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

May 2, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LESTER B. PEARSON COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

STORMONT AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PLANT CLOSURE

TEACHER INTERNSHIP

VISITOR

SEXUAL ASSAULT

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

VISIT OF QUEBEC PREMIER

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

HEALTH INSURANCE

ASSISTED HOUSING

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ASSISTED HOUSING

SECURITY AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

HEALTH CARE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

CASINO GAMBLING

CANCER TREATMENT

FIREARMS SAFETY

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ENTERPRISE PUBLIC SCHOOL

GAMBLING

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LESTER B. PEARSON COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Just recently, on Friday, April 29, I visited a wonderful school, Lester B. Pearson Collegiate Institute. I spoke there on the matter of citizenship and family. I met some wonderful people there, as a matter of fact: the president of the student council, a very intelligent young lady named Stacey Ann Wilson, together with her principal, Ms Vera Taylor, and their guidance head, Grant Williams.

I left there feeling very confident about my country and my constituency because these young people look to the future and feel confident that they will participate. They were concerned, after finishing their education, whether or not they would have a job ready for them. I have reassured them, and they fully agreed, that their education is one of the main tools and skills which they would have in the future, to have a wonderful education.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, and my colleagues here in the House that the people of Scarborough North and Ontario should be very, very proud of those students at Lester B. Pearson Collegiate, and to share with you that one of these days one or two of them will be sitting right here, maybe in the same position I am or maybe in your seat, Mr Speaker.

STORMONT AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This Friday the rural community in Stormont county will celebrate the 50th anniversary of our Stormont agricultural office.

Agricultural offices have played a crucial role in communicating new developments and techniques as well as government programs to the farming and rural community of Ontario.

The Stormont ag office opened its doors in Cornwall in 1944, during a time which saw significant change in agriculture. Right from the start Stormont's first ag rep, the late A.M. Barr, identified soils, crops, livestock and rural young people as his major organizational priorities. In fact that same focus was there years later when, at the tender age of 13, I personally became involved with the Sandringham 4-H calf club while Ron Crozier was our ag rep.

Stormont's ag reps have always provided needed leadership and advice: the late A.M. Barr from 1944 to 1947; Ken Lantz from 1948 to 1951. Ron Crozier filled the job from 1952 to 1956, followed by the late Ken Best from 1957 to 1966.

Our current ag rep, Dale Miller, has certainly earned his place in Stormont county's agricultural history. He has witnessed among other things the move of the ag office from Cornwall to Avonmore, the centre of Stormont county's farming community. Ag Minister Jack Riddell opened the new office after the move had been announced by a previous government. In fact moving the office was one of the top issues in the by-election where I came to this chamber.

I want to invite all colleagues, especially the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, to visit Stormont county during this our 50th anniversary.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): In the year 1852 Chief Seathl, a tribal nobleman native to the Pacific Northwest, shared the following thoughts with the white men who were attempting to buy his ancestral lands:

"This we know. The Earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the son of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

These words formed part of the homily on Sunday in my church delivered by Mr Ted Blowes, chair of the Stratford civic beautification committee. There were many other environmental events this weekend in Stratford as part of a week-long celebration put on by the committee.

Howard Hampton, Minister of Natural Resources, visited with students of Hamlet Elementary School and the seniors of Cedarcroft to plant a tree in their intergenerational garden. He then made a slide presentation to Stratford Northwestern high school students about the new Keep It Wild campaign, extolling the virtues of our many natural wild places and the necessity of preserving them for future generations.

Irene Mathyssen, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, joined me for lunch with public school students and the members of the parks board. We heard about the many species of animals that will soon be extinct if we don't do something about our treatment of this planet. Then together we planted a tree in Stratford's Queen's Park.

As part of his sermon, Mr Blowes reminded us of the power of one to make changes and to make a difference. Part of the Earth Day creed reads, "I will no longer rely on others to take care of things and offer my individual commitment to help correct the imbalance in every way I can." We must never underestimate the power of one.

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a letter here from the Cornwall and District Labour Council addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of the province of Ontario:

"Dear Mr Rae:

"The following is a resolution passed by the council at the March 10 general meeting:

"Whereas the city of Cornwall" -- and our area -- "is experiencing a difficult business downturn; and

"Whereas there is 40% of the population receiving some form of social assistance; and

"Whereas available jobs have hundreds of applicants lined up in the cold waiting for interviews; and

"Whereas all jobs are at a premium everywhere in eastern Ontario;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario reopen in its entirety the provincial parks system in this region, which will spin off into more tourists, more spending and more jobs.

"We would appreciate your immediate attention to this resolution as timeliness is the important factor in this matter."

It's signed by the Cornwall and District Labour Council members.

Minister, it is very clear that you are the only block to reopening the parks. I join the Cornwall and District Labour Council in demanding that you take all necessary steps to reopen the parks now to allow job opportunity to our unemployed and employment opportunity for our students for this coming summer.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's Education and Training Week in Ontario, "With the Future in Mind." It's an opportunity for schools across the province to showcase their accomplishments in their communities. Schools will have special events and open houses for parents and the community to watch children at work in the classroom.

It's an opportunity for everyone to visit their community schools and to offer encouragement as they provide our students with quality education. Accountability is extremely important. Visit your schools and see at first hand the kind of education our students are receiving.

Congratulations to our educators. There are many examples in London of what's happening during this special week.

Arthur Ford Elementary School is hosting a Violence Awareness Week, including classes working on aspects of peacekeeping, positive solutions to problems and cooperative team games. The hallways will be lined with paper footsteps with positive messages.

Westmount Elementary School will display the artwork of primary students, Invention Convention and environmental work. They will also have two open houses.

Nicholas Wilson Elementary School will host a school-wide poster contest, parent computer workshops will be run by students, they will have a special music concert and will host a Preparing for the Future students workshop.

Holy Cross Elementary School will have an open house every day for classroom visits by parents. They will have a police department presentation on violence, a nature walk in Silverwood park and amphibians and reptiles project presentations.

St Jude Elementary School will host many festivals of mathematics challenges. The primary classes will make presentations on reptiles and there will be a garbageless challenge assembly for the junior division.

There's lots happening, and I hope all of us take advantage of Education and Training Week in Ontario.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This is Elizabeth Fry Week in Canada, and I would invite all members to join with me in recognizing the important role played by Elizabeth Fry societies across Ontario in assisting women in conflict with the law.

Elizabeth Fry campaigned for better treatment of women in British prisons in the early 19th century. Her work has been carried on by the Elizabeth Fry Society chapters across Canada.

Here in Ontario, volunteers and staff of eight chapters provide counselling, education and support to women and girls who have been admitted to correctional institutions. Elizabeth Fry chapters also deliver a wide variety of community programs on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Chapters are represented provincially by the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario, based here in Toronto.

The Elizabeth Fry movement has played a key role in drawing attention to the circumstances that commonly lead women into conflict with the law and the special needs women face emerging from the criminal justice system, with the goal of preventing crime by assisting women to become productive members of society.

This week there are events taking place in many communities to recognize the important work done by the Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario, with a special emphasis on mothers and children. I would encourage all members and their constituents to support the Elizabeth Fry Society in its important work with women in conflict with the law.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Thursday, April 28, members of the Legislative Assembly paused for a moment to remember those who have lost their lives in the workplace.

Across the province, people gathered in various locations, such as the Niagara Peninsula, in a similar expression of sympathy as part of the national day of mourning to remember those who have died on the job.

As we in the Legislature were remembering those who have lost their lives in job-related accidents, a ceremony was being held beneath the Garden City Skyway marking the passing of four workers who died at the site beneath the Skyway in an industrial accident, with Julie Davis of the Ontario Federation of Labour in attendance at that ceremony.

The day of mourning reminds us that we must all strive to make the workplace safe for workers across our land. It is in the interest of labour, management and society as a whole that every possible precaution be taken to avoid injury and death where individuals gather to work. Over the years progress has been made, but none of us will be satisfied until there are no more deaths on the job.

To the family, friends and co-workers, the day of mourning in Port Colborne or Pembroke, in St Catharines or Sault Ste Marie demonstrates that we have not forgotten and that we will continue to work for the goal of zero tolerance of workplace deaths.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. She's not here today but the Premier is, and I wish he would pay attention to my statement.

On April 29 TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Ltd announced the closure of its Penetanguishene assembly plant effective August 12. The closure of this assembly plant will result in the layoff of 270 employees.

TRW is a business unit of TRW Inc of Cleveland, Ohio. The company produces seatbelts and air bags for the automotive industry. There are three TRW operations in the Penetanguishene-Midland area: two stamping and metal-finishing plants in Midland employing 300, and a seatbelt assembly plant in Penetanguishene employing 290, of which only 20 will be offered jobs at the Midland plant.

TRW officials have indicated the free trade and the North American free trade agreements were not factors in the decision to close the Penetanguishene assembly plant.

Premier, I talked with Mayor Klug of Penetanguishene over the weekend and we agree that you should direct members of your ministry staff to attend an emergency meeting planned for Wednesday to look at modifying and upgrading the TRW plant, securing a new owner and, most importantly, saving the jobs.

The announced closure of the TRW plant has created a great deal of uncertainty to a very, very dedicated group of employees and their families. Premier, I urge you to act now because 270 of my constituents face the bleak prospect of joining the unemployment lines in this province and we don't want that to happen.

TEACHER INTERNSHIP

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to bring to the attention of the House an exemplary teacher internship project in the Kingston area that has been chosen for provincial funding.

Under the Ministry of Education and Training's education-work connections initiative, a cooperative partnership in Kingston called Future Dimensions in Teacher Internship has received a grant of $49,500.

In today's economy our students need relevant work experience and practical employment skills to get and keep good jobs. Future Dimensions in Teacher Internship is a way of bringing these essentials into the classroom by providing teachers with direct experience in the workplaces for which their students are preparing.

This project is a cooperative program of the Frontenac County Board of Education, the Frontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman Catholic School Board and the Kingston Area School to Employment Council.

Recently I had the pleasure of interviewing on Cablenet 13 representatives of the three partners which are setting up the program: Laurie Preston, management of the public board's School of Continuing and Community Education, Mary Carroll, coordinator of the separate board's Loyola Community Learning Centre, and Mary Gayle Dillon, managing director of the Kingston Area School to Employment Council. The expertise and commitment these individuals bring to their job promises the teacher internship program will be very successful.

The Kingston project and seven other demonstration projects selected for the education-work connections assistance involve a shared commitment from the province, school boards, teachers, employers and local community groups. This is an excellent example of collaboration at the local level that will benefit us all, both in Kingston and across the province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Sudbury, Mr Jim Gordon.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am rising this afternoon to remind this House that May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. This campaign to increase public awareness of sexual violence against women comes at a time when there is much talk about the level of violence in our society.

People more than ever are looking for answers. We are trying to trace the roots of violence. We are doing our best to understand why our society appears to be becoming more violent. People everywhere are pointing to the violence in our schools as evidence of something going terribly wrong.

A frightening amount of gender-based violence goes on in our school system -- acts of violence both physical and verbal -- which are directed specifically at girls and young women. These acts are the first expression of the attitudes that cause boys to grow into men who are violent or harassing towards women.

So in this Sexual Assault Prevention Month, we draw your attention not only to the sexual violence and harassment to which men subject women but also that to which boys subject girls. And we seek to highlight behaviour that often doesn't get acknowledged or recognized as the violence it is.

I would like to say a few words about the kind of harassing behaviour towards girls that boys display early on and about the way that we as parents or as teachers or as principals respond to that behaviour.

As early as elementary school and junior high, it is routine for boys to lift girls' skirts, snap their bras, grab their breasts, humiliate them by rating them on a scale of one to 10 as they walk down the corridor. Girls who are seen as different because of their racial or ethnic background, because of a physical disfigurement or because of the food they eat or the clothes they wear are doubly harassed, first because of their gender, and second, because of whatever it is that makes them appear different.

Teachers and parents alike tend to downplay this behaviour and treat it as far less serious than it actually is. Anyone who questions or criticizes this behaviour is accused of making mountains out of molehills. We are told that it's all in fun or that the boys are just kidding. Any girl who has experienced this kind of behaviour will tell you in no uncertain terms that there is nothing funny about it.

Research indicates that it is commonplace for boys to traumatize girls with vulgarities which I would never think of repeating in this Legislature. This language, which slips all too easily into threats of sexual assault, threats which are far too often carried out, is commonplace. Too often the response to this kind of behaviour is, "Boys will be boys." Two things about violence we know for certain: Violence always escalates, and what children learn and are allowed to get away with in their youth they are likely to repeat in adulthood.

A recent study by the Canadian Committee on Violence Against Women found that one in five Canadian girls under the age of 18 has been abused by a boyfriend. Clearly, we are facing a serious problem.

By the time today's children reach adulthood, it will be too late to do much to reduce sexual violence within the next generation. We don't have much hope that our daughters and our granddaughters will suffer less harassment and violence than any of the women who have come before them if we don't take two important steps. The first step is that we actively challenge the belief that girls are inferior to boys. The second is that we stop regarding violent male behaviour as normal and acceptable.

The government continues its efforts to raise awareness about sexual assault during Sexual Assault Prevention Month and throughout the year.

Earlier today I announced, on behalf of the Minister of Health, $415,000 in grants to health care professionals, to teach them how to recognize and respond to women and girls who have been physically and sexually assaulted. This is but one of the programs in our government's interministerial strategy to address violence against women. Others include the victim/witness assistance program, the funding of sexual assault centres and the awarding of grants to community groups for local public education projects.

If we as a community are truly to make a difference in reducing the incidence of sexual assault and other violence against women, we must begin in our homes, in our schools, in our day care centres and in our nurseries. We must recognize sexual assault and harassment in all its forms and at its earliest stages, and we must begin to communicate clearly that this behaviour is wrong. We, as a community, are responsible for beginning the process of change.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On behalf of the Liberal caucus I would like to add my voice of support for the minister's campaign during Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

There is a brochure called Sexual Assault which has been put out by the Ontario women's directorate, and I would just like to read a couple of the opening statements.

"One in four Canadian women is sexually assaulted. Most women live with the fear of being sexually assaulted.

"People don't like to talk about it, but as a community we should all be concerned. No one should have to live in fear."

Surely the people of this House do believe those words, but there are those who have attacked the reliability of studies on the extent of violence against women, attacks by people who don't believe and don't wish to believe that violence is that endemic and that widespread.

There are those who challenge the fact that sexual assault is occurring so often in the lives of women in Canada. However, a Statistics Canada survey from last year revealed that more than half of all Canadian women have been physically or sexually assaulted at least once in their adult lives. In hard numbers, that means that more than five million adult Canadian women have been assaulted. Statscan is noted for both its reliability and its accurate methodology. Surely the naysayers will now have to admit that we have a serious problem.

As the minister has stated, this is the sixth Sexual Assault Prevention Month, first initiated by the Liberal government in 1989 and continued as a priority by this government. I think it particularly fitting that this is both Education Week and the beginning of this campaign to educate people, particularly our young people, that sexual assault is never acceptable. Because education is what it's all about: changing attitudes and, hopefully, changing behaviour.

Two years ago during Sexual Assault Prevention Month, I was at Northern Secondary School when the minister introduced a radio and television campaign targeting young people. It was interesting to hear the comments of the students after the presentation. It was obvious that the young people had undergone a tremendous sensitization about violence during recent years.

I was encouraged. As both the young men and the young women involved spoke out, it was clear that they understood the issue so well and were responding to it very positively. They clearly understood the key messages: that any unwanted act of a sexual nature is sexual assault; that sex without consent is sexual assault; and that women always have the right to say no and that men need to understand and respect that right.

One thing I want my 16-year-old daughter to understand is that young women have a right to say no and not feel guilty. At the same time, I want my 18-year-old son to understand that young men have an obligation to listen -- to really listen -- to what women are telling them.

The minister has made the statement that sexually assaultive behaviour does not spring up out of nowhere, that it is the result of years of practice in the school yard and the classroom. I believe it is very important that as we raise our young sons, we teach them respect for other people, regardless of age or gender. Harassment of the type described by the minister is unacceptable at any age. If children learn something is acceptable when they are young, then surely this is influential in determining what they believe is acceptable throughout their lifetime. If we don't curb children's unacceptable behaviour now, we will indeed pay the price later.

One of the very encouraging factors in combating the myths surrounding sexual assault is that the members of this House treat it as a serious problem and in a non-partisan way. I think this is vitally important, that we in this House set the standard and work together to make a difference. We are, as the minister said, a community, and if we take the attitude, if we help to change behaviours by our words and our actions in this Legislature, then I think it's a job well done.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to take this opportunity to truly congratulate the minister for what I believe to be one of the most outstanding statements she has made in this House each year as we have recognized Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

I'm extremely pleased that this minister has indeed been responsive to the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. In taking a look at my response of last year, May 3, 1993, I indicated at that time to the minister that I was concerned about the amount of gender-based violence that was going on in our school system, both physical and verbal, that was being directed specifically at girls and young women. Certainly today she has very adequately addressed that particular issue. The examples she's given here, although we don't like to acknowledge that they're indeed happening, I can attest as a female to the fact that they do, personally and as a teacher and also having a daughter.

I think it is time we take a look at some of the harassment that does take place. Unfortunately, some of it is very subtle. I'm pleased we have attempted to deal with that particular issue. I congratulate the minister for dealing with that issue today and for being responsive to the concerns of the opposition when we have suggested, as I did, that we need to focus our attention on the children in the elementary and the secondary school systems.

As I know the minister is responsive, there is another area I hope we can continue to focus our attention on. We've dealt with the adult for a long time now and I'm pleased that we're looking at the younger children. I would like to suggest that we take a look at what is happening with our children's aid societies. I've recently had an opportunity to meet with them. We know that children's aid societies throughout this province are in crisis. They are suffering from funding shortfalls and they are suffering from case loads that unfortunately are increasing.

In fact, allegations of child abuse have increased by 200% since 1983. When you have about one million women in this province who are battered annually, in one of the four cases children are also being hurt or threatened at the present time.

I am certainly concerned that the children's aid societies have suffered. Unfortunately, the child protection services have been deteriorating recently, particularly as a result of the actions taken by this government. I am extremely concerned, when I take a look at the time I have spent in this Legislature since 1990, I do not believe children have figured prominently on our political agenda, despite the promises we made to the contrary.

I want to quote the Premier, who stated on November 4, "Let me assure you that the healthy development of Ontario's children remains a priority of our government." Although I think there was a sincere commitment, I don't believe we have provided these children with the protection services that have been necessary. I would certainly encourage the government to do whatever it can, because children's aid has been forced into a position where it has reduced its staffing by 175 positions. Also, they have cut $13.5 million in preventive treatment and protective services in 1992.

I introduced, when I was first elected, a private member's bill that dealt with the need to provide mental health treatment for children in this province, because at that time we had thousands on waiting lists. Those people and those numbers have simply increased.

I just conclude by saying that the PC Party believes that Ontario's most vulnerable children have been forced to go without this additional support and protective services. I believe, as does our party, that it's absolutely time we continue to focus on really making children in this province a priority and that we look at all our policies and we make that commitment together today to ensure that our children will be healthy and will not have to experience further harassment or some of the other problems they are facing today.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would ask unanimous consent to make a short statement regarding the Ontario Hydro negotiations and contract.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed.

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleagues. I'm pleased to announce that the ratification vote by the Power Workers' Union has been completed and that over 87% of those voting have ratified the agreement.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Do I have an opportunity to respond, Mr Speaker? I want to take the opportunity now at this time on behalf of my party to reflect on this issue. I think all of us agree that it reached critical proportions and we indeed faced a crisis at the time. People thought the lights were going to go out in this province as the result of an Ontario Hydro strike.

All of us, the people of this province, use electricity in our homes, our offices, our hospitals, our schools, our farms. All of us rely on electricity in our day-to-day lives.

My party saw this crisis coming over a year ago, and we sought a simple reassurance, on our own part and on the part of the people of this province, from the government and particularly from the minister that he had a contingency plan in place, that our fears were in fact unfounded, that he would ensure that whatever the outcome we would never suffer the effects of a strike. As we all know in this House, we simply cannot withstand a strike from Ontario Hydro.

If there is one criticism I feel we can legitimately level at the minister, it is that he never disclosed his contingency plan. He never provided the reassurance we sought, that the people of this province sought. He needlessly took us right to the brink with him and caused needless anxiety for the people of this province.

Now we've got a deal in place, but all is not well, notwithstanding what the minister would have us believe, notwithstanding that Hydro is spending millions of dollars on an advertising campaign to tell us that everything is okay and that the new Ontario Hydro will take us into the future. On the other hand, we've got the union spending all kinds of money as well on television ads telling us that all is not well.

It seems to me it would be nice if somehow we could get all the moneys and energies being channelled into the TV ads for waging some kind of television war into some kind of cooperative effort in ensuring that we have the kind of Ontario Hydro we're going to need to meet the challenges of the future.

Ontario Hydro is undergoing a massive restructuring, and that's having a tremendous impact on its workers and their families. Unfortunately, we don't really know, though, what the heck is going on over there. For over a year we've been asking for public hearings on the restructuring process. I am pleased to see that the minister has asked the OEB to look into this. We are looking forward to playing an active

part in those hearings and to actually making a presentation in an effort to lend some positive direction to Ontario Hydro's changes in the future.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Having been recently assigned the critic's role for energy, I'd just like to make a few comments on this agreement that has been reached with the union and Ontario Hydro.

There seem to be considerable misunderstandings about the surplus staff issue. Certainly there was an amount of money allotted to Ontario Hydro out of the pension plan in lieu of laying off, I understand, 600 to 800 people. In the meantime, over this two-year period, we haven't received any information from the minister about the type of employment, the type of training or what will be taking place with these 600 to 800 people.

Some of the message coming through tells me it's the shutting down of Lennox and Bruce that will create this surplus. If that is the case, I would ask the minister to direct the chairman of Ontario Hydro to further investigate the shutting down of Lennox and of Bruce, because, as the minister very well knows, Lennox is in a very good location to service eastern Ontario. It has the 500-kV system coming from that plant to Ottawa and eventually to Cornwall and joining in with the Quebec supply.

So rather than taking a negative approach to Lennox and to Bruce, I think it's time this minister took a positive approach and started to market the product that he seems to have a surplus of. If we had positive marketing, instead of negative marketing, we wouldn't have 600 or 800 surplus people; we'd be out trying to hire twice that number in order to service the market that's there. If anyone is keeping up with the technology that's taking place today across this country and doesn't see the increased need for electricity in this province, they're just not keeping up with the times.

I think of all the time that was spent with Bill 118 to try to give the Minister of Energy some power of direction to Ontario Hydro. I think this is an excellent time that the minister should be exercising that power and getting the feelings of the people of Ontario over to the chairman and the board. I don't take away from the chairman and his board on their efforts to date to cut costs and restructure Ontario Hydro, but there is a type of slash-and-burn approach that we're going at here.

I'm hearing many reports that the union is saying, "We now have one supervisor for every 1.76 people." Management is saying, "We have one supervisor for every 20 people." Somewhere in between are the facts. I think the minister should look into that aspect of administration at Ontario Hydro because even an engineer is not classified as a manager; that individual is classified as a person not belonging to the union, not part of the working trade, and does in fact come under the administration budget for Ontario Hydro.

So it's very important that we decide, do we want one supervisor for every two people, or do we want one supervisor for 20 or more? All of these things are going to affect the cost of power.

The other problem is the sort of dictatorial way that money was taken and used as a supplement to the bargaining on this issue. I don't think there was much consultation with the employees through the pension plan.

Hon Mr Wildman: It was negotiated.

Mr Jordan: That's the question: Who had the authority to lay out this amount of money in lieu of 600 to 800 jobs? Regardless of the arguments in favour of that and whether it was good business or not, I think a much more positive approach would be to get off our butts and get out and market the product and create jobs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When we were asked to grant unanimous consent for the Minister of Environment and Energy to make a statement, we of course agreed because we thought it was quite a serious matter. We would have looked for substantially more detail.

I would refer you to

section 32(a), where it says:

"A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action" -- and this is key -- "or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.

"(b)...shall not exceed 20 minutes....

"(

c) Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House."

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): That's why I asked for unanimous consent.

Mr Mahoney: My point of order, as the minister interrupts, is that it would have been most helpful for opposition parties and for the members of the public to have had this delivered as a minister's statement, complete with the details that surround the ratification, complete with all information with regard to this matter. It would have followed the rules, in my respectful submission to you, that are laid out under sections 32(a), (

b) and (c).

This government continues to refuse to follow the rules that are here in this document and to give us the proper information and, by giving it to us, to in turn give it to the public. I just wish that in future, the government would make ministerial statements when they're due and follow the rules and give us the information we need.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order?

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. The member knows full well that I indeed did follow the rules. I asked for unanimous consent. If the member and/or his party did not wish to provide me with unanimous consent but would have preferred me to wait until tomorrow to make a formal statement, as per the rule he quotes, I could have done that.

In fact, the House gave unanimous consent. That is in complete accord with the rules and it is quite appropriate, I think, on this kind of an issue, for a minister to request unanimous consent to make an announcement of tremendous importance to the people of this province, particularly when it's the ratification of an agreement that assures the members their jobs and also saves the corporation $67 million.

Mr Mahoney: On the same point of order: At no time was I or any member in this House questioning the significance. In fact, we believe it was so significant that a minister's statement would have been appropriate, complete with the documentation to the opposition parties. All they do is have press conferences and break the rules --

The Speaker: First, to the honourable member for Mississauga West: I appreciate the concern which the member has expressed. He will know that the minister did not make a statement during the time allotted for ministers' statements. Had he done so, of course, the rules apply with respect to details being provided to the opposition.

This is not a unique situation, where a minister of the crown has asked for unanimous consent from the House to provide some information to the House. Of course, when that is done, it is appropriate for the Speaker to allow someone from each party to have a brief reply to the information which has been provided to the House. That's in fact what we did today, so the member will understand that there is not anything out of order.

It is now time for oral questions and the honourable member for Mississauga West.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member for Mississauga West, but I wondered if I could just make a very brief announcement with respect to tomorrow's visit by Premier Johnson.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

VISIT OF QUEBEC PREMIER

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Just to indicate to members, Premier Johnson will be visiting Queen's Park tomorrow and all members obviously are invited to participate in the signing ceremony tomorrow at 11:30.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Oral questions. The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I assume the Premier will be providing a copy of his resolution for the Premier of Quebec so that he understands it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. On Thursday, my leader, Lyn McLeod, asked whether you felt it was appropriate for the Finance minister, the man who signs the cheques in this province, to use his position of influence to lobby the board of governors of the francophone college in Sudbury to take $43 million that the Finance minister gave them and spend it in his riding.

Premier, I trust that you have since had an opportunity to talk to the Finance minister about this matter. Will you now agree that the Finance minister was wrong to try to influence this body, that his influence was in fact a violation of your conflict-of-interest guidelines, and will you tell the House what action you have taken to correct this matter?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I have spoken to the Deputy Premier and I'm sure he'd be glad to answer these questions as well. In looking at the situation, I must say I don't find myself in agreement with any of his characterizations of what took place.

The minister appeared as a member of an interested public at a public meeting. He appeared publicly to support the position of his municipality and his constituency; he did not try to exert private influence on any decision-maker; he did not seek a benefit for himself or for any member of his family in his representations; he candidly and openly represented the interests of his constituency, and I can't see that that amounts to any breach of guidelines that have come from me or indeed from anyone else or the conflict-of-interest act. If the member disagrees, he knows there is a procedure which he can follow under the act to seek the opinion of the commissioner.

I think it's fair to say that in contrast to other circumstances, there was nothing clandestine or concealed in the actions of the member. He was very open at a public meeting in putting forward the point of view of his constituents.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): How about Joan Smith? Was that clandestine?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: I can assure the honourable member that in considering what took place, I don't see any breach of any guidelines whatsoever.

Mr Mahoney: I'm going to have to check the Instant Hansard, Mr Speaker, but I believe I heard the Premier say that the Finance minister appeared before this body as a member of the public with an interest in this affair. The Finance minister himself in his defence has said he simply appeared as an ordinary MPP.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Right. That's right.

Mr Mahoney: He says he's an ordinary MPP. You say he went simply as a member of the public.

Hon Mr Rae: No, an MPP.

Mr Mahoney: I'll be happy to check the record on that, but that's what I heard you say.

The Conflict of Interest Commissioner has written, and I quote right from his letter:

"Once a member is appointed to the executive council, any action in which he or she is involved is the action of a member of the executive council. A minister is not an ordinary member of the Legislature. A minister always wears the cloak of ministerial responsibility. A minister is a minister is a minister."

These are not my words; these are the words of Justice Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Yet the Finance minister made an unscheduled appearance in front of the provincially appointed board, was introduced not as a private citizen, not as an MPP, but as the Minister of Finance, and proceeded to pressure the board to award a $43-million government tender to one of over 20 proponents who happened to have a site in his riding.

How do you reconcile these facts, Premier, with your stated, written guidelines and the ruling in the letter of Justice Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is alleging that there is a breach of the conflict-of-interest law of the province or is making any other allegation with respect to the conduct of the member, he knows perfectly well, under the act, what his responsibilities are. He knows perfectly well that he has a responsibility if he believes that's true. The honourable member from Mississauga has an obligation to ask the commissioner to rule and to indicate the opinion with respect to this situation.

Mr Chiarelli: Sit Justice Evans in your seat, then, if you want him to do your job.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: My assessment of the situation is different from the honourable member's. Of course the Minister of Finance is the Minister of Finance is the Minister of Finance. That's true. He is also a member who represents his constituency and who is allowed, it would seem to me, from time to time to speak on behalf of his constituents.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): That's not what you said about Joan Smith.

Hon Mr Rae: I do that without any sense of apology. Every member of the cabinet does it from time to time. There was nothing clandestine. There was no attempt to bring any undue influence. There was nothing of this kind. There's no tendering.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole says there's tendering. Not so, Mr Speaker. That is not the stage which this process is at. This was a public meeting at which various views were expressed from all sorts of people with respect to the possible location sites of a college. It was not a meeting that was intended to reach a decision. It was not a meeting at which final tendering decisions or proposals were made. It was one in which a number of options were being canvassed in public.

I would have thought that the interest -- in fact I would argue quite the contrary. I would argue that the member acted with complete integrity. He acted completely openly. His entire actions and his points of view are now clear to everyone with respect to this question. As opposed to doing it on a telephone or through a back room, the member did it, as we always know the Deputy Premier and the member for Nickel Belt will do, with total and complete integrity, and I'm astonished that the member would take a different point of view.

Mr Mahoney: Premier, you and I both know that you're not astonished that I would take a different point of view than you. You and I both know that.

It's interesting to me, Premier, that you're the one who continues to say there was nothing clandestine. I readily admit, in fact this was not only open, this was blatant. It was unbelievable.

Imagine if you were one of the proponents, some of whom spent in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars to put their proposal together. Imagine showing up in front of the board to plead your case and make your representation only to find that the group directly in front of you is led by the Finance minister of the province of Ontario. Might you think that your quarter of a million might as well have been flushed down the toilet? Might you think that there is some disadvantage that you are facing in getting a fair decision?

I'm astounded at you, Premier, that you can stand in this House instead of admitting and recognizing that this is, if nothing else, lacking in fair play. I am just astounded.

Let's reconstruct the events for you. The second-most influential politician in the province of Ontario and the political boss of Sudbury appears before a provincially appointed board charged with awarding a $43-million provincial tender.

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

Mr Mahoney: He will be signing the cheque. He will be remembering the board's decision. He wants to get re-elected. He wants the project in his riding. He says to the board: "I am here in support of the Rayside-Balfour proposal. It will benefit my constituents and I don't need any more reason than that."

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Mahoney: My question, Premier, is that, whether you or the leader of the third party think there's a problem here or not, we think there is. We think there is more at stake here than the integrity of the tendering process for the francophone college. What is at stake here is the integrity of the entire political process and the integrity of your government.

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his question.

Mr Mahoney: Premier, wouldn't you say this is just a little more serious than a minister's constituency staff fixing a parking ticket?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is saying things that are utterly preposterous. They show a lack of perspective on his part which I find truly quite appalling. You are putting --

Mr Mahoney: The question's to you, not to me.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm answering the question and I'll answer it very directly. In putting forward your question, you're making allegations which have no foundation in fact. You are drawing conclusions which bear no relationship to the situation. You describe it as a tendering process; this is not the tendering process. You describe it as some sort of judicial inquiry; it's not that.

It's a public meeting held by the board in which all sorts of individuals come forward and say, "Here's an idea, here's a proposal," in which the mayor for Rayside-Balfour came forward with a proposal and the member, who is also the Minister of Finance, indicated that there was public land here and it would involve some saving but it would have to be considered along with all the other proposals.

There was absolutely no attempt, no effort by the Deputy Premier, by the Minister of Finance, whose integrity is a watchword in this House, in this Legislature and in this province. The idea that you would cheapen it like that is just not becoming to your party; not becoming at all.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Thursday, late in the afternoon, the Minister of Health announced, out of the blue, new rules on how Ontario's health insurance plan will cover emergency hospital services outside of Canada. The minister's new rules are illegal, a clear violation of the Canada Health Act, and are another frontal attack on medicare in this province.

My question to the Minister of Health is, where are you taking medicare in Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to answer that question, because our government is taking medicare in a direction that will make it sustainable for the future for the people of this province.

Under the Liberal government and under their predecessors we had double-digit increases in the costs of health care for a decade. We had an open-ended system in which there was no management, in which the red-and-white Liberal health card was proliferated across the province with no ability to secure the system or to avoid fraud.

Where we're taking the province and the medicare system is into the 21st century in a way that recognizes the broadest definition of health, the broadest teamwork of professionals in providing health care, and in a way which keeps it affordable to the people of this province for future generations.

Mrs Sullivan: What the Minister of Health is doing precisely on this issue is breaking the law. She's breaking the law. The Canada Health Act is very explicit on this particular issue. Provincial health plans must cover people who are temporarily out of Canada on the same basis as it covers them if they need treatment inside Canada. Your announcement breaks that law. It introduces a new user fee of $100 a day for people who need emergency treatment and are entitled to it, by law, wherever they are. I'm asking the Minister of Health if she will for once stand up for medicare and withdraw these new rules.

Hon Mrs Grier: I won't respond to the inflammatory suggestion of the member that I stand up for medicare. That's what I've done throughout my life and will continue to do.

Let me say to her, though, that the Canada Health Act is a federal act. There are very inconsistent

interpretations of that act across the country as different provinces over the years have interpreted various sections in various ways. As we looked at ways of reducing the cost of the health care system and making it affordable for the residents of Ontario, we looked at what was happening in other provinces and we looked at the

interpretation of the Canada Health Act in other provinces. We found that since 1974 the province of British Columbia has paid $75 a day for out-of-country hospital fees. We found that Alberta and Saskatchewan were charging $100 a day. Some other provinces were charging more, but the Canada Health Act had not been called into question by those inconsistencies.

In order to make some savings in our health care system and to keep it affordable and to be enabled to provide free drugs for all seniors in this province, which other provinces don't do, we saved $20 million by reducing the amounts we pay for out-of-country hospitals. We still pay for out-of-country physicians at the OHIP rate, let me remind the member before she talks about user fees, and we imposed a cost that was consistent with other provinces, and with more than one.

Mrs Sullivan: I point out to the Minister of Health that Ontario does not want to be cloned with Ralph Klein and if she sees herself as a clone of Ralph Klein, well, that's her business. But the people of Ontario did not elect this government to destroy medicare. It did not elect this government to add new health taxes to business people, to families with children, to senior citizens who are entitled to health care under the Canada Health Act and under OHIP wherever they are.

In particular, this is another attack in a series of attacks on Ontario seniors. We've seen those attacks: withdrawal of drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan, increased cost for accommodations in nursing homes, and now a new tax on the sick, a double billing for services which should already be covered by OHIP, and which are in fact. I challenge the minister to check the act, subclause 11(1)(b)(ii). It requires that these services be paid at Ontario rates.

She's breaking the law. It's illegal. It's arbitrary. It's unjust. I'm asking her if she will commit to withdrawing this new measure.

Hon Mrs Grier: I've explained in this House on a number of occasions that we've had to make some tough decisions in order to protect both the finances of this province and the health care system of this province.

Mrs Sullivan: Breaking the law to do it.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I explained to her in my response, the Canada Health Act is a federal law, and if in fact the other provinces and us and the federal minister, as there has been a working group in place for many months to look at the inconsistent

interpretations of the Canada Health Act --

Mrs Sullivan: Bob Rae, where are you on this?

Interjections.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: If the member would just calm down and listen to the answer, she would understand that any actions this province has taken are not out of line with

interpretations of the Canada Health Act in other provinces and are not out of line with

interpretations that Liberal governments have given to the Canada Health Act, and are designed to protect the health care system of this province.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Under the expenditure control plan, the government wants to cut $5 million from the budget of the provincial rent supplement program. Last year, the government said it would achieve this cost savings by renegotiating agreements with private landlords.

Not so. Instead, tenants are in effect being evicted by the province. For example, tenants who receive rent supplements through the Oxford County Housing Authority have already received letters saying that unless they can pay the market rent, the tenants will have to leave their homes and move to vacant Ontario Housing Corp or non-profit units. If a tenant rejects the alternative accommodation offered, the housing authority will discontinue the tenant's subsidy. Needless to say, the tenants are very upset and very worried.

Minister, why are you of all people forcing these tenants out of their homes?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I will be glad to examine the particular situation referred to by this member, but it is not the intent, through the expenditure control program, to leave tenants in anxiety about their future. It is part of the expenditure control program that we review the rents, some of which have been allowed to rise each year on an annual basis to the point where I think the rent supplement program has been much too rich.

It is part of our commitment at the Ministry of Housing to review all those rents, to make proposals that can be implemented by the local housing authorities to achieve better deals on behalf of taxpayers in this province, and to try and ensure that tenants who are reluctant to move from what may be quite high-cost apartments when there are other, lower-cost apartments within the community will be assisted to find lower-cost units.

Mrs Marland: What you are saying is that you really don't know what's going on, because this was a direction that came from your own ministry. If the timing outlined in the letters to the tenants which they received from the Oxford County Housing Authority is accurate, some tenants will be forced to break 12-month leases. Even those tenants with month-to-month tenure will be unable to give 60 days' notice as required in the infamous Landlord and Tenant Act.

Minister, you are putting tenants in a legal and financial bind. As you know, they are responsible for paying the rent on the unit until the lease expires or the required notice period has passed. Why are you putting these tenants in the position of either breaking the Landlord and Tenant Act or being responsible for a financial load they cannot possibly bear? I haven't even asked you about their moving costs.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd be happy if the member wishes to ask about the moving costs, but to get to the point she raises in this question, in fact there is a lease between the local housing authority and the landlords in the rent supplement program. It is that lease which is being renegotiated. The situation of the individual tenants will be taken into account in those measures which the Ministry of Housing will be undertaking to assist tenants who are in apartments which we have found to be over the normal kinds of prices at which we would expect to be able to find rent supplement units within that community.

We will also assist tenants if they find themselves in a position where it may be necessary to move in order for them to find less expensive rent supplement units.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I'm sorry you're not up to date on this particular issue and this example, because if you were, it's not about renegotiating their existing leases; it's about telling them to move. It's unfortunate you don't know that.

Originally, in your expenditure control plan, it was talking about renegotiating leases, but that isn't what's happening. They're being asked to move and that's what we are concerned about. We have to wonder what you're achieving by forcing these tenants out of their homes. You're taking assisted housing units out of commission when there are still thousands of families on waiting lists for assisted housing, perhaps in excess of 60,000 families in this province on those waiting lists. Moreover, the government doesn't have to worry about guaranteeing mortgages for these units or making reserve fund contributions for their repairs or maintenance.

Even if the minister tries to justify her shoddy treatment of these tenants on the basis of saving $5 million a year, it's still hard to see where the savings are going to be possible. Some tenants will be moved to non-profit projects which have vacancies.

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

Mrs Marland: Minister, the Provincial Auditor estimated the average provincial subsidy for a non-profit unit to be $1,000 per month. By contrast, this move that you're making deals with a subsidy of $565 a month.

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mrs Marland: Where is your cost saving if the subsidy for the new unit is greater? Therefore, what is your justification?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is confusing apples and oranges, because in one case, in the non-profit housing program, we are generating new affordable units with that program, as well as providing people with assistance in housing.

Second, when she discusses the cost of the rent supplement program, she is discussing an average cost, and some of the apartments which have been included in the rent supplement program have in fact been above that cost.

The province has decided, in terms of making sure that we have expenditures under control, through the Ministry of Housing to make moves in the rent supplement program which we believe will be to the benefit of tenants in the longer run in Ontario. We believe the measures we're undertaking to assist tenants who may be asked to move are ones which will support them. The fact is that we cannot go on without the assistance of the federal government in a program which does not create new affordable housing.

I'll be glad to look into the particular circumstances she's talking about with the Oxford local housing authority.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Premier. Today the Ombudsman's nine district offices are closed because of a labour dispute. The Office and Professional Employees International Union has been trying to negotiate a first contract for over one year.

Premier, if the Office of the Ombudsman cannot manage its own internal labour relations, how can the people of Ontario have any confidence that this office can arbitrate other disputes between individual Ontarians and provincial government ministries and agencies? What does your government intend to do about this dispute?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): As much as I'd like to answer it, I think I'll refer it to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The parties are involved in first-contract negotiations. Sometimes this is difficult. The union commenced a rotating work stoppage on May 2. The mediator met with the three parties on April 14, prior to that, and again on April 27, but a number of issues remain unresolved and the mediator is remaining in close contact with them as they go through the normal collective bargaining process.

Mrs Witmer: I would suggest that we've had problems there for a long time. The 1992-93 budget for the Office of the Ombudsman was $9.4 million, and the Provincial Auditor indicated in his November 1993 report that there were a number of spending irregularities at the Office of the Ombudsman.

First, there was a $223,000 advertising campaign launched but there was never an evaluation carried out to determine the effectiveness of the campaign.

The competitive bidding process was not followed. The office paid approximately $29,000 for two voice-activated computers without obtaining competitive bids.

When the lease of its high-volume photocopier expired, the office replaced it with another machine from the same supplier. No other suppliers were contacted and no needs analysis was done. It was determined that if this had been done, there could have been a potential saving of $14,000 over three years.

They spent $327,000 on consulting services. Six of the nine consulting contracts were not selected using a competitive process even though their value exceeded $5,000.

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

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, given the lack of spending controls at the Office of the Ombudsman, will you lend your support to refer this matter to the Ombudsman committee for a full and open review of the auditor's report?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't know how the irregularities, if indeed they exist, that are being mentioned by the member across the way have anything to do with the fact that the local union was certified on February 5, 1993, and is currently involved in collective bargaining, which is what she asked me about, and that process is ongoing right now. It has nothing to do with the various irregularities, or alleged irregularities, she's listed here in this House.

Mrs Witmer: The questions I'm asking today are related to the Office of the Ombudsman. This is not the first time today. As I have indicated, there are other instances where we have seen controversy emerging around the Office of the Ombudsman. If you remember, in 1993 the Ombudsman indicated that she did not feel she was accountable to the Ombudsman committee of the Legislative Assembly. Given all that has happened in the area of the Ombudsman, would you not agree that it is time for a full review of the role of the Ombudsman in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The question that was first asked by the member across the way was about the current strike and labour dispute and I'm not sure what that has to do with the role of the Ombudsman.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to return to the Premier with regard to the Laughren affair.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mahoney: I can appreciate the fact that the government doesn't think this is a serious problem.

Premier, I just want to tell you that I think all members in this House recognize the integrity of the Finance minister as one of your more senior and more capable members in your cabinet. That is not in dispute, nor is it a question. The question is, did your Finance minister make a serious mistake?

Premier, you will be aware that there is a growing sense, both in Sudbury and around the province, that your Finance minister has pushed his own influence far beyond an acceptable level. Will you, Premier, at least acknowledge that he indeed appeared on behalf of the proponent to attempt to influence the decision of the board?

The members of the board have now been put in an untenable position. If they go against the will of the Finance minister, and the political boss of Sudbury, I might add, they now have to wonder how that will affect their future relations with the Finance minister and with the government.

Premier, how can you let this blatant example of abuse of ministerial privilege go by and continue to refuse to deal with what can only be termed a serious political mistake by your most senior member of your cabinet?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The political boss of Sudbury is sitting in the gallery above the opposition's benches at the moment. The member for Nickel Belt has been called many things, but your description of him as a political boss is absurd, it's ridiculous, and it shows the level of rhetorical abuse to which you are prepared to go in order to make something out of nothing.

I would say to the honourable member that the board in question is going to be canvassing a number of options and sites. From what I understand, there's a consultant who's hired by the board who's going to make an objective assessment of the cost and benefits of each site that's being proposed. There will then be a short list and there will then be a recommendation made by the board.

I would say directly to the honourable member that your description of the member for Nickel Belt as somehow trying to go in and intimidate or do anything untoward is absolutely absurd. It's ridiculous. It bears no relationship to the facts or to what has taken place. I just don't think it passes muster. If you really believe what you're saying, then make your allegations in writing to Judge Evans and let's use that process.

Mr Mahoney: Is the Premier really trying to suggest that the Minister of Finance, prepared, going before a board appointed provincially making a decision on how to spend $43 million of government taxpayers' money, would not be listened to, that he would not have any input? Well, why did he go? Why would he bother?

Premier, every time your ministers get in a little bit of hot water, it's because they don't understand why they cannot use their ministerial position to influence. You said "intimidate"; I didn't. I said "influence." They cannot influence and they cannot interfere in areas where they have no business interfering.

In fact I question whether an elected representative should be going before a board like that, never mind the Finance minister of the province, whether it's Shelley Martel smearing a doctor or Mike Farnan's office fixing a ticket for political benefit. And I would suggest, Premier, there's one heck of a difference between a $26 parking ticket and a $43-million taxpayer-funded project. Each time they broke the rules, you defended them for a time until you axed them.

Premier, are you going to simply turn a blind eye to this abuse by your Finance minister or are you going to act to ensure that this kind of influence is never used by one of your ministers again?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member's characterization of what took place is grossly unfair to all of us, and I wish he would really think it through. If you have an allegation to make with respect to conflict, then I would suggest --

Mr Mahoney: You don't think that he had an effect? Why did he go, Bob?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Why did he go?

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is out of control. He's out of control. If he's making an allegation with respect to a conflict, he knows perfectly well there's a law in place. He has a place to go. Use it. Use it. Use it.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Health. On January 24 of this year, a letter was sent, addressed "Dear Community Partners," to 120 families on active treatment and a further 90 families on waiting lists for outpatient speech-language pathology services at the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in the city of Burlington.

They received this form letter advising them that the program that was currently being covered by your ministry was being cancelled with one week's notice. They were given and circulated a list of three hospitals outside of their city and several private clinics as an opportunity to pay up to $80 per hour to replace this vital service to children.

My question to you is, why is it that a hospital can terminate a vital children's service and then promote a private-fee alternative service and only give one week's notice to its patients?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I'm sure the member knows, hospitals are autonomous organizations that frequently make their own decisions. I'm not familiar with the details of the situation the member raises. If he would be good enough to send over the material that he has, I'd be more than happy to look into it and respond at a later date.

Mr Jackson: Thank you, Minister. The minister is familiar, though, that preschool speech-language pathology services are severely strained in this province. Many of the families contacted the representatives in this House for Burlington, including one family, the father of a young boy, Robbie, whom I got to meet. He's four and a half years old and he is academically delayed. He is functioning at the language level of a one-and-a-half to two-year-old at this point. This child will confront the rigours of kindergarten this September, yet that's how far this child is delayed with developmental apraxia.

The father wrote me a letter indicating, based on Joseph Brant's suggested options, that Chedoke hospital had an eight-month waiting list, and Oakville-Trafalgar the same, yet you had to have a doctor with privileges in that hospital. At the Children's Assessment and Treatment Centre, there are no openings till September, and it had only 18 to begin with. This was no relief for the 120 children in active treatment being told there's no longer any service.

Minister, I want to let you know that your critic from the Liberal Party, from Halton Centre, my colleague from Oakville South and I were at Joseph Brant hospital last week and were advised that the hospital expects a $1-million operating surplus this year.

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

Mr Jackson: I ask the minister, why is it that a program of such a vital service to children, to learn how to speak their first language in this province, would be dealt with in such a fashion and escape the scrutiny of your ministry? Would you please undertake to open up this case and examine why these services have been diminished for children in Halton county?

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly will, and if the hospital has $1-million surplus, I find his question even more surprising and I want to look into it.

I am well aware of a very troubling increase in the need for speech and language assistance for young children. I know the community health centre where I get my health care has a speech pathologist on staff and the waiting lists are growing. It is an area where there are waiting lists; I acknowledge that.

I will certainly look into the specific situation the member has raised and get back to him when I can. I'd be happy if he would send me over whatever material he has.

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Housing. The Massey Centre for Women provides housing and resources for young, pregnant women and single mothers. As you know, the Massey Centre has asked for an exemption under Bill 120, the Residents' Rights Act, because they believe, and I do too, that they will not be able to run the program they do now under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

You have told them that they should continue to enforce house rules, as they do now under their current exemption, with the help of the police. The Massey Centre feels that an inability to evict visitors in a timely manner will be counterproductive to the treatment program that they provide.

Will the minister reconsider her decision and grant Massey Centre an exemption?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm certainly aware of the concerns that have been raised by the Massey Centre and in fact by other non-profit organizations which, like the Massey Centre, are running programs specifically addressed to young mothers living by themselves with a baby who need a lot of support. Part of the program in these cases is to make sure that the young women and their children are not going to have their lives disrupted by unwanted visitors. I think that is in particular what the member for York East is concerned about in the case of the Massey Centre.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act tenants and landlords have a right to take action against unwanted visitors, particularly visitors who pose any threat to the residents. It is the right of every tenant under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and this would apply to other young women and their children living in the program, to expect to find peaceful enjoyment of their residence. If the visits of threatening or violent people are disturbing their peaceful enjoyment under the Landlord and Tenant Act, with the cooperation of the police, the landlord and other tenants can take moves against such unwanted visits.

Mr Malkowski: Will the minister agree to work with Massey Centre to deal with the problems it faces as a result of this legislation?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I met about a week and a half ago with representatives of the Massey Centre. I had previously visited the centre. I made the offer to them that in any way possible the Ministry of Housing will assist their particular program as it comes to grips with operating within the Landlord and Tenant Act, which, I should point out, has been the operating framework for many non-profit programs in the past, programs that have care components attached to them.

So it's not impossible, and the ministry will undertake a proactive effort to advise and assist programs which, once the passage of Bill 120 has been assured, will be operating within the landlord and tenant framework of this province.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last year your government introduced a $50 annual filing fee for small businesses, in fact for any businesses in the province of Ontario. What it was essentially was a tax grab that provided absolutely no service for those businesses. If it was a onetime filing fee, that might be understandable, but this is an annual fee. You're coming back to businesses year after year and asking them for that $50.

Minister, will you commit to getting rid of that tax grab in the budget this Thursday, when the Treasurer reads his budget, Thursday, May 5? Will you commit for your government to remove that obvious and very blatant tax grab on the small businesses of the province of Ontario?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Just say yes.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): He wants me to just say yes. That would simplify it, wouldn't it? However, I can't do that, because, as I've explained in the House before, the reason this government brought back this annual filing fee is because the records were in such disarray.

Thousands and thousands of companies and people use this information on a daily basis, and it's really important that these notices be kept up to date. Unfortunately, what happens when there isn't a specific requirement is that businesses and non-profits do not let the ministry know when circumstances change. It is a real problem.

Other provinces do this. The federal government does this. I believe it was a Tory government which years ago removed it, and it just didn't work. We have to keep those records up to date for the benefit of the people who use them.

Mr McClelland: Quite frankly, Minister, your answer defies logic. If in fact the records needed updating, and let's consider that a given for a moment, it would seem reasonable that you'd have a fee to go with that. It would also seem reasonable, therefore, that you would have a fee when you change and amend filing. But don't have a perpetual annual fee that punishes people for being in business.

Minister, everywhere we've gone across this province on our jobs and growth paper, our jobs task force has heard from businesses over and over again that your government refuses to allow businesses to breathe and operate in this province. What you continually do, Minister, and the message you send business, is, "We're going to hit you at every turn."

Minister, last week your Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, said that this was going to be a budget that was committed to creating jobs and it would be pro small business. You can send a very clear, obvious signal that business is welcome in this province of Ontario by taking a simple step and being reasonable in removing an unreasonable fee.

Minister, it is not reasonable to ask people to file when they're not providing any new information and to punish them every year for being in business. Will you advocate on behalf of small business and go to your colleagues and say, "Get rid of that fee," and allow businesses the opportunity to do what they should do, create a profit and create jobs in this province?

Hon Ms Churley: I realize that this is a very popular fee for the opposition to be slamming. I understand that in certain quarters it's symbolic. However, it's $50 per year for corporations and $25 per year for non-profits. Every other province in Canada, I understand, has this fee. The federal government has this fee. We only hear about it here in Ontario because it's fairly new again.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The least you could do is throw in a lottery ticket.

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

Hon Ms Churley: We looked very closely at the necessity to bring this annual filing in. We think it is important -- it has been proven that it is important -- that we keep these files up to date. It seems the only way to do it is to require that people file every year, and yes, there's a cost associated with that that we believe the general taxpayer shouldn't have to cover.

I hope that explanation, although I recognize the opposition likes to make a big deal out of this, and I know it's unpopular in the business community -- it is only $50 a year and it ensures that for these corporations, the information we have and the information to the public who are searching through these files is the correct information.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Transportation: The minister, I'm sure, remembers that the Chrétien federal Liberals in the election campaign of last fall promised to pay one third of the cost of completing Highway 416.

I understand that you have met with the minister responsible for the infrastructure program recently. Can you tell this House today what the results of that meeting were? When is the money coming? We're most interested. That highway has to be completed soon.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member is right: Highway 416 is a link of symbolic importance to the nation's capital.

Despite the promise of Liberal MP Jim Jordan of $60 million, there is no money coming from Ottawa. I met with Mr Eggleton, who is the minister responsible for the infrastructure program -- I'm talking here about the municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program -- and Mr Eggleton personally assured me, when I met with him for two hours nine days ago, that the money is fully committed.

What we've done singlehandedly today on Highway 416, the northern section, the Ministry of Transportation, since 1990, has spent $75 million, creating 1,500 jobs. We've also accelerated the date of completion, so when all is said and done, by 1996 we will have spent $125 million on the northern section, creating 2,500 jobs with not a penny from federal participation.

Mr Villeneuve: A lot more than symbolism here, because we have many --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): It's not selling in Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Mr Villeneuve: We have many tragedies on that highway, and that's more than symbolism. These are lost lives, and it's because there is a lot more traffic than the highway was ever intended to carry. We're talking about $175 million and many thousands of jobs.

From 1980 to 1985 the Ontario Progressive Conservative government acquired all the land and got everything ready for this highway. The Liberals came to power, made all sorts of promises. They didn't quite occur. We now have another government in power. Highway 416 is urgent. It's more than symbolism to the nation's capital; it's a safety factor for many American tourists coming in.

When can we expect completion of Highway 416?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right: They did some value engineering, property acquisition. We're putting people to work shovelling the ground. We realize the safety importance. We have a safety program never equalled before. We're going forward with our safety program.

When you're talking about the southern portion of Highway 416, you're looking at $380 million. We can't do it alone. What we need is participation from the federal government. You're right. Where is the $60 million? Where is it?

Then we're also looking to tolling the 416, but tolling will not pay for the cost of the project. Tolling by itself won't do it because of volume. Innovative financing, federal participation, we've already shown our cards and our willingness -- the political will is there -- to do it on the northern section. We'll look forward with the commitment. Put the money, the cheque, in the envelope and address it to Queen's Park. We're going to the private sector for innovation in tolling. Then we'll put more people to work and we'll have the 416 if they will participate.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Housing. In today's Toronto Star there is this editorial entitled, "Let Auditor Probe Housing Boondoggle." This

article claims that you were "aware of financial irregularities at a provincially funded non-profit housing agency in Toronto, but" were "too slow to act." It also claims that you "knew about financial troubles but" were "reluctant to make them public."

It goes on to say the ministry "tried to hide two 1990 audits...that uncovered questionable spending and hidden bank accounts at Houselink Community Homes Inc." It also makes mention of "unauthorized spending, shady accounting and excessive salaries at Houselink."

I find this extremely disturbing. I want to know, Minister, are you trying to hide the results of this audit? Is this mismanagement and misspending really going on in your ministry?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I read the Toronto Star editorial too, and while I was encouraged by the fact that the Toronto Star editorial indicated support for the non-profit housing program on the whole, it certainly did make some questionable kinds of conclusions about the discussions which had gone on here in the Legislature and in public discussion over the last several days.

If I could just make the record clear, the Ministry of Housing undertook an audit of its contracts with Houselink in the early period of 1990, before our government was elected. That audit was reported to the Ministry of Housing in the fall of 1990, and from that point on the Ministry of Housing undertook a series of measures in order to ensure that the recommendations put forward in the audit were being carried out, and in fact had a great deal of cooperation from Houselink, the non-profit organization, in that whole effort.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Look up there when you're saying it to the Star.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St Catharines is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: There was no attempt to hide audits. There was a request from a reporter at the Toronto Star to have access to the audits. That request was turned down. A few weeks ago, when I learned that it had been turned down on the grounds that it would interfere with third-party interests, I asked for a review of the decision by the Ministry of Housing, and the audit has been made public.

SECURITY AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, you will know that in the good riding of Brampton South we have Vanier Centre for Women, the Ontario correctional facility. I'm sure you're concerned about safety, or at least I hope you are.

However, I wonder if you're aware of the fact that a new locking system was installed at Vanier Centre for Women at a cost of $160,000. As a result of a Ministry of Labour hearing on a grievance, they have indicated that this locking system -- at $160,000, which is money that's needed for other things -- is going to have to be replaced.

I further understand that rather than accept that and remedy the situation for an additional expenditure of money, your ministry is planning on appealing this decision, which will cost far greater amounts than replacing the locking system.

Mr Minister, are you concerned about the safety of the residents in my community because the locking system is a danger to them? Equally, are you concerned about the people who work in the correctional facility at Vanier in terms of their safety? What are you going to do about it?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): The safety of our employees, the community and inmates is clearly a very high priority for this ministry, and let me say that it was under the leadership of the honourable member's government and the preceding government. On that, we never have any disagreement.

Let me say that with regard to the issue of locks, as the honourable member will know, there was an issue some months ago that has been addressed and dealt with in concert with the Chair of Management Board, who has responsibility for facilities in the province of Ontario. With regard to the specifics at Vanier, I would have to take the questions as a matter of notice and get back to him on the details of the local officials' apparent position that he's offering up today.

Mr Callahan: Minister, the $160,000 that was spent on this locking system that doesn't lock could have been spent on a higher fence. It's well known that there have been numerous people who have decided to take a walk at night and not come back by scaling the fence that surrounds Vanier Centre. They couldn't put in a higher fence because they didn't have the money to do it.

So I have to say, Minister, are you really serious about the safety of the people in my community in terms of potential escape? Are you really serious about the safety of the workers in those correctional facilities when you can blow $160,000 on a locking system that is unsafe and not be able to put up proper fencing to ensure that the inmates remain there and not stroll around Brampton South and the environs?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I obviously take at value the comments the honourable member is making with regard to the safety of his community, and that indeed is his role here. Let me say that I am not of an opinion that Vanier is of particular concern right now. However, out of respect for the specifics he has raised here, I am prepared to take the matters as notice and I will respond to him in detail with regard to those specifics he has raised here today.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. It's a question that was asked of him at least twice last year and it has to do with the Liberal requirement that 30% of soft drinks must be sold in refillable containers. That question was put to you at least twice last year. What has the ministry been doing to ensure that the 30% requirement is being fulfilled?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member is probably aware that the 30% has not been met and that there has not been any action taken, as far as I am aware. In the interim, the ministry has been actively involved in negotiations with members of the private sector, including the soft drink manufacturers, for an approach that would mean a considerable increase in the private sector financing for the 3Rs program, specifically for the blue box, to assist in the funding of the blue box.

The question of the 30% requirement has not been a matter of discussion in those negotiations, but the question of how we deal with that will certainly be one of importance, pending the result of those negotiations.

Mr Tilson: I am aware that you're having difficulty with this policy. That leads to a question I'd like you to be little more specific on, because either you're going to enforce the requirement or you're going to drop the policy. If it's not working, why have it?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member will know that the minister does not make a decision with regard to enforcement or non-enforcement. It would be quite improper for me, as a minister, to make a statement that we would or would not enforce.

The question of whether the policy should remain is one that, as I said, will be addressed anon, after the outcome of the negotiations. I want to make clear that the two matters are not connected, but of course they involve both the government and the companies that are committed to the 30%. I would think we will be making some decisions around the policy in the not-too-distant future.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, the House will meet on the morning of Wednesday, May 4, 1994, for the consideration of private members' public business and that the House will not meet on the morning of Thursday, May 5, 1994.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this document. I'm also sending to the Minister of Transportation and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs cards that were sent by my constituents.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition that says:

"Save our medicare plan. I believe we have the best medical system in the world. Skyrocketing costs and abuse are going to kill it. I believe one way of saving what we have is a fee for service, payable by each patient."

It's signed by a number of constituents in my riding and I put it forth to you.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's my pleasure to present a petition signed by 350 electors. It reads:

"Whereas it is a basic right of every adult human being to form a committed spousal relationship with another adult person of their choice under the protection of the law and without discrimination based on whether the individuals are the same or opposite gender;

"Whereas persons in this province who are members of same-sex families are improperly denied basic, fundamental protection, freedoms, rights and advantages accorded to families solely because they are not of opposite sexes;

"Whereas the Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that the denial of these rights is discriminatory and unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of faith communities oppose ending such discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, as members of faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I affix my signature to that.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

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

I am very supportive this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from Middlesex constituents who utilize the emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury. Approximately 1,600 people dependent upon the services of Four Counties General Hospital petition the Legislative Assembly to call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments and ensure that rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are entitled. I have signed my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition addressed 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 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and 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."

This petition is signed by about 300 Ontario citizens.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from the Oshawa branch church of the North York Chinese Baptist Church, brought to me by Ivy and Donald Yan from Whitby and signed by a number of hardworking Chinese Christians. This petition is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and they are concerned with a Liberal bill, Bill 45, and they want to express their concerns about that bill and about its effect on their families.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition signed by almost 1,000 people in the riding of Durham East and the surrounding area.

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the issue of legalized casino gambling is a sensitive issue; and

"Whereas 'This government has said it will not put a casino anywhere there is not overwhelming support' (written statement by NDP MPP Margaret Harrington of Niagara Falls presented at the September 2, 1993, public hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs regarding Bill 8); and

"Whereas we believe that the city council of Niagara Falls, Ontario, has not received a mandate to introduce casino gambling from the people of Niagara Falls at the last municipal election;

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

"We, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of St Catharines to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is broad-based public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

I put my signature to this petition.

CANCER TREATMENT

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

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

"That the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Health to respond forthwith to issues raised in the Liberal task force on cancer care, including the urgent need for radiation equipment, addressing shortages in trained personnel and providing adequate information and non-medical services for patients."

This is signed by several residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; 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 the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

I've got about 10 pages of these, and I'll just pass these on to the table officer.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition on behalf of my constituents from Twin Elms in Strathroy, who petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I have most certainly signed my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:"

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You don't need to heckle petitions, for goodness' sake.

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

"Bill 55" -- which, I would add, has not been formally withdrawn from this place -- "would make it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation" --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that Don Cousens's bill?

Mr Mahoney: It is Don Cousens's bill.

"This is a grave threat to 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, ie 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 a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

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

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

ENTERPRISE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise to present this petition on behalf of the Honourable Fred Wilson, member for Frontenac-Addington, from a number of his constituents. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, taxpayers of Lennox and Addington, register our opposition to the board motion to twin Enterprise Public School."

The member for Frontenac-Addington has affixed his name.

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe that when we adjourned the debate the last time, we had two more questions or comments to Mr Phillips's remarks. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I well recall that the remarks made by Mr Phillips were extremely important in that they pointed out that to derive not only the amount of revenue that this legislation might produce but a much greater amount of revenue, all government had to do was simply close a number of loopholes.

There have been significant studies done in this direction. As I recall, last week when Mr Phillips was speaking on this, what he had to say at that time was that when, as the government calls it, the Fair Tax Commission -- I call it the NDP Tax Commission -- reported, one of the things it dealt with was this kind of legislation.

There was division obviously within the people who were on the commission as to whether it was advisable to move forward with such legislation, but they could not agree to it, and the reason was that they said there was a better way of doing it and that was to close some loopholes.

They said that at the present time, as Mr Phillips has said, governments have set out programs that encourage business to do certain things with what are potentially profits; that is, to reinvest those profits so that they would in fact provide new job opportunities. There isn't a member of this House at this time who wouldn't like to see those new job opportunities.

Second, they could be in a position of enhancing the remuneration of those who are in their employ, and of course the government can receive from that income taxes, or if the money is in the hands of those people, the government can receive sales taxes if they are spending that money.

So I think the suggestions that were made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, were very good observations. They're very accurate observations, and the government should certainly take them into consideration this afternoon and beyond today.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or further comments? Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 146, which basically involves two issues: One is the minimum corporate tax, as well as the issue of tax-deductible meals and entertainment expenses being reduced from 80% to 50%.

It is interesting that this bill deals with budget matters that go back to the 1992 and more specifically the 1993 budgets. The Minister of Finance has indicated that his budget four days hence, which itself is an irony -- we're now debating a bill involving the past two budgets when we're about to introduce a budget this coming Thursday, which the Treasurer indicates is going to help small business. He has indicated that he hopes this forthcoming budget will help small business, the very group of people who are creating jobs in this province. So it is ironic with that as well that we are now about to embark on passing Bill 146.

Bill 146, which replaces two other bills, was just introduced on March 30 last, but it does replace Bill 66 and Bill 133, and no question, it creates something of a tactical problem in terms of voting on the legislation, since it contains corporate tax decreases provided in the 1992 budget, but as I said, more importantly, provides for the implementation of the corporate minimum tax, as was proposed in the famous, or notorious rather, NDP Agenda for People, which was the platform of their last election.

The NDP has indicated that this is a tax that's coming, and it has indeed arrived. Of course, it was proposed in the 1993 budget. As well, tax-deductible meals and entertaining expenses are reduced from 80% to 50%. I am sure the members for the New Democratic Party will say that this is the same level as is in Quebec and in the United States. In fact, I think the 1994 federal budget paralleled this move as well, so it's not something that's new, although I guess the main crunch of my remarks is that clearly small business is hurting, the whole operation of small business is hurting, and it's a very strange time to bring it about when small business is trying to develop in this province.

Now, the bill indicates that the tax, if I could deal specifically with the minimum corporate tax, applies to firms with gross revenues of more than $10 million a year or total assets of more than $5 million.

I suppose the Minister of Finance has indicated, "Oh, well, it mainly applies to the big companies that are trying to get a hold of tax loopholes." But when you think of what small businesses own, whether it be large amounts of capital or large amounts of real property, it doesn't take long for those small businesses, which may be struggling to keep alive and struggling to keep employment going in this province, to have assets that total $5 million.

I think that if the stats were looked at, we would see that there would be a large number of small businesses that this particular piece of legislation is going to apply to, although the government has indicated that the corporate minimum tax will apply to only 10% of Ontario firms. I hope they have stats for that, because I think it's going to apply to a lot more.

Although it's been said before, I think we should be clear how exactly this corporate minimum tax is going to be phased in. As of January 1, 1994, it will be calculated at 2% of the average book income; in 1995, at 3%; in 1996, at 4%. It has been said in the media reports and elsewhere that it's expected it will generate $100 million per year.

The other interesting thing that I think we should all realize is that it's not included in the 1993-94 provincial revenue projections, which means, I suppose, to be cynical, there's a nine-month window to flee the province, if you really are cynical about how a bill is affecting the way that you operate.

I would like to refer to some comments that have been made about the Treasurer and his philosophy, because you have to look at his philosophy -- not specifically with Bill 146, but his philosophy to get the economy in this province back on track. There's no question that the major concerns of us all, of all three parties in this place -- or members of this Legislature, which would include independent members -- are with the issue of unemployment. When saying that, you have to look at the effect that Bill 146 is going to have on those businesses that are providing employment to this province.

The Treasurer has said, "Oh, well, we're just trying to fix up tax loopholes," as if, of course, the province of Ontario doesn't follow loopholes. I mean, to be cynical, we look at what the government did with respect to the GO Transit and taking a junket to Bermuda to work out some strange transaction there simply to take advantage of certain laws.

I guess I look at small businesses and corporations that are trying to create capital, to create a profit, to reinvest in capital, to reinvest for the purposes of expanding, to create more jobs, and here we are with Bill 146, putting a corporate minimum tax on it, whether they're making a profit or not or the size of their profit, on a company that perhaps would be reinvesting in this province and reinvesting in jobs in this province. So the rationale is questionable.

There was an

article in the Windsor Star, and I suppose this type of comment has been referred to throughout the province, the minister saying that things are looking up in this province. There was an

article of April 7 in the Windsor Star where the Minister of Finance said that things are looking up. He said his words may be cold comfort for the more than 10% of the population who are unemployed, but he said the economy is improving.

The fact of the matter is that this employment issue continues to exist. The Jobs Ontario adventure that the government has got us into has failed miserably, and if he doesn't do something with respect to encouraging small business to reinvest in this province, to increase the size of its operations, then this province is in big trouble.

It's for that reason that I and members of my caucus are opposed to Bill 146, because it's discouraging the doing of business in this province. We want companies to invest, small and large. We want companies to expand so that badly needed jobs can be created in this province. Bill 146 does nothing but discourage the promotion of jobs and of expansion in this province.

Getting back to this article, Mr Laughren said that he gets the impression that with the sharp dip in the stock market and rising interest rates, people are beginning to feel pessimistic again about the future. Then the

article concludes by saying: "Laughren said unemployment is the biggest nagging problem facing Ontario. 'We should be fretting about the fear of inflation. We should be doing what we can on the job side.'" If he believes in that, if he believes that what we should be doing is what we can do on the job side, then he shouldn't be implementing these 1992 and 1993 -- mainly 1993 -- implementations of the budget and the corporate minimum tax, because it clearly is not going to increase the job creation in this province.

I tried to find some different resources as to what jobs are leaving the province, what companies are leaving the province. There are periodically articles in the media across this province that indicate where different companies are going.

They're going for any number of reasons, and I'm sure it's not specifically Bill 146. It could be tax measures that the federal government's put forward, it could be tax measures that the provincial government's put forward, but the fact of the matter is that Bill 146 is part of this mosaic of making it very, very difficult to do business in the province of Ontario. I can tell you that you have to start somewhere stopping this practice of making it difficult to do business in the province of Ontario.

There was an

article in the Toronto Star on April 23 which talked about job losses specifically in the city of Barrie, although I think this

article could apply anywhere in this province. It talked about a tool plant that had moved to the United States, 100 jobs moved there to the United States, and then it went back and talked about the number of job losses there have been in that area over the last number of years.

There's no question that these losses, as I indicated, cannot be attributable to Bill 146, but the overall piece of the puzzle which Bill 146 is is indeed causing that.

Quoting from the article, "Cooper Tools, one of the last survivors of this city's manufacturing base" -- and that's Barrie -- "is moving most of its operations to North Carolina." That seems to crop up more and more as to the number of businesses that are moving to that area.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Does that mean the end of industries?

Mr Tilson: Well, they're moving to North Carolina, in answer to your question. I'm hearing specifically from businesses that are moving to that specific state and they're moving because of the strange tax laws this province has and, to be quite fair, our country has. We should be stopping that move.

"The decision to move to the low-wage US south spells the end of about 100 jobs at the Barrie factory, which opened in 1948.

"The closing