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

May 27, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE DEPARTMENT AWARDS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Last Wednesday, May 20, I had the privilege of attending a special awards ceremony given by Chief Boughen and the Port Hope Fire Department in honour of five heroes who, with no thought of self-danger, instinctively reacted to save a family from a raging house fire.

Of particular note were the courageous actions of a 13-year-old family member, Sarah Johnson. When she heard her mother's warnings and saw the danger, she ran down the second-floor hallway and led her seven-year-old sister Shauna and her four-year-old brother Austin to her bedroom. She then helped them out of her bedroom window on to the rear porch roof, away from the direction of the billowing clouds of thick smoke, and ordered them to lie down on the roof.

Her loud screams attracted a neighbour, Peter Schoon, who grabbed a ladder and went to the children's aid. By this time the house was engulfed in smoke and flames. Peter then lowered the children to another neighbour, Mel Perrie, who together with Starr Rath and Roy Burgess made sure the children were ministered to and looked after.

The fact that this remarkable young girl, Sarah Johnson, was able to remember and put into practice the lessons the members of the fire department had taught when they visited the area school is very significant. As well, Chief Boughen and his crew did a superb job in containing and extinguishing the blaze which prevented further damage to the surrounding homes.

Everyone involved in this emergency life-threatening situation is to be commended for their calm and courageous actions in what might have been a devastating tragedy of lost lives. I am sure all members would want to join with me in applauding these local Port Hope heroes and heroines.

LABATT'S ONTARIO BREWERIES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On May 14, Labatt Brewing announced that due to economic factors it would be closing its Waterloo plant and that about 200 jobs would be lost. I want to indicate my concern about yet another plant closing in my community and to express my profound admiration for the employees who tried so hard to make their plant work. The Labatt's brewery on King Street in Waterloo has roots extending back to 1844, when the Kuntz brewery was founded. This brewery was not only an integral part of our local economy, but also an important part of Kitchener-Waterloo's heritage.

I would like to pay tribute at this time to the efforts of the workers at the brewery, who have been described as the best Labatt's workforce in Canada. During the past few years they have tried hard to increase their plant's productivity and have been leaders in innovative work practices and efficiency. They responded to the challenge of keeping their plant economically viable with commendable dedication. The truly tragic aspect of this situation is that these efforts were ultimately futile.

However, I say to the workers from all of us in Waterloo North, appreciation and sincere thanks for a job well done.

HERITAGE WEEK

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today I want to draw attention to the Heritage Week festivities taking place in my riding of Durham East and in particular in the town of Bowmanville. The week-long events are so many that my 90-second time allotment prevents me from mentioning them all.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the historical walking tour of the town of Bowmanville this Friday at 1:30 pm. For children there is the teddy bear clinic, where they can bring their teddy bears for a checkup at Orono town hall on Saturday at 10 am. Also on Saturday at Bowmanville Lions Club there is a Christian prayer breakfast hosted by the town of Newcastle. Come and listen to hockey great Paul Henderson.

On Sunday perhaps the highlight of the week is the environmental fair which is being conducted in the Bowmanville arena. The price is right. It doesn't cost anything, the babysitting is free and it proposes to be just a super, wonderful day for all the environment lovers.

Come to Bowmanville this week and share our enjoyment with us.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, the beautiful little community in my riding which you had the pleasure of visiting this past spring is facing a possible disaster. The condition of the Sioux Lookout sewage treatment plant is critical. Not only is it operating at capacity; it has deteriorated to such a degree that it could experience a major breakdown at any time without warning. If this happens, raw untreated sewage will be released into Pelican Lake, the source of the town's drinking water.

The potential health and environmental hazards are unthinkable, yet another application for funding to construct a new sewage treatment plant sent in to the Ministry of the Environment has received little attention. The town has made this project priority one for its community. Measures have been brought in to conserve water and for the past year the town has been forced to put a freeze on any development.

The town of Sioux Lookout has much potential. It serves as a resource and service centre for many of the northern native communities. With the move towards native self-government, Sioux Lookout's position as a centre will increase. Unfortunately, its economic and social development are being hindered by the limited capacity of its present plant.

I, along with the people of Sioux Lookout and the communities it services, am asking the Minister of the Environment to make this funding request a priority with her ministry.

KIN CLUBS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): For the past few days I've had the honour of touring my riding, attending ceremonies sponsored by my local Kinsman and Kinette clubs.

Most members will think of the Kinsman organization as being a service club devoted to community betterment. They think of the valuable contribution made by these groups to cystic fibrosis and the assistance they have given to research and to aiding sufferers of the disease. They will also think of their new work with Operation Go Home, to assist runaway youngsters, and Operation Shining Light, which helps victims of child abuse.

But this week Kinsman and Kinette clubs across Ontario had another worthy cause to promote -- national unity. At a time when emotions are high, they have seized the opportunity to celebrate Canada's 125th birthday by bringing whole communities together, young and old alike, to pledge their love and support for our country.

The clubs started one Canadian flag travelling west from British Columbia and another one coming east from Newfoundland. They are being raised in cities and towns along the way until they meet at the Terry Fox memorial in Thunder Bay.

Grey was fortunate enough to have clubs in Durham, Flesherton, Feversham, Hanover, Owen Sound, Meaford and Thornbury participating. As well, each club provided a second flag with a huge border on which thousands were able to sign their names. This initiative heightened the awareness of the thread which holds us together and engendered the resolve to strengthen it.

I applaud the efforts of everyone involved. I especially thank Kinsmen Dave Hurst and Rusty Reidt of Hanover and Tom Bumstead of Meaford for their dedication and their commitment to Canada.

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to recognize the important work of the London Family Court Clinic child witness program in helping child victims and witnesses understand the criminal justice system and their role as witnesses.

Last Monday in London, where my riding is located, I was pleased to announce on behalf of the Attorney General $280,000 in continued funding to be shared equally between the London and Toronto programs. Crimes against children too often have not been acted on by the criminal justice system because a child just doesn't understand the court process. Too often, a child who has suffered abuse undergoes the further ordeal of fear, stress and confusion in the courtroom.

Now, at 12 sites across the province such as London, we are the sole funding provider. Federal funding has dried up, but the New Democratic government of Ontario is following through on its budget commitment to maintain important programs and services. We will ensure that through support from the child witness program, children are not further victimized by a system that is set up to protect them.

There is also a wider benefit. Young, impressionable individuals are being shown caring and concern are at the heart of our justice system and that access to and respect for the laws are for everyone. I commend the work of Peter Jaffe, Louise Sas and other members of the project team of London Family Court Clinic child witness program. May their influence be as strong as their efforts.

HIGHWAY BILLBOARDS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have received from several of my constituents and several people who are not constituents letters of concern directed towards the new Ministry of Transportation policy about non-commercial signs along the highways of our province.

Although I have disagreement with some people who advertise on some of the billboards we see placed on our highways, I none the less respect the right of people to express through the posting of signs along our major highways their points of view, whatever the subject matter.

I have written to the Minister of Transportation and he kindly wrote me a letter in reply, which says basically that there has been no change in the policy, merely a demonstration of more precision in the way they enforce their "field sign regulation." The minister has changed the regulation to eliminate a reference in the regulation to the word "service." That then requires only the field staff to allow the placement of business or commercial signs along our major thoroughfares.

I believe this is a real incursion against freedom of speech. It represents a problem with respect to the way we are able to practise our religions in this province and the minister should own up to that.

I might add that some of the people who wrote to me also wrote to Mr Klopp, the member for Huron. Through a phone call, Mr Klopp has conveyed to at least one minister in the riding of Huron that "the government might be open to some changes." At this particular time I want the Minister of Transportation to tell us what the government is open to changing with respect to non-commercial signs.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the minister with dual responsibilities for native affairs and natural resources. Natives and non-natives alike are outraged by the lack of information and mixed signals your ministries are sending and providing to the people of Ontario with respect to your interim enforcement policy on aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food.

Minister, you have an obligation to clear the air over this matter. People want you to explain exactly what controls you have put in place to ensure appropriate conservation of crown land and that such natural resources as forests, fish, wildlife and minerals are protected. You have an obligation to explain why you have directed your conservation officers not to lay charges against native Ontarians when they are clearly abusing your interim enforcement policy by using nets and spears to harvest spawning fish in a manner that puts conservation at risk.

Minister, surely you must know you're creating friction between groups of people by keeping your interim enforcement policy wrapped in a veil of secrecy. The time is long overdue for you to truthfully and completely tell the people of Ontario just what your interim enforcement policy really means and what percentage of forests, fish, wildlife and mineral resources you are prepared to turn over to native control.

Minister, you have an obligation to put an end to the anti-native backlash and the abuse of our natural resources you have created with your interim enforcement policy.

EAST YORK DAY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On Sunday, May 24, 1992, the mayor's committee on multicultural and race relations in the borough of East York held its 15th annual East York Day festival. I wish to share with the House how much I enjoyed participating in this event, which was held at the East York Collegiate Institute.

The East York Day activities provided a rich atmosphere through the display of different cultural and heritage traditions representing many different countries. These activities served as a forum for promoting and developing healthy race and ethnic relations and respect among people of diverse backgrounds.

The Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and his worship Mayor David Johnson, mayor of East York, officially opened the festival.

Members of the House may wish to commend Mr Shamsh Kara, chairperson of the East York Day committee, who is sitting with us today, on providing excellent leadership in making East York Day a successful and enjoyable one.

The festival provided an opportunity for many racial and cultural groups from across my riding of York East to showcase their arts, handicrafts, entertainments and ethnic cuisine for the enjoyment of all those people who were able to participate.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under rule 32(

a) I would seek your guidance and assistance. On April 14 I asked a question to the Minister of Labour wherein it had come to our attention that the Ministry of Labour's Workers' Health and Safety Centre had sent almost its entire staff on a two-and-a-half-day retreat at the posh Queen's Landing Inn at Niagara-on-the-Lake. In response, the minister indicated that he would get back to me in terms of why the decision was made to hold the session in Niagara Falls.

That question was posed on April 14, and I recognize that the standing rules, under 32(a), do permit a minister to take an oral question as notice, to be answered at a later date. But I seek your guidance and assistance on this point: that I posed the question on April 14; it is now May 27, and I have yet to receive a response from the Minister of Labour on what I feel was a very straightforward question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga North, I appreciate him drawing this matter to my attention, and indeed appreciate his natural interest in having a very speedy response. There is nothing in the standing orders nor our precedents that would prescribe a time limit for responses. However, the member has now raised it in the chamber again, and perhaps it will have the desired effect shortly.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We, as well as the Conservative Party, were notified that the Attorney General would be making a statement in the House today. We were provided with a copy of the statement, and we're certainly ready to respond. We're curious as to whether he will be here. I'm sure there would be unanimous consent for him to make his statement --

The Speaker: If the member would take his seat. I understand that a copy of the statement has been provided. We've been provided with everything except the Attorney General. Can the government House leader enlighten us?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No. I can see if I can find him.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Here he comes.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The Attorney General is here. May I rise on a point of order after we have our statements? Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PARKING OFFENCES

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Today I am pleased to introduce legislation which will make important changes to Ontario's system of processing parking tickets.

With an estimated 3 million to 4 million parking tickets issued each year, the system has had a surprisingly small proportion of glitches. However, there are some problems, such as wrongful convictions, which have been extremely annoying for thousands of motorists.

The legislation contains three key amendments which will greatly reduce the problems with wrongful convictions of motorists, and it will also make it easier for municipalities to take direct control of the collection of fines.

At present, administrative errors in parking offences can result in motorists being wrongfully convicted. This happens when the ticketing officer writes down the wrong licence number or when incorrect data are entered into the computer system. When a motorist is matched up with this incorrect data, the first time he hears about it is when he receives a notice of conviction. All MPPs, I'm sure, have had some complaints about this kind of problem. We are proposing, therefore, amendments which will give the motorist increased protection against wrongful conviction.

First, municipalities will be required to provide motorists with advance notice of an intent to seek a court conviction. In this way motorists can respond to any error that has been made before a conviction is entered. As well, ticketing officers will have to include the month of renewal of the licence sticker, which is on the upper right-hand corner of the licence plate. This allows for a cross-check of information to verify ownership.

Second, we are simplifying the conviction process for parking offences by proposing that municipalities be allowed to certify that a ticket is indeed valid. They can then obtain a conviction through a court clerk rather than requiring a justice of the peace. We estimate that this process will significantly reduce the demand on the court's time. However, should the ticketing officer write an invalid ticket on which a conviction is entered and is overturned in court, the bill allows for a $25 penalty in costs against the municipality. Again, this is to ensure more thorough protection for the motorist from wrongful conviction.

Another serious problem is that of unpaid parking fines. Currently, nearly half of the parking tickets issued in the province are simply ignored by the motorist. The municipality is forced to wait for a conviction from the court after an examination by a justice of the peace. With this streamlined process, municipalities can follow up on fine collection much more quickly, because fewer matters will be filed with the court and convictions can be obtained through a court clerk. And since municipalities will have the option of directly collecting outstanding fines, motorists can expect to hear much sooner about their unpaid parking tickets.

These amendments do not change the current process of plate denial or allowing motorists to prepay fines with a guilty plea or the opportunity to require a trial, but this bill does address the need to improve efficiency and eliminate the irritant of wrongful conviction. I trust my colleagues in the House will join me in supporting these changes.

RESPONSES

PARKING OFFENCES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): We welcome this particular announcement, but again it's long overdue. In fact, had this particular provision been introduced in a proper manner, it would have saved a lot of hardship for the member for Cambridge, whose staff, because of this bureaucratic mixup, had to endure trying to fix traffic ticket charges and a lot of other inconveniences for this government and the public.

But the point is that this minister and this ministry should be properly named the Minister of Inertia, because virtually nothing is happening with this ministry. On the question of legal aid, there are people out there in the legal profession and the public who are waiting for some action and announcements from this minister, and again it is a question of inertia. There's no action taking place. There's a whole series of inactions on the part of this particular ministry.

Mr Speaker, I see you're looking at me with some consternation. I think the issue here is why it took so long to bring this in and why it's taking so long to introduce other matters.

One particular issue I want to bring to the attention of the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues is something the Attorney General should be addressing his attention to in a significant manner, and that's a very serious question in the ministry dealing with sexual harassment. We have in the last issue of the Law Times a front-page story of some significance to this Legislature and to the ministry.

The headline says, "Court Administrator Claims Bosses Ignored Complaints About Judge Sex Harassment." I'm going to read a few quotes, because I think it's very instructive, and I'm demanding at this point that either the minister responsible for women's issues or the Attorney General conduct an inquiry into what has been going on in the Belleville courthouse. It's something that they have slipped under the carpet and they're trying to keep there. I'm going to refer --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment. The response time is for responding to the statement made by the minister. This particular statement has to do with parking fines. If the member could direct his remarks to the statement, it would be helpful.

Mr Chiarelli: This time, as far as I'm concerned and from what I've observed in four and a half years, is available to make comments on the ministry, and that's done day in and day out. I'm addressing his issue as one of inaction on a number of fronts.

One inaction has been how long his ministry has taken on this parking matter. Another inaction is what has not happened in his ministry with respect to these sexual assault charges, which must be addressed by his ministry. The charges in this

article are very severe. The facts are set out in a very responsible report. There is sexual harassment in the Ministry of the Attorney General which has not been dealt with, and the minister responsible for women's issues and the Ministry of the Attorney General are not addressing the issue. I'm taking this opportunity to ask the minister to conduct an inquiry.

The Speaker: I think it may be of some assistance to the member that we will shortly be having question period, and perhaps he has good subject material for questions during question period. Could you direct your remarks to the statement that was made?

Mr Chiarelli: I will, Mr Speaker. I mentioned that the member for Cambridge got into a lot of trouble because this particular law that was talked about today was not introduced earlier, and there are lot of other people getting in trouble because laws are introduced late, in an untimely manner and in an irresponsible manner. That's what I'm talking about here, Mr Speaker. It's directly related to the method by which this government introduces its initiatives. They are way overdue in addressing the sexual harassment charge in the courthouse in Belleville, and I'm asking publicly for an investigation.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa West really is touching on an entirely different subject than the one which was addressed by the Attorney General in his statement, and I would ask the member to keep that in mind.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, due to the fact that my time is up, I will conclude my remarks. I would ask the Attorney General to address the issues in his ministry on a timely basis. The one today was not timely, there are many others which are not timely, and I think it is time he had an investigation on this issue.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to respond to this action today, and clearly it is appropriate that we have amendments to allow that we do not have wrongful convictions. We are all very aware of the problems that exist.

However, I would say that I'm concerned as much with what it doesn't say as with what it does say in this statement. We are aware that apparently the Ministry of Transportation is moving to take away the ability of licence-issuing offices to collect parking fines, and that is a great concern to these offices. We have heard over and over again statements by the Ministry of Transportation as to what it is going to do, and then the very next day we find out that something different occurs. The people who run these offices have been promised alternative revenue; however, they've seen nothing to substantiate the government's claims.

Clearly it is appropriate that we use modern technology to validate that indeed the licence plate number is correct. This is quite a simple cross-check. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it should have been done a long time ago. However, we welcome it. We ask, though, that maybe in any efforts to speed up parking ticket payments the Attorney General should address himself to his other cabinet colleagues and suggest there are other urgent things that should be sped up.

For example, the Minister of the Environment sat on the Spadina light rapid transit project for a very long time and added cost and indeed slowed down the investment in infrastructure. That is very salient to the question of the parking tickets, because parking tickets occur simply because people cannot get around on the transit system. We've got to address ourselves to the urgent requirement of transit. We should indeed make sure that fines are addressed to road use and to transit because we know that municipalities are doing the same as the province, and that is that the money disappears into general revenue.

We've got to start spending money on our infrastructure, and it seems appropriate that parking fines would be invested in the roads.

I think that whole issue should go out to the whole cabinet. They should think of speeding up and simplifying government. But don't do it by the back door. Don't let us take away the incomes of private citizens running private licensing offices, people who are providing the province with a very good service at a very low cost. That's what the government is doing because it wants to see more bureaucrats. This is all part and parcel of this government's plan to completely socialize this province, that we will indeed end up with gazillions of civil servants and very few private business people.

I don't know where the tax money is going to come from to pay any parking fines if everybody is working for the government, because it is not productive money.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to talk for a moment about the conducting of business in this Legislative Assembly. There was in the daily press -- the Globe and Mail, to be specific -- an

article which brought into question the tactics of the Liberal Party of Ontario, an allegation made by the government House leader about the fact that we were, because of our inability, he said, to accept election defeat, holding up unusually long the business of the House.

An allegation like that is not only misplaced but in fact is designed to do but one thing, and that is to bring down the level of business activity in this House so that the New Democrats can have their way with us and move to put in streamlined procedures so that they can overcome any sort of opposition.

I rise on a point of order to point out to this House and to other people that in fact the arguments placed in the public record through the newspapers are not only incorrect but are designed to inject a little more enthusiasm into our resistance of some of the activities.

I bring to your attention standing order 6, which talks about the meeting of this House and only wish to advise you, Mr Speaker, that this government violated the standing orders of this House by refusing to bring us back to this place in the early part of March when the Premier, because he was afraid to see the people, decided to delay the sitting of this House. Now the government House leader has his nerve by going out publicly to the newspapers to say we can't conduct business.

Mr Speaker, I also rise to bring to your attention that while there are a number of pieces of legislation in front of us, the business of this House cannot be conducted in this place until the government brings before the people's representatives, to be studied and debated, the pieces of legislation which have been offered to the public, promised to the public, not only through its budget, not only through its throne speech but through other indirect statements to the public.

Those pieces of legislation we have not yet seen and this government is going to try to press through, without debate, will include the labour legislation, the environmental bill of rights, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the House leader conclude his point of order, please.

Mr Elston: -- the clean air act, the Ontario investment fund and several others.

We cannot conduct our business here if these people will not bring forward their legislative agenda in a timely manner so we can do our business. The reason we aren't doing the business is that they have no tenacity of purpose, I shall say, no resolve to bring in front of the public these pieces of legislation to be thoroughly dissected and analysed by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and those people, quite honestly, who even dare to disagree with their ideology.

We saw their labour paper coming out, which said they are prepared to neutralize any dissent. This latest

article printed in the Globe and Mail is but another in a long series of events designed to close off any reasonable debate and to shut down the work of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point as the member for Bruce, Mr Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the government House leader has chosen to negotiate normal proceedings that would take place at House leaders' meetings every Thursday morning through the media. I think that's extremely unfortunate.

I'd just like to reiterate a couple of the points the member for Bruce made. That is, (

a) if the government had such a heavy legislative agenda and it had so many things it wanted to accomplish in this session, indeed we should have been back here in March instead of in the month of April -- that would have saved us three weeks -- and (

b) how can the government House leader indicate to the media that he still has 11 or 12 substantial pieces of legislation to deal with? Next Monday, for his information, is June 1. I would have thought that if these pieces of legislation were so important to the government and it knew how it wanted to proceed, they would all have been tabled at least three weeks ago, not next week, not within the next two weeks.

I'm sure we can find many speeches by the government House leader in this place criticizing previous governments for doing far less than he's going to propose to do in the next couple of weeks, and I'm sure we'll be glad to read him back those quotes ad nauseam, on and on, about how dare a government wait until the last few weeks of a session to introduce a significant piece of legislation. Well, he isn't going to do that. He's going to try to introduce a significant 12 pieces of legislation, for which there'll be no time for debate in the Ontario Legislature, and try to ram them through, and if he doesn't get them through, he's going to blame the opposition for his own incompetence.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We've already heard your version in the Globe and Mail.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): No, you didn't hear it; you read it. But I'm glad you took a look at it.

I find the comments from the two opposition House leaders very interesting. With respect to the return date for the Legislature, some of us have come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter when we come back, because what happened last fall was that we came back here on the date prescribed in the rules and we did nothing for six weeks because the opposition parties wouldn't let anything go through the House. We've now been back in session --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: You see, Mr Speaker, we sat and listened to them, but they don't want to listen to us, which is quite typical of this place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: We've been back now for well over a month and we've got four pieces of legislation through the House: tax bills from the 1991 budget and a couple of Attorney General bills. I heard the critic for the Attorney General say today we're not doing anything. You didn't let us get the AG's bills through for about a year, so don't talk to me about that.

I am glad the House leader for the official opposition owned up to the real strategy of the opposition parties today, that is, that they don't intend to let us govern. They've never accepted the fact that we were elected on September 6. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, we were democratically elected and we're going to take whatever actions we have to take to be given the right to govern in this place. Whatever those actions of the government are, we will take those actions to take control of this place and not let an opposition party that is still wounded by its defeat in the last election try to govern this place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: I don't mind people joining the debate and disagreeing with me; I dislike the government House leader saying I said things that have not been said. In fact, I know it is a lie. I am not allowed to call him a liar, but what he said was contained in my remarks is not correct. It is totally without any factual basis whatsoever.

While I am on my feet, Mr Speaker, I again -- and I've talked to you about some of the language that's been used. I've heard people over there talking about how the opposition members are too stupid -- the Minister of Transportation in other places. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that this place is not going to be helped by this. I stood only to bring your attention to the fact that certain allegations were being made politically against our party, and against the opposition in general, about what these people could not do. It is against the standing rules of this place to impute motives in this House.

It is, as the government House leader has just done, against the rules to impute to me certain false statements.

What can we do, if we are to carry on business in a human fashion here, if we cannot stand and bring to your attention the fact that they talk about such a big, heavy agenda and they won't bring the material to our attention? I only ask you, sir, to consider those from the opposition's point of view.

The Speaker: To the three House leaders, let me briefly address two points:

(1) While I very deeply appreciate the point of order the member for Bruce brought to my attention with respect to the conducting of business in the House, there is nothing out of order; (2) the normal procedure followed for the orderly conducting of business in the chamber has been, by tradition, by way of the three House leaders meeting on a regular basis.

I have offered on previous occasions and I continue to offer that if there is any way in which my office can be of assistance in trying to provide a better vehicle or a better atmosphere for those meetings in order to have a more orderly conducting of business in the House, I'm more than delighted to do that.

If the House has come to order, then it is time for oral questions. The member for York Centre, on a different matter?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a related point of order, Mr Speaker: Under the standing orders, this session of this Parliament is to adjourn for the summer on June 26. I have been advised through a usually reliable source that the government House leader --

Mr Bradley: The Globe and Mail.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: You might just bear with me for a moment. The government House leader --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: As I was saying, the standing orders provide that this House would normally recess on June 26. I have been advised by a generally reliable source that the government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, has confidentially advised his own caucus members not to make vacation plans for the month of July. The suggestion is that he would be bringing forward a motion to require --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: -- that the government House leader has privately communicated to his caucus members not to make vacation plans for the month of July, presumably on the basis that he may be bringing forward a motion to this Parliament to extend its sitting into the month of July.

I would suggest to you, sir, that if that is indeed the case it violates the privileges of me as a member and of the other members of this House who have not been advised of that fact. I think the only fair thing to do is for the government House leader to stand in his place now and advise the House whether he has so communicated to his own caucus that information and why he hasn't communicated that to all the members of the House. I have as much right to make my vacation plans --

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, there are two points here. Number one, the member is absolutely right that the standing orders prescribe a parliamentary calendar, and the House will recess on the fourth Thursday of June.

Mr Sorbara: If he's making plans for us to be here, we should know about it.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, who raised a point of order, I'm responding to it. Second, however, the Speaker cannot deal with hypothetical situations. If and when any particular situation actually occurs, at that time I'm able to deal with it.

It is time for oral questions. The member for Renfrew North.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Treasurer and it concerns what clearly is the number one priority for all Ontarians, and that's jobs. I want to pursue with the Treasurer the question of summer jobs for students and the whole situation of youth unemployment.

I will not bore my friend the Treasurer with the data which have been brought forward in the last few days by his own government, but I want to take him back to some of the references he's made earlier this week, and that the Premier has made, in respect of what the government is doing in so far as stimulating job creation is concerned. Both the Premier and the minister of finance have indicated that the government will this year be providing, for example, 3,000 positions with the Environmental Youth Corps.

Does the Treasurer understand that at 3,000 -- actually, my information, provided by the government, is that there will be 3,168 positions provided this summer by the Environmental Youth Corps -- that will none the less be 20% fewer than were provided two years ago?

In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Summer Experience program, which offered 140 positions two years ago, will this year be offering 56 positions, a reduction of some 60%. The Niagara Parks Commission, which four years ago hired some 756 students, will this summer be hiring some 500 students. The Toronto Hospital, which two years ago offered some 200 students positions, will this summer be offering no positions whatsoever.

Is the Treasurer aware of that, and what is he prepared to do about it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I was not aware of the Toronto Hospital's decision. That's their decision, not the decision of the government.

On the other matters, I want to assure the member for Renfrew North, who raises these questions from time to time, that funding has indeed been maintained in the Futures program and the Environmental Youth Corps program. I believe the member mentioned that the Environmental Youth Corps has 3,160. My information was that last year we had 3,200; it is basically the same as last year. As well, we have maintained our commitment in the Summer Experience program for youth and in the student and youth venture program.

On top of that, I have been informed by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation that at Ontario Place there will be at least 1,400 students employed this year, which is an increase of about 125 or more over the number employed last year. That's partly because of the open-gate policy at Ontario Place, of course. There are going to be 233 new student jobs there in partnership with the private sector.

I think, to put it in perspective, we are doing what we can, given a very tight fiscal environment, to provide jobs for our youth this summer.

Mr Conway: Is the Treasurer aware that the Ontario Tree Planters' Association has indicated that this summer, largely because of Ministry of Natural Resources cuts, it will be offering 1,500 fewer positions to young people to plant trees than last year? Last year's offering was approximately 4,000 positions. They are saying that this year they will be offering 1,500 fewer positions to young people.

Is he aware, for example, that in the private sector College Pro Painters, one of the big employers for young people, will this summer be offering about one half the positions it offered two years ago, that Dofasco tells us it will be offering no summer positions, that Brewers Retail tells us it has no positions for students this summer as opposed to several scores of positions just two years ago?

The Premier says the problem is serious and more needs to be done and something aggressive is going to come forward for the summer of 1992. The Treasurer says it's a vexing problem. The evidence does not confirm what you're suggesting. In fact, the programs you yourself have mentioned -- I will go back again to the Environmental Youth Corps --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Conway: -- has roughly 20% fewer positions this year than two years ago and a net reduction in positions this year from last year. That is what your government officials are telling us. What do you say to young people who will not be accessing Futures? The students coming out of the Sudbury high schools, the students coming out of Cambrian College --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: -- the students coming out of Laurentian will not be interested in Futures. What do you say to those people for this summer?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the fact that the member for Renfrew North has raised the matter of the private sector in some cases not hiring as many students as last year. That was what I tried to say to the member for Renfrew North yesterday or the day before, that in the last two years there've been almost 300,000 people laid off in this province by the private sector.

On one hand, we get members opposite saying that as the government we should be laying off civil servants. It seems to me it would not make any sense whatsoever to add to the problem. We have tried to maintain our commitment to the essential programs. But the member for Renfrew North makes a good point, that the private sector is hiring fewer people in many cases and has laid off a lot of people. This government will do what it can, but I don't want to give the impression to members opposite or to anybody else that we can pick up the entire gap caused by layoffs in the private sector. We can't do it, whether it's for youth or whether it's for people of any age.

Mr Conway: Most reasonable people would accept that, but the reality seems to be that the government's own summer programs, in the main, are being reduced, whether it's the Environmental Youth Corps, whether it's the tree planting program, whether it's the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Summer Experience program or a score of others I could point out.

The NDP government, over the course of the last 15 months, found $75 million to nationalize the private child care sector. The Ontario NDP government found hundreds of millions of additional dollars for the Ontario Medical Association. What I'm asking my friend the Treasurer is, within reasonable limits, will he not recognize that these young people who are desperately looking to get on the ladder of economic opportunity require as least as much assistance as you've been able to provide to the Ontario Medical Association or to some others for whom you have made a very significant accommodation?

When is Ms Akande, when is Mr Rae, when is Mr Laughren going to show to the young people of Ontario that there will be something meaningful, something real, to access in terms of employment for the summer of 1992, having regard to the fact that it is now the 27th of May?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Renfrew North, as is usual, raises a very good point and raises matters of important public interest to this chamber, but I think he should not lead people to believe that the government hasn't maintained a lot of the programs for students this summer. I have said that before.

We have maintained our funding for the Futures program, for the Environmental Youth Corps, for Summer Experience and for the student and youth venture capital programs. At Ontario Place there's going to be more employment than there was last year. So to put it in perspective, you have to at least give credit to government for maintaining programs when it has done so.

Also, the member for Renfrew North, who is a member of some experience and influence within his caucus and his party, I hope will get the message to his colleagues in his caucus that they cannot for ever, day after day, tell us our taxation is too high. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt tells me that we should not have raised taxes. Other members, such as the member for Kenora, say the deficit's too high. The member for Renfrew North is saying we should be spending more money. It would be very helpful if there were a consistent message coming from the opposition.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to go to the Treasurer, and the question is on jobs. We're going to be relentless on this, Treasurer, I assure you, until this problem is fixed.

I want to talk about construction jobs with you, Treasurer. You will be aware that there's a growing sense of betrayal among construction workers in this province. I talked last night with several union leaders in the construction trades. It's not a question of spending more money; it's a question of commitments that you made to the construction trades that you didn't follow through on. They've asked me if I can get some specific answers out of the Rae government.

I'll start with last year's budget. You promised in that budget that it was an anti-recession program. You promised that you would be looking after the construction trades. You promised that you would substantially increase spending on capital projects. Yet, as we find in your financial report, what did you do? Where did you find the money to reduce your deficit? It was by cutting capital. In fact, you cut $400 million out of capital projects. Why did you do that? You said in your report, "It is due to measures undertaken to accommodate the net revenue decline." So we're talking about commitments that you made and commitments that you broke.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: What should I tell the workers in the construction industry about why you chose them to bear the brunt of your spending reductions last year? Why was it they who had the $400-million reduction layered on their backs?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'm not sure where the member is getting his information on capital expenditures, but this year we are spending more on capital than has ever been spent in the history of this province. That's a fact, an absolute fact.

As far as the member's contention about the construction industry, people I've talked to in the construction industry -- and I do talk to people in the construction industry -- tell us they're very happy with the streamlining of the planning process, the 10,000 homes that are being completed this year from last year's budget and the 20,000 homes that we announced for the next three years. I think it is inappropriate and unfair to imply that the construction industry and the workers in the construction industry do not appreciate what we are doing. They do indeed.

Mr Phillips: I'm going to go back to the Treasurer. I asked you a specific question. It was your report, no one else's. You said you cut $400 million out of your anti-recession program. Why did you do that? For one reason: You did that because you had revenue reductions.

I'll repeat the question, Treasurer: What should I tell the workers in those union halls about why they bore the brunt of your expenditure reduction last year? Why did you cut $400 million out of your capital projects in order to meet your revenue reductions? What should I tell them about the impact that's had on their jobs?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think you should tell them you made a mistake, because I can tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that the $400 million to which he refers was a deferment of capital expenditures in 1991-92. I make absolutely no apology for coming to this assembly with expenditures in the past year of almost half a billion dollars less than we had budgeted a year ago. That I believe is responsible fiscal management during a recession.

Mr Phillips: Your own words, Treasurer, said "this reduction." You used the words, "This reduction is due to revenue declines." You've cut $400 million out of the budget.

I'll go to this year's budget, Treasurer, because I again think you are misleading the construction workers in Ontario. You have in your budget three programs for construction jobs. I assure you that you are spending less money this year, 1992, on those three programs than you spent last year. It's right in your own budget. So don't tell me I've got the wrong figures. If the figures are wrong, they're the figures you've got in the budget.

I want to know, how do I go to those construction workers and tell them that you are creating more jobs when you are going to spend less money this year in those three programs than you spent last year? I need a straight answer from you on this. How am I going to tell them there are more construction jobs in 1992-93 with less money?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure whether the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is referring to the $500-million special capital program this year or whether he's referring to the base capital of $3.4 billion which is on top of the $500-million special strategic capital, to total a $3.9-billion capital program this year. That is a substantial commitment to capital in this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're missing the point.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think I'm not missing the point. The point is that we have made a major commitment to capital expenditures, and much of that money will be done by the private sector, and the construction workers in that sector will of course benefit from that commitment to capital. I don't mind if the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is relentless day after day after day, but I do hope he'll be accurate and consistent.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question?

Mr Phillips: I resent that. I'm accurate in my numbers, and I got them straight out of the budget.

The Speaker: No, new question.

Mr Phillips: I would ask the Treasurer to withdraw that remark, because I am accurate; I am reflecting exactly what you say in your budget, Treasurer.

The Speaker: Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: All I said, by the way, was that I wanted him to be accurate; I didn't say he was inaccurate. But if that offends the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I will withdraw it.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I also have a question for the Treasurer, and I want to read, Treasurer, from a letter from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers regarding your Ontario investment fund, because it seems that even your own brethren don't trust you to be their financial keeper.

The IBEW, to all their members who belong to the OMERS pension fund, with regard to the Ontario investment fund says this in its letter, "OMERS, as well as the other pension funds involved, said no to the idea of the Ontario investment fund, that they will not voluntarily participate." They go into a number of reasons, one of which is that the province's investment record is poor and could be politically biased.

Treasurer, the international brotherhood asks why, with your fiscal record, they should let you get your money-hungry hands on their pension money. I would ask you, Treasurer, can you give them a reason why they should trust you with their retirement funds?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Mr Speaker, let me put the whole question of the Ontario investment fund in context, first of all; I hope you will allow me to do that.

When we indicated we wanted to create an Ontario investment fund we sought out people in the pension management field, in the public sector unions, in the private financial sector, and talked to them about this. We brought together an advisory committee. We now have a committee that's working on consultation and drafting of a specific proposal, which of course at some point will be brought to this assembly.

There was some original reluctance on the part of the public sector pension managers, and I think there's still some hesitation on their part. I don't deny that. What I've indicated to them is that any contributions to the Ontario investment fund will of course be voluntary. This is not some kind of money grab on the part of the government; it's simply an attempt to do what a lot of other jurisdictions around the world are doing and to bring Ontario into the 20th century.

Mr Harris: My caucus is receiving letters from many public employees all across this province who say to you, Treasurer, to keep your hands off their pension money. In fact, the employees of Wasaga Beach say their pensions "should not be plundered by government for specific government investment objectives." They say it should not be plundered by government for ideological purposes. These are the brothers and sisters in the unions all across this province who are writing these letters to me, I guess, because we're the only voice they seem to get in the Legislature.

Treasurer, your discussion paper clearly says, "Investments in the Ontario investment fund would be strictly voluntary." How do you intend to establish a voluntary fund if nobody's willing to volunteer?

Hon Mr Laughren: If that were true, the leader of the third party would have a point, but they are voluntary contributions. The very people of whom he speaks are serving --

Interjection: No one will volunteer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: If I could be allowed to respond to the very people who asked me the question, I'll try to do that.

The people to whom the leader of the third party refers are indeed sitting on our advisory committee. I said to the leader of the third party that there was an initial hesitation on this because I think they felt it wasn't going to be a partnership kind of arrangement where it would be a voluntary contribution of a very small portion of surplus moneys in any given year from those funds, if they decide that's what they want to do. I can assure the leader of the third party that it's going to have an arm's-length relationship to government and it will have professional management.

So the leader of the third party and anyone else should lay to rest any fears he might have that this would be used in any kind of political or partisan way.

Mr Harris: I've got to tell you, Treasurer, they are very suspicious of what you call "arm's length." They've heard you change the word "patronage" to "empowerment," if anybody's looking for a definition of "empowerment," as they look across the province to the appointments.

The fact of the matter is, the brothers and sisters who contact me and ask for a voice in the Legislature do not trust your ability to manage their pensions. People are not going to hand over their retirement money to someone who can't get his own house in order, and they know that. So let's face it: If you proceed with this fund, it will not be voluntary. In fact, the rank and file membership, the card-carrying union members, are very suspicious of how you are leaning on their bosses for quid pro quos on all kinds of appointments and other things. They do not feel that it will be voluntary.

In view of that, Mr Treasurer -- the suggestion came from one interjection -- let's have a free vote, a secret-ballot vote of the brothers and sisters. They're asking for certification for strike votes. Why don't we give it to them on their own pension money?

I would ask you to consider this, Treasurer. Last fall when I introduced New Directions I called for the establishment of industrial and community development bonds. The idea would stimulate the economy at less cost and more gain. It would allow individuals and pension funds to voluntarily donate their money to the projects they deem appropriate, to the ones they have confidence in, to the ones that would benefit them and their communities. Would you be willing to consider this as an alternative to your ill-fated program to plunder the private sector pension plans?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, for the leader of the third party, the leader of the Tory party in Ontario, to cast any aspersions on patronage appointments by this government is simply beyond the pale. That really takes away any credibility that might have been in the rest of the question. But I do want to assure the leader of the third party that when he brings forth suggestions, we do give them serious consideration. I would not for a minute see community development bonds as an alternative to this fund.

This is a fund where I think other jurisdictions look at us with surprise that we don't have this in place already. It was just because there was old-fashioned thinking in this province for so many years that there isn't already such a fund in place. We intend to get this province moving again.

Mr Harris: I don't know how it is that this party, which has dragged this province not only to a standstill but backwards, is going to pretend to get it moving again. I remind the Treasurer that the letter I'm reading from is dated May 5, so it's pretty current that they are very suspicious, not just initially when he announced it.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is for the Minister of Education. For over a year I have pressed the Premier and and the ministers of Community and Social Services of the NDP government to work with educators, nutritionists, social workers and the private sector to establish nutrition programs or breakfast programs, as they are commonly called, in our schools. Minister, the rhetoric, the empty promises I've gotten from the Premier and the last two ministers of Community and Social Services have not provided one new nutritional meal for hungry children in this province.

Given that studies show hungry children do not learn as well as those with a full stomach, I ask you, as Minister of Education, are you willing to take the leadership on this very important initiative?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I want to say to the leader of the third party that I very much appreciate his raising this issue. He will recall that when he introduced his private member's resolution I spoke with him to express my support for the initiative he presented. Since that time I can assure him that there have been discussions within the government. My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has been very active in this area. While I'm not able to give any further details today, I can assure the leader of the third party that we are working very seriously on this matter, and I think we can expect some indications and some announcements very soon.

Mr Harris: A royal commission in New Brunswick has just recommended nutrition programs in that province. I think the minister would know that, for whatever reason, thousands of children here in this province are going to school hungry. This is the sixth time I have raised this issue with your government. A well-organized cooperative program with the private sector and the schools and those volunteers won't cost the taxpayers of this province one penny, not one cent. All it requires is time, commitment, cooperation and leadership. In my resolution last fall I asked the Premier to provide it, and he did not.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has not. I'm asking you, as Minister of Education: Will you commit yourself now to provide the leadership required to bring this program on stream?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the short answer is yes. What I was trying to explain in my answer to the first part of the question was that we agree with the intent of what the leader of the third party has expressed. We may not agree with his conclusions that in fact it can all be done without any expenditure of public funds, but we certainly agree very much that we need to provide our young people with the kind of nutrition support they need. I certainly know, as a former school trustee in the city of Toronto, the kinds of needs that exist. So we don't disagree on the need for this kind of help to be provided.

I just reiterate that we, with the great assistance of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, have been working very hard on this issue. I think the member opposite will be pleased with what he sees coming out.

Mr Harris: Last November I convened a meeting with members of school boards, teachers, nutritionists and restaurant owners in fact, who were leading the way in some jurisdictions, from across the province to talk about this very great need in our province. I introduced the resolution into the Legislature last November. I have visited school breakfast programs and I've seen the huge successes they are for children who, for whatever reason, are going to school hungry.

It can happen if we all work together. The city of Toronto, because it saw no action from my resolution last November, just recently adopted this recommendation: "That the Minister of Education convene a meeting with all potential government supporters to explore the development of long-term, stable, multisectoral funding for school food programs."

Minister, will you respond to that and convene that meeting, so instead of working up this program that's going to cost the taxpayers money behind closed doors, in secret, you can in fact involve the private sector, which is willing to participate, anxious to participate and wants to come forward so that the program can be provided immediately and at no cost to the taxpayers?

Hon Mr Silipo: I know that some of those very same kinds of discussions have actually taken place, and more will continue. I will be happy to participate directly, as will, I know, my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, if the need is there for those discussions to happen.

I think, as the leader of the third party indicates, we would all agree that the kind of cross-support that we want in all the communities needs to be there for this to really work well. That's also the kind of direction we've been trying to provide in the discussions and preparation. But again, on the intent of what the leader of the third party has suggested, we agree.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question also has to do with the loss of jobs in the province of Ontario. The question is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Minister, you might be aware that since September 1990 the tourism sector has been haemorrhaging jobs at an unprecedented, indeed alarming, rate. In fact the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association estimates that over the past two years approximately 95,000 jobs have disappeared in the accommodations and restaurant sector alone, not to mention the thousands lost in the other tourism sectors.

In light of these alarming statistics, what guarantee can you give us that you will be putting these people back to work and restoring Ontario's tourism industry to a viable, long-term source of jobs?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I thank the member for the question, because it's also a strong concern, I know, across the province in terms of the tourism industry.

I don't think there's anyone who has been or will be the tourism minister who can make the types of guarantees the member asks for. I can say to the member that we continue to work very hard in the tourism industry, certainly trying to advocate the position that the industry takes in terms of advertising and marketing and trying to bring people who are interested in the tourism industry into this province, trying to get ourselves more tourists from all parts of the world, as well as all parts of Canada and the United States.

We continue to advocate the good work that's done by the industry, and hopefully the numbers will change and we will bring more tourists in this year, which will in turn create the jobs that the member speaks of.

Mr O'Neil: Minister, I'm not satisfied with that answer at all. The thing is that I don't think you realize the extent of the difficulties facing this important sector of our economy. I'm far from sure that you understand how important the tourism industry is to the youth who depend for summer jobs on the tourism industry to help them make some money to go back to school.

The minister should also know that the same policies the government has pursued and that have been responsible for the disappearance of many of those approximately 95,000 jobs I just talked about have also robbed thousands of students of their only source of employment this summer. I'm talking about the Treasurer's $1-billion tax grab, the continuing high gas prices, the continued dithering on Sunday shopping and unprecedented hikes in the fees at provincial parks. Minister, I simply want to know how you can stand by and allow your colleagues in cabinet to plunder the industry you are charged with protecting.

Hon Mr North: Mr Speaker, why did I know he wouldn't accept my first answer? I would say to the member across the floor that he does raise real concerns. I agree with him completely that they are real concerns and they need to dealt with. The

part I disagree with is the fact that he believes our government and perhaps governments of the past have not dealt with tourism as something that would be in the forefront of the economy.

I believe our government has shown signs in terms of trying to deal with the problem of people being employed in the tourism industry. We've developed what we call OTEC, the Ontario Tourism Education Council, which deals with training and deals with the hospitality sector in trying to work with the private sector in developing a real program that deals with training and deals with good people to be in the tourism industry.

As I said earlier, we've dealt with all sectors and we've tried to address the issues of marketing and all these types of things that would bring people into this province, which will in turn help the economy of the province, which will in turn help the economy that is in the tourism industry.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education. It seems to me that today in the House there have been a number of concerns expressed by members of the opposition parties with regard to young people who won't have jobs this summer, with regard to children who go to school hungry, and, Mr Minister, I have another concern. It's one with regard to some special students in our education system who are labelled, as you know now, as needing basic education, who attend vocational schools and occupational schools and special courses throughout the province and who in September 1993, their parents are told, will be destreamed.

Mr Minister, this is a very important issue. We don't even know what those courses will look like. Parents don't know what kind of education these students will get. We're not sure whether they'll be in special vocational schools which are working at getting young people jobs or whether they'll be in the old academic high school in their neighbourhood. We just don't know. Yet we know today that the minister is talking about a September 1993 implementation date, with no courses, no teacher training, no textbooks. In the history of this province, this has never happened before.

I'm going to ask the minister, will you reconsider this date, considering that you have done no planning with the parents, the school boards or the teachers at this point in time, when curriculum guidelines must be printed by next October? Are you going to take a look at some flexibility around that date?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Actually I'm glad the question has been raised here, because I'm able to say in the Legislature things I have said publicly and privately to school boards, to teachers' federations, to parents' groups and to student groups on this issue. First of all, what we are setting with respect to September 1993 is not the full and complete results of destreaming; what we are suggesting for September 1993 is that we take the next significant step, which is removing the forced labelling of students into basic, general and advanced programs.

We understand very clearly that it will take longer than September 1993 to have the full effects of the implementation of a destreamed grade 9 and we are quite prepared to have that happen over a number of years.

With respect specifically to the issue of courses and teacher training, let me say to the member opposite that we have been working very hard and we will continue to work hard to ensure those two issues are addressed more than adequately. We have been talking with the Ontario Teachers' Federation about a serious in-service training program for teachers and I've committed to that happening, in consultation with the teachers' federation and with the school boards. Equally, we are developing the kind of core curriculum documents our teachers will need. We take those issues very seriously and our schools will be prepared to deal with the expectations we will have for them for September 1993.

Mrs Cunningham: This minister knows, and so do members of this House, simply because they're parents, that you don't think up a change in grade 9 and say, "We'll do this in grade 9 and we'll think the following year what we're going to do in grade 10."

These children are special kids who need to know what they're going to do when they finish school. They need to know whether they're going to be in a vocational program, a technical program, an apprenticeship program, and they have the same rights as other kids who are so bright that they don't need to worry about where they're going. It is totally irresponsible to talk about changing the labelling for students in grade 9 without telling those young people what they have a right to be at the end of high school or teachers' college or colleges throughout this province. They should not be asked to go into a grade 9 program not knowing where it's going to lead.

My question again is to the minister. If you have curriculum guidelines, Mr Minister, we want to see them, not just for grade 9 but for grades 9, 10, 11 and 12, knowing that some of these children have a right to be in school as they are now for five and six years in order to finish. It's not fair to talk about teacher training, totally changing curriculum and implementing this for September 1993. I will be particularly disappointed if we don't get flexibility, as we did with the last minister, who knew she wasn't ready. Again, are you going to stick to this deadline?

If you are, you should stand up today and show us where these curriculum guidelines are so these parents will know what their children are going to be doing.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me first of all assure the member opposite that anything we do will take very much into consideration the needs of students who have special needs and that there's nothing in this direction we believe we need to pursue that in any way affects the needs of students with special needs. They will continue to get the services they require in grade 9 and in years following.

Mrs Cunningham: You're wrong.

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not wrong. That's exactly the intent and that's what will happen.

Mrs Cunningham: We don't know what you're doing. Show us the guidelines.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think we know what we are doing. We also know that this is an issue that's been discussed for many years. It isn't something that we've sprung on people. It's something that's been evolving. We know from the pilot projects that exist throughout the province, that were started under the previous government, that in fact we have a number of good examples of things that are happening and that we can learn from. We will ensure that the support necessary for our teachers and students is there for September 1993, given the expectation we have for September 1993, which, as I'm indicating, is simply another step in the process and not the final conclusion of the process.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Health. Since January, when cuts to our local hospital's beds and staff were announced, our city has been in an uproar. People are concerned about the process of how the decisions were made. I have received many letters of concern about the level of service and about the decisions regarding cuts and how they were made.

I've suggested to these people, these citizens of our city, that they join the hospital association, go to the annual meeting in June, voice their concerns and get some answers. We know that hospitals have long been essentially private corporations using public moneys. Madam Minister, I believe we need a more democratic governance of our hospitals. When can the Public Hospitals Act be changed?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I want to start off by saying I think many communities have of course expressed concerns about the nature of some of the announcements, but it's really important that we understand that some of those announcements were with respect to early thoughts around recovery plans that hospitals may need to put in place.

I'm actually very pleased to see the kind of cooperation that has taken place across the province in many cases between hospital boards, hospital administration and workers in the hospital sector and mitigated the need for taking action on many of the announcements that have been made. I think we are finding that the community needs are coming first with respect to the planning of program and delivery shifts.

Having said that, I think what the member raises is the fact that from community to community there are different structures in place in terms of how people can participate in decision-making within their community hospitals around those very important decisions of program changes and delivery of service. The Public Hospitals Act had been reviewed by a task force for about two years. Recently there was a report released with recommendations. The ministry is reviewing that. I hope to be able to move on legislative revisions in short order. We were aiming for this fall. That may be optimistic and it may be next year, but it is on my agenda to move on it.

Ms Harrington: Madam Minister, I would also like to know how the ordinary citizens in my city can be involved in this process of looking at that report and coming up with some changes to the hospitals act.

Hon Ms Lankin: The task force recommendations were put together by people from the hospital sector and the community. There was a lot of input there, but it was a task force, it is a report and it does need to be reviewed by a larger group of people and have public input. Some time ago I made an announcement that we would be holding hearings. I'm pleased to let the member know that the member for Simcoe Centre, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, will be conducting a series of hearings across the province this summer.

We're holding information meetings to facilitate that with special groups like consumer and volunteer groups, aboriginal groups, unions, workers' groups, to give them some background about the changes that are being recommended in the task force report.

In the five or six meetings we'll be holding across the province, we hope to get a range of responses that will at least inform us in terms of the kind of recommendations we bring forward in legislation. Of course, following that as it goes through the legislative process, members of the House and the public will be able to participate in the process as well.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, whose responsibility it is to protect the consumers of this province. Consumers in many parts of Ontario awoke this week to huge and unjustified increases in gasoline prices, which as always were hiked across the board by all oil companies, by the same amount and at the same time within communities across the province.

People who voted for your government may not have believed you could manage the economy and likely didn't agree with all the policies you had on your platform, but from your rhetoric and policy pronouncements they likely believed you would protect the interests of the little person, the consumer. Why have you abandoned the consumers of this province and tourism and other industries, which rely on reasonably priced gasoline?

Why have you continued to permit the gouging of the consumer by unrepentant gasoline companies in Ontario, which are charging the people of Ottawa 58.9 cents a litre and jacking up the price in Toronto, St Catharines, London and Windsor by six cents a litre or 27 cents a gallon?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): I would like to reframe the member's question slightly, because in his question he talked about giant Ontario oil companies when in fact he was talking about giant Canadian oil companies, and the problem to which the member for St Catharines refers is in fact a national problem. The price increases to which he refers are not price increases that have been imposed exclusively in the province of Ontario this week; they have been imposed right across the country. In fact, the worst price increases occurred in the city of Vancouver.

As the member well knows, the legislation which governs the operation of those national companies is federal. We continue to monitor, and when we can under legislation determine that we in fact have legal grounds on which to accomplish something, we will proceed. But the problem the member refers to is a national one, not provincial.

Mr Bradley: I'm surprised to hear on that side of the House an apologist for multinational corporations. I'm sure that in the union halls, the community centres and the municipal council chambers across Ontario, you and your colleagues, when in opposition and on the election campaign trail, denounced gas price increases and the companies that put them into effect. In fact, in Sudbury in August 1990, Bob Rae said, "I really think consumers are being ripped off by the gas companies."

In view of the past pronouncements, promises and rhetoric of the NDP on this issue, why don't you get out of the back pocket of the oil companies in this province -- a place where the NDP never thought it'd be, but it is -- and start to protect the consumers from the gouging and price-fixing practices of the multinational corporate monopoly, which imposes unnecessarily high and unfair gasoline prices on Ontario residents and those who visit our province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'll simply say, with respect to the back-pocket part of the member's question, that if he suggests this government is in the back pocket of the oil companies in this country, it's a pretty crowded back pocket, and that perhaps the leader of his federal party, scrambling to try to get out of the very same pocket, is an impediment to any progress by anyone on this issue.

Having said that, my ministry continues to monitor the price increases. We have legislation in this province which allows us to deal with certain aspects of the pricing policies around oil and gas. When we can determine that there has been a violation that we can proceed to prosecute we'll deal with that violation, but the primary responsibility for ensuring that there is no price-fixing between the national oil companies in this country is not one that falls to this government.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. The Stratford Beacon Herald reported on Saturday, May 23, that this minister will recommend to the treasury board that no extra funding be provided to the Art Gallery of Ontario. However, AGO officials have never received this information from the ministry, despite the fact that they've made repeated requests for the information about the 1992-93 operating grant. If the AGO receives a $9.5-million operating grant, the rumoured amount, the gallery will have to lay off 250 employees.

The job losses would not stop there, as the gallery will be reduced to a core operation without its outreach programs, which provide employment in galleries all across Ontario. As well, the businesses in the vicinity of the AGO would suffer a loss of revenue due to the severe reduction in the AGO's visitors, 50% of whom are tourists. What a blow both to the cultural and tourism industries of Ontario.

My question, Madam Minister, is this: Can you confirm that it was your advice to the treasury board not to increase the AGO's operating grant? If so, would you give the reasons for that recommendation and tell this House why you did not extend the courtesy of advising AGO before you conveyed that information to the media?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): That was an interview I had in my home riding. It was incorrect information. I never said I was not giving an increase to the AGO. The newspaper simply misquoted me.

Mrs Marland: Did the newspaper misquote you that "MPP Karen Haslam gives herself A-plus for effort"? I suppose we can assume you were misquoted then too.

For every dollar this government invests in the arts the economy benefits by $24. This multiplier effect works in reverse when arts funding is cut. What wisdom can there be, then, in a decision that would cause substantial losses of jobs, cultural and tourism services and businesses not only in Toronto but throughout Ontario?

To start with, unemployment insurance for AGO's 250 laid-off employees would cost taxpayers $4.6 million for 40 weeks. This amount is based on an increase of $1 million in the gallery's operating grant. The job losses will be even greater if the gallery receives no increase.

My question, again, Madam Minister, is this: Is this your vision for the future of the arts in Ontario? Do you intend to shut down the AGO with over $500 million worth of work? Do you intend to reduce the services at the regional galleries and cause job losses in the cultural and tourism sectors throughout the province? Is that what you want for the future of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, it was a rather long question and I will have a rather long answer. I gave myself an A-plus for effort; I didn't give myself an A-plus for results. I gave myself an A-plus for effort because in my ministry we've got a new publishing centre, we have a new consultation called From the Ground Up, I have a new telecommunication thing. So my A-plus was for effort.

Let me tell the member a little about the Art Gallery of Ontario. The AGO does receive from this ministry $8.5 million. They have never informed me or my ministry that they will close the doors when I give them $8.5 million a year. They are not an agency; they are a transfer payment recipient. As far as additional funding, they have had $4 million in the last year for one-time funding to help with pay equity.

Just recently, in the early part of the year, I met with all the chairs of all the agencies and the AGO. I made it very clear to those chairs that these are tight financial times and that I expected all my agencies, including the Art Gallery of Ontario, to stay within their budgets and not run up a deficit, and that my priorities were outreach, education and jobs. They know where I stand.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, the Essex County District Health Council, with Mary Jean Gallagher as chair, and all its members, are hard at work in Windsor as they study the rationalization of acute hospital services. As well, I trust they will have the concerns of hospital workers high on their list. The council has given its assurance that it will work closely with all segments of the health care community, citizens and labour. This goes hand in hand with our commitment to work together.

Madam Minister, your ministry provided $500,000 on May 5 to help see this goal fulfilled. It is a goal we'll all strive to maintain as we enter the next century and we learn to spend money more wisely while continuing to maintain the best health care system in the world.

Could the minister give the good people of Windsor-Sandwich more details about the rationalization process and how it will affect hospital service in Windsor in the coming years?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the member's question and I think it's important to point out to all members that the process in Windsor is an important example of the kind of cooperation we see taking place in good health care planning in communities, being led by district health councils and involving all of the health partners.

In the case of Windsor, of course, the discussion that has been taking place started with a proposal from the hospitals and the DHC that perhaps in looking at a situation of too many acute care beds for the needs of the community, there needed to be a process of turning those resources into other health resources the community needed. That led them to a cooperative process of consulting with the community.

What I think the member will see over the course of the next few months is a series of consultations led by local community partners with the community around looking at facilities, looking at the health care services that are required and looking at what's going to happen to the workers whose jobs have shifted from institution to community.

We expect that an initial report will be ready from the community by the fall. I can assure the member that the process being undertaken with provincial guidelines ensures that planning is being done to meet local health needs that are identified. His community can be assured of that as the basis for any planning process.

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question also is for the Minister of Health, the minister responsible for the quality of health care in Ontario.

The minister will know that between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes of biomedical waste are generated in Ontario each year, and that 6,000 tonnes of that waste are burned in hospital incinerators but only one of those incinerators meets environmental protection standards for air pollution control. Hospitals desperately need funding to bring incinerators to safe standards or to introduce alternative technologies such as steam autoclaving or microwaving to deal with those wastes.

The Ministry of Health had $15 million in its budget when this government took office to upgrade hospital incinerators and to introduce regional programs. Not one dime of that money has been spent to date. This is more than an environmental issue; this is a health issue.

I'm asking the Minister of Health when she will make funds available from her budget so that toxins from the unsafe incineration of biomedical wastes aren't themselves a health hazard to the people of Ontario.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): As a result of this being an issue that is being worked on by two ministries, I'll refer that question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me say to the member that I agree entirely that it is indeed a very serious problem and it is a health problem. That's why, in collaboration with my colleague the Minister of Health, we have been jointly working on how to deal with the issue in a comprehensive way. There is not just the very real problem of the existing incinerators which don't meet any effective standards, but the whole question of export, which the member has raised, as well as the fact that many of these incinerators are being used to burn materials that are not strictly biomedical.

I am very pleased to be able to say to the House that very shortly we will be able to release a comprehensive approach to what has been a long-standing problem.

Mrs Sullivan: Last October people in northwestern Ontario were informed that there would be no funding available for a regional program to deal with biomedical wastes. The question then to the Minister of the Environment becomes: If she has ruled out state-of-the-art regional facilities and decided that individual hospitals will be responsible for their own wastes and that other biomedical waste generators will have to fend for themselves, when will money be made available to those hospitals to either close down their unsafe incinerators or upgrade them to safe standards?

Also, will money be made available to hospitals for 3R programs and other similar programs that will reduce the total amount of biomedical waste that ends up in incineration programs?

Hon Mrs Grier: It's precisely because so much of the waste that is now being incinerated should be dealt with in other ways, whether by the 3Rs or by using some of the new technologies, that we have taken an in-depth look at the entire problem, a problem that, I must say, was exacerbated by the policies introduced by the last government which exempted facilities from certain provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act if they were less than 10 --

Mrs Sullivan: You have not changed one thing. If you were so upset about, why didn't you change it?

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and that led to a plethora of proposals for private sector medical waste facilities that gave rise to a great deal of --

Mrs Sullivan: You didn't change one thing, not one thing.

Hon Mrs Grier: But I know the member has a very sincere interest in helping us to now resolve the problem we inherited. I can assure her that in the discussions that are under way between myself and the Minister of Health we of course recognize a financial problem is there for many hospitals and it has to be part of the solution.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Motions?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a question of privilege relating to standing order 31(

a) and standing order 31(

e) relative to ministerial statements and responses. I'll be very brief, but I think it's incumbent upon me, on my own behalf and that of some of my colleagues who have raised concerns, to raise this issue with you.

Standing order 31(

a) says, "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed." Standing order 31(

e) states, "Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

From time to time, Mr Speaker, comments have been made by the opposition parties about the nature of ministerial statements, whether they are appropriately ministerial statements or not, and you have ruled that it's not within your discretion to indicate what the subject matter should be or how relevant the subject matter should be.

With respect to 31(e), the responses, I have observed on a regular basis that opposition members have responded on matters relative to the ministry that weren't directly on the point of the statement. Many times, from my observation and observations of my colleagues, and I'm sure the record will point it out, the members who were doing the responses were not interrupted or called to order by the Chair.

My point of privilege is, is there a standard to which the Chair adheres? If there is, I would appreciate, if you would reserve decision on it, some indication as to what the standard or what the rule should be. Second, will that be enforced equally to all the members, because I sense my comments were no more or less out of order than many comments that were made by opposition members at the time. I feel my privileges were infringed upon.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Ottawa West, I understand the concern which he brings to my attention. He should know that it has been a practice in this House, and indeed previous speakers have commented upon it, that the responses to statements should be in keeping with the statement itself.

I'm pleased to take a look at the matter and provide the member with some background information about it, if that would be helpful. I will say in closing that I do not like interrupting members at any time because the time is precious. The Chair is obliged to do so when something is out of order. The Chair is also here to assist in whatever way possible to help the members in exercising their responsibilities. But I will take a look and provide the member with some background information; I'd be pleased to do that.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

It's signed by individuals of Wrigley Canada Inc. I have attached my signature.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by concerned residents of Ontario which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 375 haemophiliacs in Ontario were infected with the virus which causes AIDS through contaminated blood products; and

"Whereas this was an avoidable medical catastrophe of enormous proportions; and

"Whereas the federal government has accepted its share of responsibility and provided financial assistance to HIV-infected haemophiliacs; and

"Whereas the federal government has requested that each province also provide compensation for HIV-infected haemophiliacs,

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

"That the government of Ontario must share the responsibility and provide compensation."

ACCESS TO PERMANENT HOUSING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): To the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As housing is a basic human right and as all residents of Ontario have a right to adequate housing,

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario not to cut funding to the access to permanent housing initiatives in the next fiscal year."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by some 10 Ontario residents. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"The proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out necessary major repairs to residential buildings.

"This bill, if enacted, will result in the private sector being unable to build new residential rental housing, with an ensuing loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

"This bill will ensure that the non-profit housing sector will be the only builder of new residential rental units, at enormous cost to the Ontario taxpayers.

"This law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs.

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

"(

a) To cancel the proposed Rent Control Act;

"(

b) To encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all; and

"(

c) To ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed and the role of the private sector in the construction of new rental housing."

I have affixed my signature.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have two petitions to present to the House. The first petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

LANDFILL SITE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The second petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the residents of the township of East Luther object to the decision made by the municipalities of Dufferin county waste management master plan steering committee to locate a landfill site in East Luther township; and

"Whereas the residents of the township of East Luther feel very strongly that the council of East Luther should be considering recycling as the process of choice for dealing with the problem of waste management and that a new disposal site be considered only as a last resort and only for the use of the local residents,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, not to approve this landfill site and look at other means of waste management."

There are approximately 300 signatures on this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I affix my signature to the petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

It is signed by about 48 individuals from the province of Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments of the Labour Relations Act will have on investments and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

It's been signed by individuals of Merit Contractors of Niagara and I have signed my name.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Mississauga North, do you have many petitions?

Mr Offer: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: I would suggest that you read them.

Mr Offer: If there are no other members with petitions, I will read a further petition, which is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas investment and job creation is essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments of the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

That petition has been signed by individuals of Merit Contractors of Niagara, Rashotte Electric, Mastico Industries Ltd, the Canadian Salt Co Ltd, Kenmore, Teledyne Canada, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, Pavex Canada Ltd, Permanent Lafarge, Avesta Stainless Inc, King Cross Contracting Ltd, Valvoline Canada Ltd, H.H.

Robertson Inc, Northland Bitulithic Ltd, Columbia-MBF, Hyundai Auto Canada Inc, Rockwell International, J-AAR Contracting, Canron Inc Eastern Structural Division, Anachemia Solvents Ltd, Vac-Aero International Inc, Victoria Electric of Kitchener Ltd, Ennis-Paikin Steel Ltd, Leonard Neal of Tamco Ltd, Normbau 2000, the Welmar Group, Don Hearn and Sons Inc, Hoffman Industries of Canada Ltd. I have affixed my signature thereto.

I have a further series of petitions which read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments of the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

That petition has been signed by individuals of Demik Construction Ltd, Teledyne Canada, Timbel Ltd, St Lawrence Cement, Permanent Concrete, AIS Communications Ltd, Tribury Construction Ltd, McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd, Glegg Water Conditioning Inc, Burlington Stamping, Inc, Ira McDonald Construction Ltd, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co Ltd, Delta Faucet Canada, Home Hardware and Toddglen Construction Ltd. I have affixed my signature to these petitions.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fifth report.

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

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I do not, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario;

Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education;

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the City of Vaughan;

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the Town of Caledon.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statute be remitted on Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario, and Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRI-DELTA OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Mr White, on behalf of Ms Akande, moved first reading of Bill Pr42,

An Act to revive Tri-Delta of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1992

Mr White, on behalf of Mr Marchese, moved first reading of Bill Pr43,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

Mr Allen moved first reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la négociation collective dans les collèges et la

Loi sur le ministère des Collèges et Universités.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): If I could just say a word about the purpose of this bill, it is, in the first instance, to improve the effectiveness of collective bargaining in the college system. The act will extend bargaining rights to all part-time staff working on a regular and continuing basis. The act also calls for establishing a framework for an employers' association to be composed of chairs of the boards of governors and the president of each college. Also, the act will transfer the responsibility for collective bargaining from the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology to the employers' association.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I will keep my remarks very brief. I hadn't intended to speak, but since I have the privilege of addressing the Minister of Education, I would ask, as I state the purpose of this bill, that the minister seriously consider the amendment I have put forward to the Education Act. I believe it will address the very serious issue of the poverty cycle. It will address the very serious issue of illiteracy in this province.

The purpose of the bill is to allow equal access to schools for all persons of school age residing in Ontario. The bill repeals the provision in the act that imposes a mandatory fee on non-Canadian citizens who were admitted to the school by a school board. We have a situation in this province where children are often taken out of the system because parents are fearful of having to expose that they are here illegally. Therefore, the sins of the parents are visited on the child who is denied an education because of this, I believe, outdated provision of the Education Act.

I am hopeful the government will seriously consider passing this amendment to the act. It would permit the boards, in a permissive way, to waive the fees to ensure that those children who deserve to have an education, who need to have an education, who in all likelihood will reside in this province, being not only functionally illiterate but truly illiterate and uneducated because they've been denied access to education because of the status of their parents -- I'm hopeful that during the debate on this bill the Minister of Education will indeed support it and see its passage.

PARKING INFRACTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1922 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS DE STATIONNEMENT

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act in relation to Parking Infractions / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les infractions provinciales et le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les infractions de stationnement.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Briefly, we have received over the last year or so many complaints that the process for dealing with parking tickets is unduly complicated and that sometimes errors are made in the recording of licence plates on parking tickets. We hope this legislation will provide a more sure system of having tickets issued that are correct on their face. We believe it will also result in a more efficient use of court time in terms of the processing of convictions. Finally, it will allow those who are issued a ticket that is improper or somehow wrong to have the issuance of the ticket more easily and more quickly withdrawn.

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Ms Churley moved first reading of Bill 26,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des services relatifs au jeu.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm pleased to introduce for first reading the new Gaming Services Act. Charitable gaming was first permitted in Ontario in 1970. Since then it has evolved from basic church basement entertainment to the multi-billion-dollar business we see today. With this explosive growth have come a number of problems relating to accountability in the charitable gaming marketplace and the proliferation of commercial bingo halls. As an interim measure to deal with these concerns, a moratorium was placed on the licensees of bingos in new commercial facilities in 1989.

Today, I'm introducing comprehensive gaming services legislation to ensure that charities receive their fair share of the proceeds of charitable gaming. The Gaming Services Act will regulate the activities, services and fees of commercial participants in Ontario's charitable gaming industry and require the registration of those who provide gaming services, supplies and premises in accordance with high standards of honesty, integrity and financial responsibility.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is committed to discussions with the first nations on gaming. The Gaming Services Act will pave the way for talks with the first nations relating to control, regulation and administration of gaming activities on their reserves.

I would like to emphasize that this bill focuses on the charitable component of gaming in Ontario and is separate from the issue of casino gambling. I urge all members to support this bill, which we believe will ultimately lead to a more honest and equitable marketplace for all participants in charitable gaming in Ontario.

SCHOOL BOARD FINANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE FINANCEMENT DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne le financement des conseils scolaires.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Briefly, there are two areas covered by these amendments. The first would increase the borrowing limit for school boards which are under supervision of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with the prior approval of the Minister of Education.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Deficit financing; what a great idea.

Hon Mr Silipo: It does not deal with the deficit financing the members opposite are talking about.

The second area involves changes to various acts with regard to the division of property taxes between public and separate school boards. It will provide for the division of property taxes payable by the crown, crown agencies, municipalities, local boards and conservation authorities in an equitable manner between public and separate school purposes.

This amendment would also permit other corporations without share capital and corporations sold to divide their property taxes between public and separate school purposes according to their choice. This last provision was a provision that was in the former Bill 125.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RENT CONTROL ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

Consideration of Bill 121,

An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation / Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): When we adjourned, we were dealing with Ms Poole's amendment. Ms Poole moved that subsection 1(1) of the bill, as amended by the general government committee, be amended by adding the following definition:

"'Board' means the Rent Review Appeals Board."

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am quite sure that the Minister of Housing would expect that this bill is worth, in her opinion, at least a quorum in the House.

The Chair: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

The Chair: A quorum is now present.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I believe I was in the middle of a sentence when last we adjourned the committee, so perhaps if I started by completing that sentence, at the time of adjournment I was talking about the various groups in society that are very strong on the notion of having an avenue of appeal.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): What's the end of the sentence?

Ms Poole: Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, has asked, "What's the end of the sentence?" I have Hansard. My last sentence was, "Everybody wants an appeal, and the demands for an appeal system have not -- "

Then the government whip adjourned us, so what can I say? The demands for an appeal system have not abated since that time. The Federation of Metropolitan Toronto Tenants' Associations, the Tenant Advocacy Group, the Ottawa-Carleton Tenants' Association, the Fair Rental Policy Organization, AFFORD, all these various groups -- as you can notice, some of them are tenants, some of them are landlords, but it's one of the rare things they have actually reached unanimity on, that they want an appeal board.

The minister, in her response as to why this government would not grant the right of appeal to tenants and landlords in this province, mentioned the fact that this system is vastly different from Bill 51's system. Under Bill 51, she said, it was administrative review with an appeal. The minister said that under this system in most cases there is now a right of automatic hearing, so therefore you don't need appeal.

I'd just like to remind the minister and the House, through you, Mr Chair, that when this legislation was first tabled in June 1991 the system was one of administrative review and only if a landlord and a tenant requested an automatic hearing within 15 days could there be a hearing process. In the vast majority of cases it would end up as administrative review. At that stage, was there an appeal when it was still administrative review? The answer is no.

Since then, due to various pressures, including the opposition and certainly tenant and landlord groups, the minister has put in an amendment to the legislation that was approved by the standing committee on general government that allows a hearing. But the fact of the matter is that if the minister is basing her lack of need for appeal on the fact that it was originally administrative review under Bill 51 and it isn't here, I say to her there was no appeal in this legislation we're looking at right now when it was administrative review. So it just doesn't bear water, Madam Minister.

The other point the minister made which somewhat puzzled me was that Dr Ray's comments were actually invalid or no longer necessary because we had gone to a system where in most cases it would be a right of automatic hearing. If you look at what I shared with the House as Dr Ray's reasons for wanting the right of appeal, they're still as valid when you have a hearing as when you had an administrative review.

The first thing Dr Ray said was that there should be a separation of powers and that we needed an independent, arm's-length appeal board, because this would operate independently of perceived or real political influence and would be free also of influence from the ministerial and bureaucratic side.

We look at the fact that this legislation now has a right of automatic hearing. Does that give us independence? No. Does it give an arm's-length decision? No. Does it prohibit interference by the minister's office or the ministry, the bureaucratic side? The answer to all those questions is no. So the fact that you've now changed it to automatic hearing, while it was a welcome amendment, which I believe I made personally and with the support of the government in the 99th hour or whatever we were in at that particular point, does not negate the need for appeal.

The second point Dr Ray brought up was the prohibitive cost of appealing through the Divisional Court, which this legislation allows only in a very narrow way. Divisional Court is extremely expensive. Most tenants and most small landlords cannot afford to go to Divisional Court. This is not changed by the fact that you have hearings instead of administrative review. I look at Dr Ray's arguments and I find them just as valid with the fact that we have hearings as they were if we had administrative review.

On Monday, when we last were debating this particular

section of the bill, I mentioned that the member for Oriole had done a survey in her riding of 15,000 tenants. Of those who responded, 91.59% said the Liberal caucus should not support rent legislation that does not provide adequate appeal for rent review orders. I did a very similar type of survey in Don Mills of 26,000 tenant households and in that particular instance 87.6% of the tenants who responded said the Liberal caucus should not support rent legislation that does not provide adequate appeal.

I don't think there's any doubt that this legislation does not allow adequate appeal. It allows appeal on, I think the minister said, very serious errors -- not "complex"; let me be very specific about that. Serious errors could in the discretion of the