the physicians have a responsibility to make sure that if one or another of them chooses to withdraw their services, they maintain coverage and provide coverage in emergencies. I would remind the member that just yesterday we saw from the Ontario Medical Association advertisements in our papers saying that emergency services will be maintained at all times.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Ontario Medical Association have a responsibility to make sure they live up to that part of their contract, and we certainly believe that is what they ought to do.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in every land use policy that you have put forward, there has been a total lack of consultation with those affected.

Your wetlands policy renders private property worthless without any consultation with the owners. With the Madawaska highlands, you set aside protected areas that local residents do not want. The wilderness zone in Algonquin Park killed 340 badly needed jobs in Braeside. None of these policies has been implemented with the advice or consent of the public. Do you have any real plan to consult the people affected by your land use policies?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to answer the member's question, but first I think I should set him straight on a little history.

The current wetlands policy was in fact developed over 10 years by three separate governments, and the party which he speaks for was at the starting end of the wetlands policy. So I think he might want to check the history to determine that in fact there was a 10-year development policy.

Secondly, the member mentions the Madawaska highlands. The reality is, there is an advisory committee right now made up of a number of citizens of the Madawaska highlands area who are participating in developing some recommendations regarding land use in this most important and I would say very beautiful part of eastern Ontario.

Thirdly, a wilderness zone in Algonquin Park was first proposed over 20 years ago, a wilderness zone for the eastern side of Algonquin Park. In fact, the prospect of a wilderness zone on the east side of Algonquin Park went through something like a four-year review policy by the Ontario provincial parks review committee.

Mr Jordan: The policies that you refer to going back a number of years are not the extended policies and the extended areas that we're looking at today. You've made a completely different picture --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): They were the result of consultation where the public showed that they wanted it extended.

Mr Jordan: No, they're not, I'm sorry.

I have a letter from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters which clearly demonstrates the value of this minister's public word and the absence of real consultation. On January 20, 1994, on the television program The Angler and Hunter, the minister stated: "It's not in our mind to create a new series of parks which prohibit hunting, which prohibit the use of outboard motors. We see a continuum of new ways to protect those areas."

Again, on February 25, at the OFAH conference the minister reaffirmed this commitment in front of 300 people. Then on March 9, the minister proposed 17 areas under his Keep it Wild program, which will ban hunting and small outboard motors on more than 90% of the 160,000 acres of new parkland. He's going to ban the hunting and fishing; he's going to ban the outboard motors.

I find it very difficult --

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

Mr Jordan: -- to assign any value to the minister's so-called consultations when the minister does the exact opposite to what he says.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Jordan: Let me quote from this letter. "It is clear that you intend" --

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

Mr Jordan: Can the minister please explain why he said one thing to the federation of anglers and hunters and then turned around and did the exact opposite?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, to correct the member, in fact the Ministry of Natural Resources over the last few years has had a number of successful consultations and cooperative efforts with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. In fact, one of the first, and I believe it will be a historic agreement, dealing with aboriginal fishing, was worked out with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and I'm speaking of the Anishinabek fishing agreement, something that I think the whole province can be proud of.

This year as well, in a process that took over a year and a half, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters worked with the Ministry of Natural Resources on some very important fisheries improvement and fisheries conservation issues in northwestern Ontario.

To say somehow that we are not working with, not consulting with, these organizations I think is just not correct.

Finally, the member is incorrect again. Under the Keep it Wild program which was announced, we have created a new type of conservation and protection category, that being a conservation reserve which will allow, among other things, hunting to continue. So I would hope that the member would in fact read the information before he stands up to make these speeches.

Mr Jordan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In fairness to my constituency, it is clear that you intentionally misled the Ontario federation members.

The Speaker: The member knows that he does not have a point of order. There's nothing out of order.

Mr Jordan: My constituency is being given the wrong information.

The Speaker: There's a point of difference, I appreciate. Would the member please take his seat. There is nothing out of order.

ST MARYS PAPER

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. In Sault Ste Marie, St Marys Paper is a major piece of our industrial infrastructure. There's some anxiety at the moment that the negotiations there are dragging on. Could you give us a status report today?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can provide some general information at this time. First of all, let me say that we completely recognize the importance of this company to the community of Sault Ste Marie, and that's why we have been actively involved all along in both monitoring and in participating in discussions. Various stakeholders have been at the table; that includes the Stern group, the unions and the banks. There are many issues that have been involved in the negotiations and, as I'm sure you would recognize, the situation is quite fluid and it keeps changing as negotiations unfold.

Some of the good news, I would say, is that recently and publicly the Stern group and the union have both been saying that they expect a successful conclusion to the overall discussions around keeping this as a viable entity through the restructuring. In fact, many of the restructuring issues have already been agreed to -- 40% ownership by the employees. These things have been talked about publicly.

We remain actively involved and are, I think, at this point in time very optimistic that there will soon be successful negotiations. But I can't actually give you a time frame today in the House.

Mr Martin: There have been reports that the government is going to contribute some dollars to that restructuring plan. Are these reports true, and are there any efforts being made to get something for either the government or the workers in return for any investment we might make in that particular company?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think from the beginning it's been fairly obvious to everybody that if St Marys is to be retained as a viable entity, all of the stakeholders that are there are going to have to participate in some way, including the province. These negotiations are ongoing and they are at, I'd say, a delicate point. There has been no decision concluded at this point about provincial participation, so I can't report to you on that.

I think that the final decision and the negotiations should be concluded soon, and I'm hopeful that I'll be able to give you a full report at that time.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Treasurer, and it concerns the social contract and matters which members are concerned about. In my part of the province, at the Niagara Detention Centre, the government claims that it wishes to save some money through the provisions of the social contract; that is, by applying the social contract to the Niagara regional detention centre, somehow they are saving money.

Yet I have the overtime sheets from the Niagara Detention Centre, which in fact show that the way they are allowing people to take their so-called Rae days off is by paying overtime to other people to replace the people who are taking Rae days. Of course, if they are paying overtime, in many cases they are paying more money than a person would normally get.

Could the Treasurer tell me if he is aware of this problem and, if he is, what specific action the government has taken to overcome this problem?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I have heard of these kinds of situations developing. I thought that negotiations had gone on that were resolving this and removing this as a solution to the days off without pay that are mandated under the social contract, so I'm somewhat surprised to hear this information. I'm not suggesting the member's wrong; I'm just saying that I'm surprised to hear it and I would very much like to have the opportunity to pursue it and just see what is going on there.

Mr Bradley: I would say to the Treasurer that his colleague from Hamilton Mountain, the minister responsible for Management Board, says it's an old issue, and that is why I thought that perhaps we would have found a solution to it by now. The fact that it's a so-called old issue is no reason why it cannot be raised again.

People are coming to us to say, "We appreciate the fact that the government may be trying to save money," and I'm not being critical of a government looking at every possible way it can to save money. What I'm saying is that in this specific case, where you have detention centres which have to be guarded 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is impractical to apply the social contract to a detention centre. What is happening in fact is that by paying the overtime, and these are recent dates in this overtime; it goes into the month of March, it is costing you more money to save money.

Have you terminated this practice -- you're consulting with the minister beside you -- and if not, are you going to terminate the practice of paying overtime to replace people who are taking Rae days?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly was aware that this was going on in some institutions. Having said that, I believe most of us would understand that when there are essential services to be delivered, this kind of glitch would happen in the system from time to time. I don't believe that means the social contract should not have applied to these institutions. I believe there are more efficient and affordable ways of delivering even these kinds of essential services. So I don't think for a minute that we should back off and say that the social contract doesn't apply to these services.

Also, there is provision under the Social Contract Act for certain services to be declared emergency services, and ways of dealing with that which I won't get into here now. But it's my understanding that while that was indeed a problem, it virtually has been resolved now through negotiations with the union that represents those workers.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition here today which I'd like to read. It's a matter that's of real concern to the members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and it's been signed by constituents of the Quinte area. It reads:

"To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

INFERTILITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I've been asked to table a petition by constituents from all over the province of Ontario and my riding, which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas infertility is a disease which affects approximately one in six couples, or 500,000 Canadians; and

"Whereas treatment of infertility is already a two-tiered system; and

"Whereas delisting of this valuable service will escalate this situation; and

"Whereas patients already pay cyclical fees for services not covered by OHIP; and

"Whereas drug coverage is often very limited; and

"Whereas infertile people are entitled to the same level of health care as the general population;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to list infertility as an insured service under OHIP."

I would like to table that today.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by many parents, mostly from Scarborough. This was coordinated by Cardinal Leger school in my riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 102,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas the students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,822 less on each of its elementary students and $2,542 less on each of its secondary school students than public school counterparts;

"The undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I'll sign this.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, residing in the review area of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board known as area I East Credit, are greatly disturbed by the inadequacy of school facilities in this area. The plans show that there are at least four Catholic separate schools needed in this area because of released development, three of which are needed immediately; two of those are overdue by at least two years. The present figures show 1,817 students presently exist in this area and that by 1998 the enrolment will be up to 2,346.

At the present time, the children from this area are going to seven different schools, some as far away as 13 kilometres from their home. This includes the four-year-old JK students your government is encouraging to educate. To transport four-year-old children this distance is not only unfair but is also causing mental anguish to parents that have committed themselves to buying a home to live in Ontario, a province where you are advocating fairness to all that live there."

This petition is signed by hundreds of very concerned parents.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition signed by many individuals in my riding opposing Bill 56 for the reasons set out in the petition.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from the township of Wolf Island concerning proposed ferry fares.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are shocked at the provincial government's intention of charging fares on the only link between Wolf Island and the mainland, upon which Wolf Island is dependent. We believe that social and economic costs will be devastative and that the charging of fees on the part of the provincial highway system, to which we all contribute through taxes and licence fees, is discriminatory."

I have signed the petition.

FOREST INDUSTRY

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

"Whereas Columbia Forest Products Ltd bought G.W. Martin Lumber Ltd with the assurance that the Ministry of Natural Resources incorporate the right of first refusal clause in selected supply licences from traditional sources that had supplied G.W. Martin;

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is revoking these rights effective March 31, 1994;

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

"That the Ministry of Natural Resources reaffirm Columbia Forest Products Ltd right of first refusal clause in selected supply licences from traditional sources that had supplied G.W. Martin."

This petition is signed by some 742 constituents, primarily in the Mattawa and Nipissing area of the riding of Parry Sound, and I agree, and I have affixed my signature thereto as member.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here that's signed by 1,600 residents in my riding from the town of Blenheim, the villages of Erieau and Erie Beach, the townships of Harwich and Raleigh, as well as adjacent communities in the county of Kent. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, residents of the province of Ontario, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide assistance in the securing of the necessary number of family practitioners to supply adequate medical services in our community."

I agree with the petition and also attach my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have two petitions which I'd like to present today. Both of these petitions are signed by hundreds of my constituents in Renfrew North. These petitions are identical and they read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've indicated to these petitioners that I do not, as their local member, intend to support that private member's bill.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem even though they've known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed that petition and it joins really thousands of constituents in the riding of Simcoe West and the surrounding areas who have submitted similar petitions to this Legislature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition opposing the Liberal member's Bill 45. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas traditionally it has been accepted that covenanting together for life of a woman and a man who, together in love and faithfulness, raise children is essential to the long-term health and viability of any society;

"Whereas the right to express convictions regarding issues open to dispute on moral grounds, such as sexual behaviour, should not be prohibited by the Human Rights Code,

"We oppose Bill 45 that deletes the words 'of the opposite sex' from the definition of 'marital status' in subsection 10(1) of the Human Rights Code and Bill 56 that may allow legal actions to be launched against any person or organization that differs with any other people's sexual preferences."

There are 25 names on this petition from people in my area.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by many residents of my riding which reads:

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

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

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

I support this petition and have affixed my name to it.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special-interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Premier, Bob Rae, and Health Minister Ruth Grier.

"We, the undersigned residents of a long-term care facility in Ontario, spouses and other family members, friends and interested parties, need your help.

"Many couples whose combined income is needed for the spouse in a long-term care facility and the spouse still residing independently in the community will be unable to continue paying the new rates which were recently increased up to 41%, or $376.18 per month. Single and widowed residents are also affected by increases.

"Also, we believe the cutbacks in nursing staff positions and part-time nursing hours this year may have and may continue to jeopardize the health and wellbeing of residents in long-term care facilities, and as a result, more health care dollars may have been needed or may continue to be needed to cover any repercussions from these cutbacks.

"We are proud Canadians and desperately need your help regarding these two serious matters."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by many residents in my community --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Is it about the courthouse?

Mr Callahan: No. I have no comment on that. I'm quite proud that it's named after him and his father. They were great Canadians, great Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the petition?

Mr Callahan: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: No, thank you.

It's addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Bill 55" -- that's Mr Cousens's bill, isn't it, Mr Speaker; that's Mr Cousens's bill; that's amazing -- "would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to the free speech in a democratic society.

"Mr Cousens's Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality -- Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

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

"We have moved away from the position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties." Mr Cousens's bill has that, I guess.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions." That's certainly not what he told Christopher Thomas on CBC. It's amazing.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Mr Cousens's Bill 55."

What an amazing thing. It's signed by many residents from my community.

STATUS OF BILL

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: On Monday, as we had reports of committees being returned to the House from the intersession, Bill 62 was reported and the question was asked whether or not it be referred to third reading. I had asked that in fact it go to committee of the whole until we had had our caucus meeting and had an update on the events of the committee hearings. It is the position of the Liberal caucus that Bill 62 should proceed to third reading.

I want to make it very clear indeed that the Liberal caucus would like to move Bill 62 now into third reading if that is agreeable with the rest of the House. I'm not making the motion but just advising, for a point of information, the House that this is our position in that regard.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 17th report.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, Speaker, I do not have any statement.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mrs Sullivan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr83,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

NORTH TORONTO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (INTERDENOMINATIONAL) ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr93,

An Act to revive North Toronto Christian School (Interdenominational).

EDEN COMMUNITY HOUSE OF TORONTO ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr99,

An Act to revive Eden Community House of Toronto.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AIDE SOCIALE

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

Bill 144,

An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les prestations familiales et la

Loi sur l'aide sociale générale.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member for Oakville have any comments with regard to his bill?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Very briefly, the bill amends the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act to provide investigators with adequate powers to obtain information relevant to determining the eligibility of persons for the assistance under those acts.

TUBERATE HEAT TRANSFER ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr86,

An Act to revive Tuberate Heat Transfer Ltd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 PORTANT RÉFORME DE DIVERSES LOIS RELATIVES AUX SERVICES FINANCIERS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 134,

An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services / Projet de loi 134, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are resuming the adjourned debate, and I believe there are further speakers in this debate.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It is with quite a bit of pleasure that I have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Most members of the House would know that Bill 134 deals with two specific sections, one dealing with caisse populaires and credit unions, and the other dealing with life insurance reform. Both of those changes, I would say, have been long-sought-after on the part of all those concerned within those industries.

I'll deal first of all with the credit union act and then I'd like to make some short comments on the life insurance act, based on conversations I've had with people in my riding as well as people within the province itself.

Without doubt most members would agree that credit unions and caisses populaires play a very important role in the province of Ontario, and have played a very important role in giving individuals the ability to develop a certain amount of security in dealing with their financial matters over the past years.

Vous allez savoir, par exemple, que les caisses populaires dans la province de Québec jouent un rôle très important. Ça se trouve une des plus grosses institutions, la plus grosse institution dans cette province, et ce n'est pas arrivé au Québec par accident. C'est arrivé parce qu'il y a eu certaines directions prises par le gouvernement du Québec des années passées qui ont dit, «Écoutez, c'est très important qu'on soit capable de mettre en place des règlements qui donnent un certain pouvoir aux caisses populaires pour qu'elles puissent faire une compétition égale aux banques.»

Ce qu'on essaie de faire ici dans la province de l'Ontario, c'est donner aux caisses populaires et aux «credit unions» les mêmes droits qu'on trouve présentement dans d'autres juridictions quand ça en vient aux banques elles-mêmes.

Vous allez savoir, Madame la Présidente, comme les autres députés de cette Assemblée, que présentement une caisse populaire ou bien une «credit union» n'a pas le droit, par exemple, de faire des emprunts importants ou des sommes assez importantes dans le secteur du commerce. Elles n'ont pas cette possibilité-là.

Par exemple, il y des limites au montant d'argent qu'on peut prêter aux individus. Il y a des limites faisant affaire avec les produits qu'on peut vendre dans une caisse populaire ou les produits qu'on peut vendre directement au public, comme des REERs, de l'assurance et beaucoup de produits qu'on peut acheter présentement dans d'autres institutions financières dans la province de l'Ontario.

Ce qu'on va faire avec les changements de cette loi et l'introduction de cette loi, c'est donner aux caisses populaires et donner aux «credit unions» la capacité de faire compétition directement avec les banques de la province de l'Ontario et la capacité de faire des services égaux à ceux qu'on peut trouver dans d'autres juridictions quand ça en vient aux caisses populaires elles-mêmes.

Spécifiquement, on va être capable de donner le pouvoir aux caisses populaires, par exemple, d'utiliser leurs fonds, qui sont assez importants -- on parle de 12 milliards de dollars dans la province de l'Ontario dans ces institutions-là -- vers le développement économique d'une communauté à travers des emprunts dans le secteur du commerce, quelque chose qui est très difficile présentement pour les caisses.

On va aussi donner le pouvoir à ces caisses d'établir ce qu'on appelle «community investment shares corporations», qui donnent la possibilité d'investir l'argent de nos caisses directement dans nos communautés dans certains projets ou dans certains commerces dans nos communautés.

Vous savez, mon collègue le député de Cochrane-Nord, une couple d'années passées, a passé une grosse crise dans la communauté de Kapuskasing faisant affaire avec Kimberly-Clark, le moulin à papier. Une affaire qui aurait été bien plus facile dans ce temps-là de transition, c'est que si la caisse avait eu les pouvoirs nécessaires, elle aurait pu jouer un rôle bien plus important dans la communauté de Kapuskasing, pour établir les fonds nécessaires pour mettre en place certaines mesures pour la compagnie Kimberly-Clark, qui maintenant appartient aux individus de cette communauté.

A number of important changes will affect both the credit unions and the caisses populaires. I'll speak specifically about a couple of them because I think they're fairly important to note. There are two different things and people sometimes get them confused, so I'm going to try to explain.

First of all, we're going to allow caisses populaires and credit unions to set up community investment share corporations. As well, they'll be able to set up community loan funds. People say, "What's the difference between the two?" Fairly simply, it's this.

On community loan funds, basically you allow people within your community to lend money through a vehicle into a particular fund, and you can then take that money and direct it back to local businesses in your community that may otherwise not be able to access capital through regular institutions. The difference is that money invested in community loan funds by individuals will be guaranteed 100% by the provincial government.

This is a very important vehicle, very much in keeping with a number of initiatives this government is taking to develop the kind of system, the kind of network necessary for individuals and small businesses to be able to access capital so we can make our communities' economic base more diversified by giving those small businesses and individuals the ability to get to capital that sometimes is very difficult to happen.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): They're more responsive.

Mr Bisson: Much more responsive. The honourable member Mr Marchese -- I was going to mention the riding --

Mr Marchese: Fort York.

Mr Bisson: Thank you. It's one of those Metro ridings. It's a very big place when you live in northern Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I'm getting relentlessly heckled by my own members.

The point is that this will allow people to invest money into that vehicle and put it right back into the community. Many times all of us on all sides of the House have had people come to us within our ridings and say, "I've been in business for a long time and I need to get access to capital," or "I've got an idea and I want to start up a business to employ myself and other people and help better the lot of our community, but I just can't access that capital." This is another vehicle to allow that capital to be out there so that individuals and businesses will be able to invest.

But what's more important is that we sometimes find caisses populaires and credit unions are much more responsive to individual needs than you'd find in a banking institution. I wouldn't say that banking institutions are not responsive whatsoever, but they clearly have a different mandate to deal more with larger commercial ventures at times, and they sometimes forget to service the needs of the individuals in our communities as well as you can through a credit union. One of the things it will do is allow the credit unions to play a much more important role when it comes to community loan funds.

With regard to the investment share corporation, that is a similar type of vehicle, except that it's higher-risk capital. People will be able to invest shares in a corporation that would be administered through either the caisses populaires or the credit union, and that money would be directed into higher-risk types of investments. There are a number of different examples, if you look around North America these days, of opportunities to do that.

This will allow that kind of capital to go to higher- risk, the difference being that the money is invested in much the same way as the money is invested within stock of a company: It is not as guaranteed as what you would have under a community loan fund.

But clearly, it allows you to put money forward to move ahead certain ideas. For example, lately I had the opportunity to visit with the people of Red Lake and Ear Falls. You'd know that in Ear Falls for example, their particular bank decided it was going to pull up stakes and pull out of that community. In a community of 1,104 people, when a bank decides to close up shop and leave a community, it really leaves you in a very desperate situation.

I think a credit union in the long term is where that community would like to go. With the changes we're making to the act, if the people of Ear Falls are successful in pulling together all the pieces necessary to get a credit union going in that community, it will be able to offer services that could never have been offered through a credit union before, and better able to service the needs of the people of Ear Falls, I would say.

I think it would be a lot easier to deal through a credit union, for the local businesses of Ear Falls and individuals, than with a bank. One of the problems with banking institutions is that they're much larger corporations and they tend to deal in areas where the stakes, pardon the pun, might be a little bigger. Sometimes they forget some of the responsibilities within smaller communities. The people of Ear Falls will be well serviced in that community through a credit union, with the changes we'll allow under the act, and will be able to deal with that particular issue.

From discussions I've had with the people of Ear Falls, I certainly look forward to moving ahead on that, hopefully one of these days getting to the point of setting up an actual credit union there. I certainly will work on that with the local member there, from the opposite benches.

The other thing the changes to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act will do is allow them to sell a broader range of products and services. That's very important. We're very busy people these days in our individual lives. Sometimes we don't have as much time to go out and do the business of banking etc. It's sometimes a little difficult for people to go and do their banking at a credit union, but they've also got to deal, let's say, with buying insurance at a different insurance company, or dealing with their RRSPs.

Under this act, we'll give basically the same kind of powers banks have, when it comes to other services, which credit unions don't have at this point. That really will allow the credit unions and the caisses populaires to expand and play a much more important role in the development of the economic wellbeing of people in communities.

That's always been a real sore spot. From the Caisse Populaire Desjardins in Timmins and the credit unions in both Timmins and other communities in northern Ontario, certainly the message they've brought to me is that it's been very difficult to expand the base of their business when they're limited in the types of services and products they can sell. This is certainly very much welcomed by those particular institutions.

There's another thing we're going to be doing, and I think it's quite significant. People will know, for example, that when you leave money with a lawyer for a particular transaction, the lawyer currently must deposit that money within a bank. There's a sizeable amount of money floating around out there that is a captive market for banks only. One of the changes we're going to do within Bill 134 is to allow the credit unions and the caisses populaires to compete with the banks when it comes to that.

If they're able to provide equal service, which I know they're going to be able to do, and probably increase service to a certain extent in terms of the personal touch we can sometimes give in a credit union, they'll be able to attract the business from various lawyers in communities to deposit the money they have in trust. This represents a sizeable amount of money when you look at it. I've been made aware in my time as a member here of a number of issues in regard to my community where people have dealt with lawyers and left quite sizeable amounts of money with lawyers to be left in trust.

It expands that capital and the mass necessary for credit unions in the long term, to be able to have the capital to do the lending that needs to be done.

But the most important part of the bill is that it is a modernization of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act to really bring it into what is happening in today's economy rather than leaving it where it was. When you compare the growth of the caisses populaires and credit unions in other jurisdictions, in western Canada and in Quebec, you find they have played a much more important role in those provinces because they've had the tools necessary to compete with banks, and in some cases have done quite an extraordinary job. Like I say, we're talking large sums of money.

Presently, the caisses populaires and the credit unions have some $12 billion in assets and look forward to being able to increase those assets as time goes on because of the changes in this act.

The other thing this act is doing, maybe the quieter part of the act but equally as important and something that's long overdue, I know the members all across this House will agree, is that we're finally going to reform the portion of the act that deals with life insurance.

People who sell life insurance in this province are professional people. They're people who want to provide quality services to their customers. They're people who have a financial background, financial experience, to be able to sit down with people like you and me to be able to make some decisions about how we invest our money and how we deal with those investments.

Unfortunately, what's happened over the years is that there have been some people in the industry who haven't had a very good perception on the part of the public. Part of the problem has been that there really has never been a good mechanism to deal with the issue of making sure there is a good code of ethics within the life insurance industry and a good system to be able to make sure that the people within the industry are competent and up to date with all of the changes that are going on within the industry.

I know companies in my community, such as Prudential and other companies that I deal with -- I'm going to stop naming companies because I'm going to miss one and I'm going to get a call from maybe somebody like Rick Chartrand who'll say, "Hey, you didn't mention my company," so I'll stop at that point. The point is that most of these companies have excellent training programs when it comes to making sure that their people who are out there selling their products have a good knowledge and a good understanding of the products out there.

But I think we need to go a little bit further. I had the opportunity recently to be invited to a life insurance underwriters' meeting, I guess some time back in February, where I had an opportunity to exchange with the agents in my community, the community of Timmins and surrounding areas, to be able to talk about what this act was all about.

We had a nice opportunity. We had somebody in from their Ontario association. We had a question-and-answer session that was set up where the life insurance people from my community were able to ask questions of both myself and the person from the association. I must say that they were extremely pleased at the end of that dialogue to find out just how comprehensive the changes are to this act.

It's going to do a couple of very significant things. Just to go through them very quickly, the first thing we're going to do is to deal with the question of licensing. I think licensing is a necessary step to have in order to be able to make sure that we have the highest possible standards when it comes to the ability of the people in the industry to do their job. We want to make sure there's no doubt that the people out there are the best possible people to provide the service, and one of the ways we do that is that we need to provide good licensing.

Now, there's going to be a change to the licensing process, where we're going to have a two-step licence. The first part of the licence is when a person first enters into the field and will only be able to sell products of the company that he or she is working for. So if I'm working for Mutual or for Prudential or for one of the other companies, I would only be able to sell those particular prod