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

April 27, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VIOLENCE

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

VOLUNTEERS

CONTAMINATED SOIL

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

NORTHERN ECONOMY

CAMPING FEES

JOB SECURITY

LES COOK

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

ELECTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

PUBLIC SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

ASSISTED HOUSING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ASSISTED HOUSING

HOUSING LEGISLATION

GO TRANSIT

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

OHC CHAIR

ASSISTED HOUSING

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

EDUCATION PROGRAM

FIREARMS SAFETY

TOBACCO PACKAGING

HOUSING LEGISLATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

GAMBLING

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

LONG-TERM CARE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

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

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

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

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

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Communities across Ontario have been shocked and frightened in the last few years by increasingly random acts of violence which defy our comprehension and challenge our tolerance.

We've now reached a point where action must be taken, concerted action by all three parties in this House, by all levels of government, by every community, by parents, by teachers, by everyone, because we all have a stake in this society and we are all part of the solution.

I should not have to remind this House that violence in our communities is a non-partisan issue. My leader, Lyn Mcleod, recently proposed a non-partisan approach to this problem. This is not the time to play political games. We have absolutely nothing to gain in this way.

Collaboration is essential and we can find a common ground upon which to launch new initiatives, initiatives that would reassert respect for human life, for the dignity of all individuals and for private and public property.

We do not want law and order at any price, yet we can no longer tolerate random acts of violence. To implement long-term solutions, we must attack the roots of crime, address the multiple social and economic causes of crime. We cannot afford Band-Aid solutions. Greater control over guns and bullets is a good starting point.

Let's work together on this issue. Let's do something.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

The purpose of the school achievement indicators program is to collect information that will help determine how effective our education systems are in relation to Canada-wide standards.

In 1991, the Minister of Education stated that the government would not participate in the national testing, stating that tests did not reflect Ontario's curriculum or demographic profile. This decision was almost universally condemned in newspaper editorials across the province, and by parents and by educators. This decision was made at a time when the public was demanding more accountability from our education system.

Our party vigorously, strongly supported a national testing program, and on December 10, 1991, the second Minister of Education -- with our strong urging, I might add -- Mr Tony Silipo, announced that Ontario would participate in the school achievement indicators program.

Our wish today is to urge this government to develop a core curriculum for Ontario for elementary and secondary schools which sets standards for each grade level and establishes testing at regular intervals to ensure attainment of those standards. I believe that an education system that is accountable and provides excellence must be a priority for the students, the parents and the whole, entire Ontario community.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to recognize some individuals from my region. As we all know, last week was recognized as Volunteer Week, and on April 19 I had the privilege of participating in the volunteer appreciation evening held by the Waterloo region branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. This is the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the association has been in the Waterloo region for 33 years.

Currently, there are over 500 volunteers in the Waterloo region, and each of these volunteers makes a very important contribution to our community. All the volunteers prove that a caring community is the answer.

In line with our government's mental health reforms, the Canadian Mental Health Association encourages community involvement, participation and maintenance. Volunteers are able to help make this a reality.

Volunteers give a very important part of themselves. They make a commitment to their community and to those they help. Volunteering is as natural a self-expression as talking.

The evening was an acknowledgement of the impact these volunteers have had on our community and all our lives. It was a pleasure to be a part of this event, and I just want to say thank you to all the volunteers. Their work, their efforts and their dedication is evident in everything they do.

The awards presented included length-of-service awards, outstanding volunteer contribution, honorary membership, as well as pins and certificates for one to seven years inclusive and for 10 years service.

These people are outstanding individuals in our community and I would like to take the opportunity to thank all our volunteers and the Waterloo region branch for their efforts in the community.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The Malvern remedial project, a project jointly sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Government Services and Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, recently announced the final stages of removing radioactive soil from McClure Crescent and nearby McLevin Avenue to a temporary site at Passmore Avenue and Tapscott Road, where the material will be stored, sorted out and shipped to a storage site in Chalk River, Ontario.

This was a commitment I made on June 19, 1985, to remove this contaminated soil from the area. In anticipating that the process may take a long time, in 1986 the Liberal government of the day purchased 40 homes that were affected. We are just months away from when the process will begin. The residents who are still there are very concerned and should be commended for their patience and endurance. They just cannot wait any longer to have that soil removed.

The efforts of Gord Laschinger, the director of real estate of Management Board, should not go unmentioned. His competence and understanding of the issue allowed the matter to be dealt with efficiently. Brad Franklin, the senior public affairs officer for the low-level radioactive waste management office, kept me informed constantly.

I'm concerned that the mayor and some councillors are having second thoughts about this. I hope they get on with it and make sure that this soil is moved immediately.

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I recently had the opportunity to meet with members of my community representing School Bus Ontario, an organization which believes that safety must be the first priority of student transportation.

There is no doubt that Ontario's present school bus transportation network, which is the result of decades of fine-tuning of regulations and policies, offers the safety and security that is expected by the students and parents of this province. The alternative to school buses is to require children to use local transportation systems. While this may be acceptable for older high school students, I share the coalition's concern about the hazards which younger children may be exposed to.

On a school bus, routes are planned around the location of students' homes and schools, eliminating the need for children to transfer buses. It is unlikely that children can get off school buses at the wrong stop. As well, on a school bus, students are not allowed to stand up.

Finally and most importantly, since children ride only with their peers on a school bus, they are safe from harassment or crime while on the bus and cannot be followed by adults intending to harm them.

Therefore this group, the School Bus Ontario coalition, has asked that in order to preserve safety and security, yet reduce total spending on student transportation, long-term restructuring of this vital public service is essential and that no further reductions of student transportation funding occur until such time as restructuring initiatives can be implemented to realize greater cost efficiencies.

I support safe transportation to and from school.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to provide this House with an update on job creation and job sustainability in northern Ontario.

As we know, provincial government activity, in partnership with communities and the private sector, has helped to stabilize the northern economy. Overall, the government has created and maintained thousands of jobs and has developed innovative approaches to economic development. Increased training and education have helped the north develop the capacity to continue diversification and become part of the new information-based economy.

In Kapuskasing, the province facilitated the employee and community buyout of Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co, saving 800 jobs, and in Thunder Bay, the employee buyout of Provincial Papers saved 700 jobs.

Loans and loan guarantees from the province and the northern Ontario heritage fund have allowed sawmills in a number of communities to survive in the downturn of the 1990s and return to profitability.

Since 1990, there have been 31,000 jobs created and supported in northern Ontario through the various Jobs Ontario programs, youth employment and provincial investment in companies. In Cochrane North alone, our Jobs Ontario Training program has helped to create 603 long-term jobs in cooperation with the private sector. We also have two aboriginal training brokers who have created 46 jobs since they started a year ago. This particular program has created over 2,700 jobs for all of northern Ontario. The Ontario native community infrastructure program created 300 jobs since 1991.

Hydro-electric generating stations also have created a number of jobs. The Negagami-Shekak project has just got the go-ahead. It will create 123 construction jobs and 400 indirect jobs.

CAMPING FEES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Last Monday, Mike Harris questioned the government about its intention to start charging fees to boy scouts and girl guides using provincial parks. Harris noted that the government was so desperate that it was willing to go after six-year-old kids.

The Conservatives see this change as a new kind of user fee, yet though seemingly opposed to user fees in the parks, they are in support of user fees in other areas such as health care. The question is, what will Mike Harris do if six-year-old Bobby hurts himself while camping and has to be rushed to the local hospital? Under a Tory government, will Bobby's parents have to pay for the services of a doctor or for health care? Mike Harris says yes. Mike Harris doesn't think little Bobby should have to pay for camping, but isn't opposed to charging him to use the health care system.

Harris also noted that the campers could participate in activities around the park instead of paying daily fees, a kind of workfare. How does that work? Does little Bobby have to sign a commitment that he's going to work before they allow him into the park or do they check little Bobby's pockets to make sure he's taken out enough paper in order to allow him to leave the park?

Is this the same Mike Harris who thinks it's okay for Helle Hulgaard to stay at home and collect welfare instead of working? Mike Harris wants boy scouts and girl guides to work for their campground fees, but people with good-paying jobs can quit and let the system support them.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Premier and it concerns a fax I received yesterday, April 26, from a Mr Allan Deegan, vice-president, CN North America. Mr Deegan indicates that CN filed a notice of intent yesterday with the National Transportation Agency of Canada to cease rail operations on the Newmarket subdivision, Bradford to Washago, and on the Midland subdivision, Orillia to Uhthoff.

In 90 days or less, following the filing of the notice of intent, Mr Deegan said CN will formally apply for permission to abandon these lines. He said CN invited proposals from short-line operators for five lines in Ontario including the Barrie-Collingwood and Midland-Uhthoff lines. Mr Deegan said, and I quote, "Potential bidders withdrew from this process when changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were enacted." Thousands of jobs will disappear in Ontario because of the NDP government's job-killing labour bill, Bill 40.

Premier, you pledged that this session of the Legislature would be about "jobs, jobs, jobs." The word "jobs" came out of your mouth dozens of times during your recent speech to the NDP provincial council.

Premier, I urge you to table and support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Simcoe West, which amends the successor rights portion that makes it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines. Ensure that workers can keep their jobs, jobs, jobs. Your Minister of Jobs has said no to jobs.

LES COOK

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to pay tribute to Les Cook, a former mayor of the city of Woodstock who passed away last week.

Les Cook dedicated his life to public service. He spent a career with Canada Post before retiring in 1985 as a postal supervisor. He spent his spare time driving a school bus for the Oxford County Board of Education.

But as importantly, he believed strongly in involving himself in local politics. For 21 years, Les represented his neighbours and friends at city hall as a city and county councillor, plus three terms as mayor. He retired from the political scene in 1991 but remained an ardent observer. Often you would see letters to the editor in the local paper from Les as he offered his views on a problem.

But Les's contribution to his community and country stretch back further than his terms in public office. He spent more than six years overseas with the Royal Canadian Regiment and the Canadian Provost Corp during the Second World War. Upon his return, he remained a faithful member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 55, Woodstock, and for many years was the sergeant of the colour party.

Tributes to Les poured in from the many people who had served with him over the years. They painted a picture of a tireless worker, dedicated to doing his best in the public interest.

Les Cook's contributions to his community were many and they will not soon be forgotten.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday, during the division bells on second reading of Bill 138,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, the Speaker received two letters of deferral pursuant to standing order 28(g). The Speaker, according to practice, accepted the first letter he received as the prevailing one. Following this, several members rose on points of order as to the decision that had been made.

Essentially two points were raised. The first was that the Speaker should not accept the first letter received but should adopt some other method of determining acceptability. The second point raised dealt with the question of what the words "specified time" are interpreted to mean in the standing order. I will address both of these points shortly.

Before I do that, however, I want to return to the further events of yesterday. Members will recall that it came to the attention of the Speaker that the first deferral letter received did not meet the requirements set out in standing order 28(g), which states:

"During the ringing of division bells as provided in clause (f), the vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House."

While it is true that on at least one previous occasion a deferral letter signed by a member other than the chief whip of a recognized party was accepted, it is my view that standing order 28(

g) is very clear and can only be interpreted to allow acceptance of a deferral letter from the chief whip of a recognized party. I therefore have no alternative but to find that the deferral letter received yesterday from the acting government whip is out of order and cannot be accepted. The vote on the question of second reading of Bill 138 is accordingly deferred until 4:15 pm today as requested in the deferral letter signed by the chief whip of the official opposition pursuant to standing order 28(g).

Turning now to the point raised with respect to the words "specified time" in standing order 28(g), I can only say that in this House for the purposes of this standing order, "specified time" has consistently been interpreted to mean either a time prescribed by the clock or a time in the proceedings of the House such as "immediately following routine proceedings" or "immediately prior to orders of the day."

I now wish to address the question of which deferral letter is to be accepted by the Speaker when more than one is received. It has been our practice in this House that the Speaker accepts the first deferral letter received. It is obvious to me from the events of yesterday, a close reading of standing order 28(

g) and previous occurrences in this House that this practice does not encourage dignity or preserve decorum appropriate to this chamber.

It is clear that a change is required, and it is my view that such changes are best made by consultation with members from all parties. Therefore, pursuant to standing order 106(i), I am referring this question to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for its consideration and expeditious report.

Members should be fully aware that should circumstances similar to the events of yesterday occur before the committee makes its report, the Speaker will determine the method of selecting the prevailing deferral letter.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Thank you very much for your presentation, sir. On the issue of when to choose the properly filed deferral notice, I commented yesterday, and it was taken as notice by the then Speaker, that the member who initiated the delivery of the government's notice of deferral was not in his own place. In fact, if he had risen in his place to initiate a speech or an intervention, he would have been ruled out of order and not recognized.

It is my view, sir, that when someone who initiates any event, any legal proceeding in this House, does so from a position or place of seating other than his own, he should be treated in exactly the same way as though he were intervening orally in the proceedings of the day: called to order, sent back to his seat, and then asked to proceed with whatever legal intervention in the proceeding he or she may wish to make.

I think that would have also solved some of our problem yesterday. It probably would not have eliminated the need for a foot race, because that eventually was all that we are now left with: The acceptance of the first filed is now obviously the way things will be until the House, through its Legislative Assembly committee, decides.

For me, we thought we had a decision taken earlier by a previous Speaker. In fact, I looked up the date and everything, and it was the sense I had that maybe there was to be a different manner of delivering our notices of deferral.

In any event, I think it is important for you to take notice of the fact that all of the proceedings, however or whenever they are to occur under the auspices of the standing orders, must be so done and conducted in accordance with order in the House. If somebody pretends they are to be delivering some message to your chair in accordance with 28(g), they should do so from their own place and not, as I suggested might happen from here on in, having a bunch of people camped out on the dais in order to be first on your list. I think you should make some decision with respect to that.

I don't think you have any option but to declare that people can only initiate interventions here from their own seats, for instance.

I think you should be very clear that perhaps there is something that should be worked on in relation to what is most convenient for all of the people. I rose yesterday and intervened by saying that just because the government got its deferral notice there first meant that we as the minority then had to put up with whatever the government instructed us. That to me is not the way the deferral notice is to work. The deferral notice is supposed to mean -- well, it's not convenient for people now, but it should not be made less convenient for the rest of us just because the government was able to get its to you in time.

So there are several issues of which I think you should take note.

Preliminarily, I think you should declare that no one can initiate a proceeding here when he or she is out of order, that they be called to order and dispatched back to their place to initiate the event from their place of order. I think that, as a preliminary matter, might help some things be resolved.

I think you should also take into consideration that where there is a dispute as to timing of votes which are important -- this is a tax bill; this is a confidence item. It's not likely that the matter will be defeated by the few numbers of the opposition who now occupy this place, but because it is a confidence matter, I think it is imperative that if there's a disagreement as to time, perhaps the convening of a meeting of House leaders should be taken so we can work on the appropriate time so that the best result, in the sense of the House being most highly attended, can be arranged.

Those two points in particular I think are significant for us at this point.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Just very briefly on the issue of specified time, while I appreciate that in the past there have been letters that have suggested that a deferred vote be held in accordance with a certain spot in our business sheet, I would suggest to you, having spoken to the member for Carleton yesterday, who was the representative from our party who helped draft the change in the standing orders, that "specified time" was never intended by the draftspeople in all three parties of this Legislature to refer to anything other than a specified time; that is, a time on the clock.

If someone were to say, "What time is it now?" if you're walking down the street or here, nobody would say, "Oh, it's before orders of the day." They would say, "It is three minutes to 2." It seems to make abundant sense to me. The government doesn't seem to agree. Maybe when they have their cabinet meetings or their caucus meetings, they say: "It'll be on Tuesday before orders of the day. That's when you're supposed to come to caucus." Our caucus says, "It's Tuesday morning at 10 am." I don't know how the New Democratic Party works on that principle. It's kind of vague and it's certainly not specified and it's certainly not a time.

I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that you might want to refer the issue of "specified time" to the Legislative Assembly committee as well.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point you've ruled on in terms of specified time and that the House leader for the third party has raised, the House leader for the third party stands in his place and contradicts himself.

The opposition parties in this House have delivered deferral notices to the Chair to conduct votes "immediately after routine proceedings." Both the opposition parties have done that to the government. So it is the precedent of this House --

Mr Eves: We are in agreement: We have done that. We're not talking about standing order 28(g).

Hon Mr Charlton: No, no. When this issue originally arose here last fall, it was because the opposition parties intentionally deferred a vote until after routine proceedings, not to a specified time, and that caused the government to lose the afternoon on a particular matter. The precedents in this House for the last three years have seen the House defer votes on a regular basis to after routine proceedings. The procedure the government used yesterday, as you've set out in your ruling, Mr Speaker, is no different from that.

On the other matters raised by the House leader for the official opposition, Mr Speaker, I look forward to hearing your comments on them because they are probably legitimate questions that should be resolved.

Mr Elston: One other point: I did forget to raise one other issue with you, sir, and that is the question of the business of the day. We have a precise listing of what goes on here. In fact, it's delivered to us each day. What all this is about is exactly as the member for Hamilton Mountain has indicated: It is the struggle over when you get a full day's work so that time allocation motions will be seen to be valid in this place.

The whole reason the decision has been taken to refer this to a time that is before orders of the day is so that once orders of the day are called, he can get a full afternoon's debate on 120, thereby fulfilling his requirements under his time allocation motion.

This is one of those very fine-line issues. In fact, in this place, if we were to go through this with someone who has nothing in terms of knowledge of how this place works, we would divide our day down into routine proceedings and orders of the day. What is happening now, of course, is that we are trying to create some kind of twilight zone. The deferred vote is not a routine proceeding and the government wishes it not to be an order of the day, yet, legitimately, if we deal with this and we take it off our Orders and Notices, it has been the dealing with of an order. Basically, we can't have it two ways.

It can't be dealing with an order and not dealing with an order. It may be that this will help us deal with some of the issues, but in my view, we cannot come to this place and say we have routine proceedings and orders of the day, and another thing called "convenience zone" so that whatever must be done can be done.

From my point of view, Mr Speaker, it is either an order or it is not an order. If we vote on it, if we take a proceeding, it is the conducting of an order of the day. Perhaps you might think on that, because if we have a deferred vote which does get dealt with, then it seems to me that is and has to be considered an order of the day and the first item of business conducted by this place. I don't know how we can have a vote that is not an order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, to the additional point which the House leader for the official opposition has raised, you've already ruled on that matter. It was ruled on last fall and we've been dealing with that question, I think, rather appropriately.

As I said earlier, I would be happy to hear your comments on the other two matters that the House leader for the official opposition has raised, because they are questions that should have some definition and some understanding for members of the House.

The Speaker: To the three House leaders, all three House leaders have spoken quite eloquently on precisely why I have referred this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

May I say and underscore a portion of the ruling which I made today: The spectacle of members racing to the dais with a piece of paper is unacceptable to me in terms of maintaining the appropriate dignity and decorum which this chamber deserves. While this matter is being dealt with by the Legislative Assembly committee, should there be an occasion for a deferred vote, the Chair will have a method of dealing with it that is not simply first come, first served. I trust that all members are fully aware of that.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to remark about the elections in South Africa.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

ELECTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It is indeed a great honour for me to stand in my place today and speak on behalf of the government of Ontario as we rejoice and celebrate the end of apartheid, the end of discrimination and racism, and the beginning of new freedoms, and certainly today the freedom of elections in South Africa.

Apartheid was a tool in South Africa to use in the form of racism and discrimination. It dehumanized 16 million people. It prevented them from fully participating in their country and it made them live in abject poverty that we as citizens in Ontario viewed with horror.

It took away these people's right to be able to participate fully in things that we in Ontario take for granted, occasionally, such as being able to express themselves, to be able to participate fully in their choice of a political party, to be able to vote, and to be able to have a choice in decision-making in how their government should be run.

We are extremely pleased that today, as we view from here in Ontario, many of us on this side of the House have both privately and publicly expressed support for ending apartheid and making sure that we came to a point and place in time that people would be able to participate, as we do in Ontario.

We all have two vivid memories of the events which have led up to this particular day. We have seen in more recent times the Sharpeville massacre, which we mark every year as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. There were demonstrations which were usually followed by bloody violence in Soweto township, and there were revolting conditions under which the majority of the people of South Africa lived, not just the poverty but the fact that they were dehumanized and they were unable to participate in equality and in fairness.

But then we started to see a change, in time. As we in Ontario put aside our political partisanship, we can all take pride in the fact that as Canadians, as citizens of this great province, we were able to turn the tide of events and we were able to put pressure on South Africa to end apartheid and therefore end racism and discrimination.

We participated in a boycott of South African products. We participated in rallies and demonstrations, voicing our concerns not only here in Ontario but at the United Nations. We participated in international events, putting pressure on the government of South Africa to review its practices and its policies and to bring in a free and democratic society.

More recently, the government of Ontario was also able to help in this new process. Just recently, in February, Jacob Zuma, deputy secretary-general of the ANC, who is a candidate for the position of Premier in the province of KwaZulu, Natal, and Felix Delamini, who is the principal secretary of the ANC, visited and shadowed our Premier.

Not only did they shadow the Premier and see how a Premier is able to operate on a day-to-day basis, but they visited many of our ministries, participated in briefings to see how government in Ontario works, were able to view us here in the House, and were able to ask various ministries questions about how governments operate and work in a democratic society.

In addition, just recently -- in fact, in the last two weeks -- Ontario hosted eight public servants in training as part of an international program for South African civil servants. This mentoring program was for two weeks, whereby each person spent time with and shadowed a senior manager of a particular ministry.

This is surely an example of how Ontario has been trying to respond to the growing concern of making sure that the new democratic process will work and will continue to work. We're very pleased that we've been able to participate in this international movement to see South Africa become a democratic nation.

On this day, as we watch, we are still very concerned that we want to make sure that racism and discrimination are ended all around the world, not just in South Africa but here in Ontario as well. We wish all of our brothers and sisters in South Africa Godspeed and goodwill and we pray for them that this new process will work, and we will be there for them to make sure it does work.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of my caucus, I am pleased to join with all members of this House in congratulating South Africa on its first multiracial elections in that nation's history.

These elections mark the beginning of the end of three centuries of apartheid, a policy of oppression, a policy that divided a nation. This is another of those days that few of us expected to see in our lifetime. Who among us would have expected to see a free Nelson Mandela campaigning to become President of South Africa?

It was wonderful this morning, on television, to watch Nelson Mandela cast that first vote and it was marvellous to see the joy in people's faces as they lined up for hours just to have that privilege of casting their first vote, and to see the woman who dressed in her finest as she went out to celebrate what for her was the greatest day of her life.

As people around the world celebrate these elections, the people of Ontario and indeed all Canadians can be especially proud of the role we have played in achieving this historic event. From Sharpeville to Soweto to the imposition of sanctions in the late 1980s, we have stood solidly behind freedom and democracy and racial equality in South Africa.

The creation of a non-racial democracy has been one of Canada's main foreign policy objectives since the 1960s, and today Ontarians and Canadians are still at the forefront. In addition to Canada's team of 12 observers, there are 58 others from non-governmental organizations in South Africa right now, helping to ensure the freeness and the fairness of the elections. We thank them for their work and for their commitment.

The road to freedom has not been an easy one for South Africa, and even today images of violence are mixed with the images of joy and the reality of celebrating a unique achievement. We know that making democracy work in South Africa is not going to be easy. As Canadians, we will continue to be there, offering our assistance, advice and encouragement so that the fledgling roots of multiracial democracy will take hold and grow strong.

Democracy in South Africa could not have been achieved without the leadership of people like Nelson Mandela who were able to inspire not just South Africans but people around the globe. I think we all remember Nelson Mandela's visit to Queen's Park three years ago, when tens of thousands of people came to the rally. I believe that said a lot about the way that Ontarians feel about the fight for freedom in South Africa.

We must also recognize the important role played by F.W. de Klerk, who heard the demands for change and who saw that apartheid was no longer viable for South Africa.

But most of all we must congratulate the people of South Africa for their tremendous resilience and perseverance and their vision of a free nation. Their struggle has been long and painful and too often tragic, but they were determined that their struggle would not be lost and they have emerged victorious.

This is a day that should make all of us stop and understand once again how precious democracy is, as we see others who have been prepared to fight for and to die for and to cherish the right to vote that we too often take for granted.

Let us hope and pray that as the voting takes place this week the people of South Africa will not be intimidated from exercising their newly won rights by those who wish to continue the violence and the hatred of the past. Whatever the outcome of these elections, we must hope that peace will prevail and that the people of South Africa will begin living in harmony, free of the fear and anguish that have gripped their nation for so long.

We extend to the people of South Africa our best wishes for success in these elections as they begin building a new country, one that, as Nelson Mandela said this morning, will bring prosperity and hope for the future.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'd like to thank our leader, Mike Harris, for asking me to speak on behalf of our caucus on this very important issue and would share strongly in the statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the government.

A historic event such as the free election in South Africa will be a day that is remembered for ever. It marks the end of apartheid, the beginning of a new democracy and a fresh start for freedom and hope and a new life for the people in Africa.

The Berlin Wall was built in August 1961 and came down in November 1989, some 28 years. Yet today the walls of segregation that have been built over time are at last coming down. The 340 years of an era of dominance in South Africa that has distinguished white from coloured and white from Asian are now coming to an end.

The walls of apartheid were formally erected in 1948 and laid down a structure separating racial groups one from another and ensured no resistance to the rule by a minority.

Today the South African nation has a new Constitution, a new flag and a new democracy. The walls of prejudice are as large as any that humans can build, and yet, like the walls of Jericho, with faith and much suffering those very walls are now broken.

When you think of democracy, I remember what J.A. Corry said in 1951:

"If the democratic ideal of the supreme importance of individual personality is clearly understood and firmly held by the bulk of the people and if enough persons with an informed intelligence participate actively in democratic politics, the needed controls can probably be devised and the required caution is likely to be exercised."

With democracy there are no guarantees, only the possibility of greatness. The step towards democracy in South Africa leads us to wonder how well it will succeed; it leads us to hope that the new president will be blessed with good health, a long life and the support of the minorities; it leads us to pray for peace and happiness and harmony.

I want to share with the Legislature an experience that brought me to South Africa. Markham was one of the centres where people were voting. They were voting in Oakville and Toronto, London and Ottawa. When I arrived around 7:30, there were still four hours of people in the lineup yet to vote.

There you saw people from all over different parts of Africa. They came from Bloemfontein, Standerton, Capetown, Durban, Johannesburg and other South African communities, standing in line together, coloured, white, Asian, going up that line to do something they'd never done before.

They came from as far away as Barrie. There was a Salvation Army lieutenant from Fenelon Falls. You had a mixture of people from Scarborough, Willowdale. They were all Canadians who have dual citizenship and the chance to participate in what was going on within South Africa.

It was interesting as well to see, at the very end of the line -- and members of this Legislature will be impressed at this particular fact -- our own chief electoral officer, Mr Warren Bailie. Ontario's ambassador for democratic process across the world was at the end of the line making sure no one else got in if they came after the clock had stopped, when they could be there for their own historic moment to vote in the advance polls.

I saw the identification cards that people had with them, with the little K up in the right-hand corner which meant they were coloured, so if they were on a bus or in a washroom or in a restaurant or on a beach where they shouldn't have been, the police could set them apart. There they were last night, and I'd like to share some of the quotes of the people.

Mrs Sherry of Scarborough, who has lived here in Canada for 26 years, said she felt "over the moon like Bishop Tutu."

Lynton Friedman of Thornhill, 17 years in Canada, called this a "historic moment, yet scary." He didn't know what would happen.

Colin Daniels, who has lived in Markham for three years, said: "I've waited all my life to vote.... A few hours in line means nothing to me."

Natanya Shevel of Thornhill, who has been in Canada for one year, said, "It's wonderful that people who have been waiting their whole life are now taking

part in this process."

Les Bulkin of Willowdale, eight years a Canadian, said:

"For myself, I am pleased that the people from South Africa are able to participate in forming the future. With the position there as volatile as it is, I am sure everyone who has left can only hope that things will work out for the country."

Fatima Ebraham of Thornhill said:

"I am elated and excited to be able to vote. It's the first time I've ever been able to vote in a South African election. Since 1982, when I became a Canadian citizen, I have voted in all Canadian elections."

Selwyn Janit of Thornhill, who has lived in Canada for five years, said that it's the most wonderful experience because he can say he is voting for the first time without conscience.

David Marcus of Thornhill, who has lived nine years in Canada, said:

"From a South African perspective, it is appropriate that one person has one vote. From the sheer numbers, it is also appropriate for black rule. To have stability in South Africa is to have a strong government. It has been unbelievable, the brain drain from South Africa. The highly skilled and educated people who had an impact on the country have left and the leaders there now are there by default."

One final quote from Jay Dayaljee, who is classified as an Asian in South Africa but now lives in Markham as a Canadian citizen, who said:

"I saw no hope in South Africa. Botha went with the status quo and I knew there would be a power struggle created by apartheid. People need education to bring them up to a standard and to have true equality."

May I say that this gentleman, in Canada for six years, now owns his own house, has launched a successful career, has his own small business, something he could never have done in a lifetime in South Africa.

This new government will have the almost overwhelming task of dealing with the problems of homelessness, unemployment, staggering illiteracy rates in education.

But Canada has played an important role in this long journey to today's election through our sanctions, through diplomacy and through the will of the Canadian people.

Today I would like to do something in this House that is rare for someone from our side of the House. I want to give special commendation to our Premier, who has on this issue stood apart as one strong voice for the people of South Africa. He is not in the House today to hear me say it, but I have to compliment him. Our party has supported him strongly in his efforts to break down these walls of prejudice and hatred.

The Civil War in the United States is a parallel to South Africa. It's a parallel to the move to democracy for a people. I'd like, then, to draw upon the words of Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address of November 19, 1863:

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

May that be our prayer for South Africa.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I wish to thank the Minister of Citizenship, the honourable Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Markham for those very sensitive and thoughtful remarks on this important occasion.

I wish also to draw members' attention to the fact that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, with a strong Canadian presence, has been in South Africa and remains there as election monitors, and following the election will provide post-election seminars for the newly elected members of Parliament. The efforts of your Commonwealth Parliamentary Association you can be most proud of.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Solicitor General. It has now been more than three weeks since the senseless shooting at the Just Desserts café crystallized the growing concern about crime and safety. Tomorrow marks three weeks since I urged that those growing concerns about crime and safety be referred to the justice committee of this Legislature so that we could address what actions we as legislators could take to help people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. Three weeks, and we are still debating the agenda for that committee.

I recall that in May 1992, when riots in Los Angeles set off incidents of looting and rioting on Yonge Street here in Toronto, we congratulated the government that within 72 hours the government had taken action and had set up the Stephen Lewis task force. There was a sense of urgency then. But now, even with the Just Desserts killing, with the drive-by shootings in Ottawa, with people in Chatham being concerned about incidents of gang-related violence, there seems to be no sense of urgency.

My question to the minister is: Why was the government willing to act almost immediately in response to the Yonge Street riots and yet you refuse to take any action now? Why will you not deal with these concerns, today's concerns, with that same sense of urgency?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I reject the suggestion that we haven't taken the type of serious response that the member offers. I was on my feet yesterday in response to the acting leader of the official opposition on exactly the same question and I would respond again the same. On the very day that she offered up the idea that we would talk about referring the matter to a legislative committee, I embraced the idea on behalf of the government and said we were quite prepared to talk about that.

I'm not aware at this point that there's any particular finger-pointing going on as to why there isn't agreement on the agenda. We were very close to an agreement and then some ground shifted.

That is not unusual in politics, but I remain adamant that this government and my colleague the House leader are prepared to spend whatever time is necessary meeting with opposition members to put together an agenda that all three parties can live with, that would have us dealing with, in a constructive way and in a meaningful way, the role Ontario can play, recognizing, as the honourable member does, that most of the initiatives are in the hands of the federal government.

They have indicated that they are planning to present a package of proposals, and we have indicated that we are prepared to receive those proposals and respond very quickly and very effectively.

Mrs McLeod: I do remember that the minister embraced my suggestion with some enthusiasm. That's why I'm so frustrated that three weeks later there is still no agreement about the agenda. I simply don't believe there is a reason to continue to stall in getting on to discuss issues and to take important action.

Yesterday the Premier accused my colleague who raised this issue in the House, my colleague the member for Renfrew North, of playing politics in continuing to raise this issue. I cannot understand how we can be accused of playing politics in raising an issue which is in the forefront of people's minds, one of their greatest concerns. I simply don't believe it is playing politics to urge this government to take immediate action on such an important issue.

I remind the minister and the government that we as legislators have an obligation to do everything possible to make people feel more safe. I urged that this issue be referred to committee because I believed we needed to take urgent action. The fact that we have not been able to agree on an agenda, that it is three weeks later, does not take away from the fact that urgent action is still needed.

We have made one proposal for a specific action to regulate ammunition sales. The police say it's a good idea, and it has widespread public support. Will you take at least this one step that could be accomplished right now and pass this bill making it more difficult to buy ammunition, for criminals to get bullets?

Hon Mr Christopherson: It really does leave one wondering whether or not the original offer and the way it was meant was truly sincere, given that what I'm hearing here is very similar to what I received last week from the Tories, and that is the candle being burned at both ends.

On the one hand, the opposition parties have specific issues they want to talk about in committee, and we are having those discussions in an attempt to reach an agenda. As far as I know, they're still happening. I haven't received any official notice that those discussions are finished and that no one is any longer interested in a legislative committee. Yet honourable members in the opposition parties rise in their place and ask: "Why aren't you taking action on the very area you've asked us to work with you on?"

With all due respect, either the opposition parties want to deal with these issues in a non-partisan legislative fashion or they don't. If you don't, then this government will move unilaterally on those issues. I have said they are good ideas. I've said we're prepared to look at them. If you don't want to talk about them in committee any more, for whatever political agenda that suits, then please rise and say so, have your House leader confirm it to our House leader, and we'll get on with doing it.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, exactly.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: That is exactly the issue. We want to deal with the issues that matter. We want this government to be urged to take action. We did not propose the referral to the committee so that we could spend three weeks negotiating what would be on the agenda, negotiating what we would be allowed to talk about. We certainly did not refer it to committee so that the minister could take whatever time was necessary to decide what he would talk about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: The time necessary is for ever, and we are never going to get on with dealing with the issues at all. That was not the purpose of the referral to the committee. There are a whole range of actions that could be taken to restore people's sense of safety in their communities. It is quite clear that the minister has no support from the members of his cabinet or his caucus to deal with these important issues.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Sarnia, please come to order.

Would the leader place her supplementary, please.

Mrs McLeod: I believe that we need to stop the endless wrangling over the agenda so that we can get on with dealing with the issues. We continue to put forward the range of actions that we believe could be taken. We have suggested and proposed legislation that restricting bullets is one example. We have called for clear directives on sentencing regarding violent crime and gun-related offences. We believe we need to deal with these issues.

We understand that the government doesn't want to deal with community policing, we understand that the leader of the third party doesn't want to deal with ammunition control, and we are concerned that if we can't agree on an agenda there will be no action at all.

Minister, will you assure us today that we will get past the wrangling and get on to action? Do I have your commitment that we can at least sit down and talk about community policing and the control of ammunition and sentencing issues?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I reiterate again, very sincerely, in the interest of trying to reach back to the offer that she originally made and the tone, this government is prepared to sit down and talk about an agenda that all three parties can agree on. Any suggestion that we haven't been prepared to do that does not reflect the history of what has happened in the last three weeks, and the honourable member is sitting right beside the person who can give her those facts if, indeed, she needs them.

If they don't want to talk about these things, then I wish they would say so. As I've said earlier, we will move on these issues. This cabinet, this caucus is committed, and has been, to the issue of public safety and we will continue to do so whether or not we get your support on how we do it.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: The member has represented me as having stood in the way of a broad discussion of the topics on crime. He has suggested that we have been holding up the discussions. In fact, that is not true.

On another point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: -- was heard to say, and I heard her perfectly clearly on this side, to call my member, the leader of our party, a fraud. I think you should ask that member for Ottawa Centre to withdraw because she is bringing into very high disrepute --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Bruce, he raises two points. On the first one he does not have a point of privilege, which he will know, but indeed there is certainly a difference of opinion and that's quite evident.

On the second point, if there was unparliamentary language used I did not hear it. However, as is the practice, if the member identified, the member for Ottawa Centre, believes that she did use unparliamentary language, she has an opportunity to so withdraw those remarks.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Mr Speaker, if the House leader of the official opposition believes --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- that it was unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Because of the shouting I could not hear what the member said. It is now time for the second question.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'll refrain from further rebuttal and come back to the issue tomorrow, because my second question is indeed for the member for Ottawa Centre, the Minister of Housing.

Minister, this afternoon your legislation legalizing basement apartments is going to be going through the final stages. This afternoon is the last chance that we have to amend this legislation. This bill, and you know it well, does nothing for the safety of tenants living in existing basement apartments and this year already we have seen three tragic fires resulting in five deaths.

My colleagues and I have put forward amendments which we believe would provide protection for tenants and would help to prevent more tragedies from occurring. You refuse to consider them. I still don't understand how you can steadfastly refuse to even consider these amendments, and one last time I ask you if you will explain to me why you refuse to take action that would clearly protect against future tragedies.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I withdrew earlier comments about the Leader of the Opposition. However, I recall now why I felt impelled to use a word in a way that the House leader for the Liberals suggested was unparliamentary.

The tone and the accuracy of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying proves once again that they play with issues like this.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition should know that the games played yesterday by the opposition mean that Bill 120 won't be dealt with this afternoon, or maybe she hasn't talked to her House leader at this time.

Further, she also knows that until apartments in houses are legal in this province, they cannot be safe. If she wishes to keep them illegal, I wish she'd be honest enough to say that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It will be of great assistance in trying to establish an appropriate decorum in the House if language which is provocative was not used. I would ask the leader to place her supplementary.

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I truly feel that when a man representing a riding in this House expresses anger you understand that, and I hope you will understand it when a woman does.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader place her supplementary.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As a woman in this House, I would like to dissociate myself from the insinuations just made by the Minister of Housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It was not my intention to upset anyone, but I would appreciate it if the House would come to order and if the Leader of the Opposition could now have an opportunity to place her question.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no doubt that you will understand when I, as the leader of the party, who just happens also to be female, take offence that this entire debate has just occurred.

If this minister would prefer to deal with my tone rather than deal with my concern, I would then ask her to deal with the tone of the letter from the coroner who happens to be investigating one of the three basement apartment fires that resulted in deaths in the last four months.

He wrote to you, Minister, because he has great concerns that your legislation will not prevent more of these tragic events from occurring. He's telling you what we have tried to tell you and what fire chiefs from across this province have told you: that simply legalizing basement apartments will not make them safe.

Our amendments, Minister, would require existing basement apartments to be registered. They would give the municipalities the tools to ensure that existing units, those units you are about to make legal, would meet fire code requirements. That's the issue we are talking about and that's the concern we keep raising. Unless you accept our amendments before that legislation is passed, it will be too late.

The coroner pleads with you to amend the legislation before it's too late. Will you accept those amendments and will you fix that legislation before it is passed into law and tenants are left without protection?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Associated with Bill 120 are changes to the fire code which will provide for fire separations, for adequate fire alarm systems, for adequate means of escape from apartments in houses. In fact, the recommendations of more than one coroner's jury over the years have been very helpful to those officials gathered together by the fire marshal of Ontario who proposed the changes to the fire code which will come into effect with passage of Bill 120.

I will say again to the Leader of the Opposition, she has suggested that we are suggesting that passage of the bill and removal of the zoning question from discussion of safety of apartments in housing is somehow going to make every apartment safe. It will not, and what will be required is to have apartment owners and apartment dwellers know they are in a position --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You don't care.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- where the apartments are no longer considered illegal because of zoning and they are in a position to seek help to bring apartments up to standard. That is the only way we are going to have safety, and to insist that we pass from a situation where zoning makes them illegal to one where lack of registration makes them illegal does not help, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Mrs McLeod: This might once have begun as a debate about zoning; it is now a debate about safety, and I cannot make this minister understand that.

Minister, last year alone, 30% of basement fires just in Mississauga involved basement apartments. It is the people in those situations, living in those existing units, who are going to be left vulnerable when you pass your legislation. They are left unprotected.

This is not about politics. This is about fire chiefs who want to prevent disastrous accidents from occurring. This is about a coroner who is investigating a recent death and who says to you that he doesn't believe your law will prevent another one from occurring. That's what this is about. Our amendments are simple. They're simple to implement. We want to see a registry for existing units. We want municipalities to have the power to ensure that those existing units meet the fire code requirements.

If you will not pass these amendments, if it's because they come from an opposition party, even though these are broadly supported, even though a coroner is pleading with you to pass these amendments, will you please tell us what you're going to do to protect the tenants who now live in existing basement apartments which you are about to make legal and which are not safe?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The situation currently is that there are over 100,000 apartments in houses in the province of Ontario which are called illegal because of their zoning. Bill 120 changes that situation. It then allows the process in which property owners, municipal inspectors, fire officials and tenants can address the question of bringing apartments in houses up to safety standards.

Mr Mahoney: Wrong. You were right to a point; you're wrong.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That is the only way we're going to achieve safety.

Mr Mahoney: She doesn't know what she's talking about.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, come to order and allow the minister to complete her response.

Hon Ms Gigantes: There is no magic wand, and the Leader of the Opposition should not pretend there is. It's going to take work to undo years of a situation in which an underground economy was created in basement apartments, side apartments, attic apartments, many of which are unsafe.

We want to get to work on that. We're giving municipalities more power for inspection. Fire officials know the kind of code they now will be armed with. It's going to mean the gradual, step-by-step improvement of health and safety standards for tenants and for property owners in this province.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, the Toronto Star reported this morning that you have recently written off $10 million in loans to the Supportive Housing Coalition. Why?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I believe the Star report was accurate and the way the leader of the third party has expressed it is not. There were two loans to the Supportive Housing Coalition that were written off. They were written off because since the period going back to 1988, they had not produced affordable housing. The likelihood of their being able to produce affordable housing on the sites involved, which were under a program called the land-loan guarantee program, looked to be very bad. I decided that the time had come to call it quits with those projects.

Mr Harris: The question was, they wrote it off, and I asked why. So I was quite right in my question. Thank you very much, Minister.

The taxpayers of Ontario spend over $1 billion a year on government-subsidized housing and they deserve to know that their money is being spent appropriately. For the last five years or so, we have been raising these issues, back to the Patti Starr days, of project after project after project where taxpayer dollars have been wasted, where there has been mismanagement of taxpayer dollars rampant and rife in the government-assisted housing programs; case after case, property after property, where taxpayers are being gouged. This morning was just another example in the long litany of waste of taxpayer dollars, dollars that should be helping those who need affordable housing.

What has been revealed during the past week doesn't of course give them much comfort that anything is changing. We do not know just how far the recent rot that has been uncovered at just two agencies extends. Therefore, Minister, will you support terms of reference for the public accounts committee inquiry that include all government-funded housing agencies in this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the third party alleges that over $1 billion is currently spent in subsidizing what he calls subsidized housing. If he's talking about the non-profit program, the amount of provincial dollars currently spent is $575 million annually. I wish he would get the figure straight when he talks about it. That supplies housing in an affordable way to about 120,000 households currently.

It's a very good investment. It's a good investment because now is the time when people need affordable housing. People have never had a greater need in this province. It's a good investment because currently we're providing about $2.6 billion to allow people who receive social assistance to rent apartments in the private market. I hope he will take that into account too when he next talks about this subject. We spend far more on shelter allowances, a rental subsidy program, if you will, than we do on non-profit housing, and we don't get any new affordable housing for it.

If the leader of the third party was aware, the public accounts committee of this Legislature has been going through a review of the non-profit housing program of the Ministry of Housing for several months now, and that review will continue in terms of the reports back by the ministry and discussions with members of the public accounts committee. I understand that the

schedule is being framed up as we speak. The discussion has gone on in the public accounts committee about when the ministry will next be coming to discuss the program.

Mr Harris: What the public accounts committee is investigating is a narrow scope of the ministry and the ministry involvement that the auditor has identified, not the groups, where all the fraud, we now find out, the abuse, the waste and the mismanagement, have been taking place.

Minister, I've asked a page to deliver a proposal to you. Too many times we have seen your government and then the predecessor government use its majority on legislative committees to cut off debate and effectively muzzle the opposition in its inquiries and investigations. I have sent over a proposal for terms of reference for the public accounts committee to get to the bottom of what appears to be a far-reaching problem in government housing in Ontario. It includes giving the committee the power to requisition annual reports, financial statements and all other documentation relating to the spending of housing agencies.

Are you prepared to support these terms of reference for the inquiry that's going to take place in public accounts so that we can get to the bottom of the mismanagement and the waste of taxpayer dollars rampant in the government housing programs of this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The non-profit housing program in the province of Ontario has existed through three governments, not just two. It was begun in fact by a Conservative government in this province, and it was to replace a program which had outgrown the style of society, which was the Ontario Housing Corp public housing building program.

It's a program, the non-profit program, which provides a financing mechanism for non-profit, community-based groups to be able to undertake the development and management of mixed income developments of housing, which provides some rent-geared-to-income assistance for people most in need of housing in Ontario.

It is not fair and he has really no right to be able to suggest that the program is a program that is replete with fraud. There have been incidents in which some agencies --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Of course he's got a right. He was elected. What a stupid comment.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- which this government does not own and which are accountable, not to him and not to this government but to their non-profit incorporated boards --

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: Those agencies exist in the community -- he may not like it -- but in fact they are not organs of government. Our responsibility to the public in Ontario is to make sure that our contractual arrangements with them are accountable. That is what we will do and that is what we have proposed the public accounts committee feel free to do in the case of Houselink, the Supportive Housing Coalition and indeed the whole non-profit program.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I assume that answer means you will give direction to your majority to stifle the opposition on the committee.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, AIDS Action Now brought its frustration with your government into this chamber, and today, Minister, I want to bring that frustration on to the floor of the Legislature. Joining us in the members' gallery is Brian Farlinger, co-chair of Aids Action Now.

Minister, we are all aware of the financial pressures on your ministry. What that means is that you must set priorities.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: Your inaction, for example, on health card fraud alone costs 10 times more in waste than AIDS Action Now and others are requesting for treatment of catastrophic illness. Over the din and yelling and screaming and ranting of your backbench members, Minister, will you tell Mr Farlinger and others if drug funding for catastrophic illnesses will be a health care priority in the budget to come down next week?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I'm sure the leader of the third party is aware, I am not in a position to discuss what will be in next week's budget, but I am very interested to have the indication from him that funding for AIDS, drugs for people with AIDS, is a priority of him and of his party.

Let me say to him that for this government, the funding of the Ontario drug benefit program has been a priority. We spend over $1 billion a year on a program that provides free drugs to seniors, to people on social assistance and to people with catastrophic diseases in the most generous drug program of any province in this country.

I know the needs of people with illnesses who have catastrophic drug costs, and as we have expanded our drug programs, as we have done, we have also tried to manage them in a way that prevents the 16% growth in the cost of the program that occurred between 1983 and 1993. Of course, establishing new programs is difficult within that climate, but certainly if we find that we can do that, priority for AIDS drugs is one to which I'm very much committed.

Mr Harris: We've had several other announcements come from you and other ministers that have obviously had a higher priority. You would agree with me, from your comments, that the priority for persons living with AIDS is access to treatment to improve their quality of life.

In January 1993, the former Minister of Health, Frances Lankin, told the Toronto Star she hoped to have a comprehensive policy in place before your government's mandate expires. It is now over a year later and we have seen nothing. We have heard nothing interim. We have heard nothing from you or from the former minister or from the government.

Minister, for many members of Mr Farlinger's coalition --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: -- time is not on their side of living up to the commitment that your former Minister of Health made. Could you tell us you when you plan to live up to that commitment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm surprised that the leader of the third party is not familiar with the discussion papers, the reports that we have done, the discussions we have had with a number of groups about reforming the drug benefit program.

I hope he also is aware of the commitment to providing treatment for people with AIDS, again where this province has shown leadership across the country, whether it be the Wellesley primary care clinic, the opening of a new clinic and expanded clinic at the Toronto Hospital, clinics in Windsor, in Ottawa, in Hamilton, the provincial advisory network that we've set up, the anonymous testing program. We spend $40 million a year, and that excludes doctor's fees, hospital services and drug costs, on helping people with AIDS deal with their problem.

I would remind the leader of the third party that it was his party, at the federal level, that brought in a bill known as C-91, legislation that increased the price of drugs exponentially to all of the provinces and has made it ever more difficult for provinces, no matter how much they want to do so, to live up to their expectations of what they would be able to do.

Mr Harris: Yes, Minister, I'm aware of the litany of committees, of reports, of recommendations. Yes, I'm aware that constantly when you're embarrassed by inaction, you point the finger anywhere around the world, to any individual, somewhere other than right here at home in the Ontario Legislature, in the Ontario government and the lack of priorities that you, your ministry, your cabinet and your Premier have had in this area.

In November 1991, your government set up the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, I might add to the unanimous support of this Legislature and all members of the House. Its purpose was to review programs, care, regulations and other issues affecting victims of this deadly disease. Minister, that group has been working for well over two years, yet you have taken no action in any of the areas that it has been addressing and asking you to take action in.

I guess, Minister, I have to ask you, after this period of time, if the purpose of the committee is simply to study, to assess facts, to have more committees, to have reports, if it's anything more than window dressing to hide the fact that you do not have a policy yet. You don't have a policy to address the concerns --

The Speaker: Could the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- of victims of AIDS in Ontario, nor have you set any deadline for recommendations from this committee.

I am asking you, Minister, will you set such a deadline? Will you set a commitment that I assume would be supported by all members of this Legislature to take action now?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm very interested to know of the leader of the third party's interest in the work of the AIDS advisory committee. I don't know whether it is a new-found interest, but let me assure him that in fact there has been extensive work done as a result of the recommendations and the work of that advisory committee.

We spend, as part of our special drugs program, $9 million a year in order to provide drugs for people with AIDS. I recognize that there is more that could be done. I recognize that there are new drugs that come on the market that would help people live with AIDS.

On the other hand, as our government wrestles with trying to deal with the enormous fiscal problems of this province, we have to manage our funds as carefully as we can. We would all like to say that we could continue a 16% growth in the Ontario drug benefit program; we're not able to do that.

The management initiatives that we have taken and that have enabled us to expand the program, not as much as we would like, but to expand it and still live within our means, are ones that I think have significantly helped people living with AIDS.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question for the Minister of Housing. She has confirmed that the Ontario government and taxpayers have had to write off $10 million worth of costs incurred with two projects sponsored by the Supportive Housing Coalition in the city of Toronto.

Can the Minister of Housing confirm that there is a third project which has had to be abandoned, this project at 55 Kildonan Road in the eastern portion of the city of Toronto, another project supported by the group in question, Supportive Housing Coalition? Can she confirm that third project has been abandoned and can she indicate the costs involved there?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It is correct that a Cityhome project -- it was not a Supportive Housing Coalition proposal but a Cityhome project -- at 55 Kildonan Road was in fact written off at the end of last year. The amount of that write-off was for -- I don't find the number right here in front of me. I'll search for it while he asks his supplementary question.

Mr Conway: The beat goes on. The Provincial Auditor has pointed out the problems in this area. My information is that the Kildonan project comes at a very considerable cost to the Ontario taxpayer.

Let me ask this question: The audit on the Supportive Housing Coalition which was made available to your government in March 1992 makes it plain that no additional allocations from the Ontario government should be made to the Supportive Housing Coalition unless and until the myriad of problems that are identified in this audit are cleaned up. Can the Minister of Housing assure this House that no further allocations have been made in the interval between March 1992 and this date to the Supportive Housing Coalition for any of these kinds of projects?

Hon Ms Gigantes: In fact, the Supportive Housing Coalition projects to which he referred earlier are projects which may proceed on another site. What we did was write off the land-loan acquired sites because the costs associated with those sites were not acceptable. They of course were acquired under the Liberal government of which he was a member.

HOUSING LEGISLATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. We have just gone through a month of public hearings, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars in committee, reviewing Bill 120. The Minister of Housing has tabled amendments today which reverse motions that were passed in that committee, bearing in mind, of course, that that committee has a majority of government members on it.

What I would like to ask this minister, because in opposition I certainly know that she believed in democracy, she believed in representation of the people and she believed in the committee system, is how she can defend spending thousands of dollars in this sham of public hearings for a month, only to reverse one little step that was made to amend the legislation to respond to the public input that you invited.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): All the public input that was made to the committee was taken very seriously by me personally and by the Ministry of Housing people who have worked to develop Bill 120. It is certainly not without precedent in this Legislature that an amendment passed in committee will not be referred or transferred into amendments in the Legislature when we deal with it before third reading. This is quite normal and I'm sure if the member from Mississauga South searches her mind, she'll recollect many other incidents of that kind.

Mrs Marland: Obviously, this minister's idea of what is normal and what we think is democracy are totally at odds with each other.

This minister does not defend a process that has a history in this place. The very fact that this minister is willing to take away the rights of voting members on a committee, a standing committee, a committee to which they appoint their own members, a committee hearing at which their own members voted on and passed a very important motion which meant that a particular aspect of a program in connection with care homes, a program which is funded by two of the government ministries, will now be in jeopardy -- this minister stands in this House today and defends that process, a process that her ministry, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services funded.

Madam Minister, I would like to ask you why you are happy to see those programs which are affected by a six-month limitation on care homes destroyed by your reversal of that motion.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm not sure exactly what the member for Mississauga South is referring to in terms of amendments, but I'd suggest to her that throughout the consideration of Bill 120, all sides have looked at the issues involved, particularly as they respect care homes, to make sure that the programs that are offered in the very many excellent care homes that exist in Ontario are continued.

Those programs address the needs of people who may be elderly, sometimes quite fragile elderly people, people who have disabilities, either physical or in terms of their development, people who are psychiatric survivors. We have discussed these issues very carefully to try to ensure that all the matters that surround the questions about service in care homes in Ontario are addressed satisfactorily. We want to see the services in Ontario's care homes maintained and improved, and that is one of the very strong purposes of Bill 120.

Mr Speaker, while I'm on my feet, could I correct the record? I said in answer to a question from the member for Renfrew North that the Kildonan site was not a Supportive Housing Coalition site. I was neglecting to remember that it was originally a site proposed for development by the Supportive Housing Coalition. It was subsequently taken over as a project by Cityhome.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Finance has a reply to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Etobicoke West.

GO TRANSIT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Etobicoke West asked the Premier a question yesterday dealing with GO Transit refinancing, and the Premier, in

an act of awesome generosity, referred the question to me.

I should tell the member for Etobicoke West that the province is not and never intended to get out of paying any taxes as part of the GO Transit refinancing transaction. Let me explain that all provincial governments and their agencies, as well as the federal government, are currently exempt from withholding tax for payments on international debt financing transactions. As this transaction is a refinancing of GO Transit equipment, no withholding tax is applicable and the existing withholding tax exemption is sufficient to look after this particular transaction.

These types of transactions are also quite common in the marketplace, including governments, and we are not the only ones doing them. In fact, the Quebec government has proceeded with two similar transactions in the last couple of years.

Perhaps I could await a supplementary to go on before I explain any further to the member.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. Why then did your ministry request that the federal government exempt it from this specifically? A request was in fact made to the federal government, as I understand it, through your ministry.

Second, you say you're exempt. Tell me something, sir. Would the Bermudian company Asset Finance Bermuda, which bought it and then formed a company and flipped it --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You don't mean that.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that's as I understand it from your ministry again, that they formed a company, passed it through Asset Finance Bermuda, passed it through to this company that they formed immediately upon closing. Why then did that take place? As I understand it, sir, with all due respect, the ministry officials told me that subject to those two companies forming the way they did within Bermuda, they then became exempt from the withholding tax that would have been applicable. Had they not done that, it would have been applicable to the Bermudian company, Asset Finance Bermuda.

Further to that, sir, when I questioned --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: Well, there were a couple of questions there. When I placed the call to your ministry officials, I asked them, "Would this particular tax have applied had they not structured it this way?" The response I got was yes, and that in fact the federal government didn't give them a clearance that it wouldn't apply.

The question is: Did the federal government say, "No, this doesn't apply to tax"? And why did they structure in this way? What were they avoiding if it were not the withholding tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think that's a good question. The member for Etobicoke West is quite correct. There was an inquiry made of the federal government about the whole question of withholding tax exemptions on these kinds of transactions. I'm not a tax lawyer myself, but my understanding is that if it had been a sale and leaseback arrangement, there might have been a withholding tax, but this was a sale and sale back to the Ontario government. The reason for doing it that way was simply that it's the best way for us to manage the whole transaction, and I might add, save the taxpayers of this province money without costing the federal treasury any money whatsoever at the same time.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville just made inappropriate comments to one of the interpreters while I was leaving the House, and I would ask him to withdraw that, please.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Speaker's at a loss in that I did not hear the alleged remark. If the member so identified believes he said something inappropriate, then he has an opportunity to withdraw the remark.

OHC CHAIR

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is for the Minister of Housing. In 1992, Minister, you decided to take the position of chair of the Ontario Housing Corp from a part-time job to a full-time job paying $90,000 per year. You also decided to appoint your close personal friend Nancy Smith to this position. In addition to being a close friend of the minister, Nancy Smith is also the individual who found the minister a job after she was defeated in 1987. I suppose this is the minister's way of helping out the economy, by creating full-time jobs out of part-time jobs for her friends. Minister, do you think the public can call this appointment anything but pork-barrel politics?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I wonder just how mean-minded this kind of stuff can get. This is absolute nonsense. Nancy Smith was a member of city council in the city of Ottawa when I applied in 1982 to be hired by a volunteer committee working on behalf of the city council of Ottawa. I was among many candidates. The volunteer committee selected me.

When it came to seeking to fill this important post of the Ontario Housing Corp on a full-time basis, which our government felt was warranted given the neglect of previous governments for the Ontario Housing Corp's valuable portfolio and very important human communities in this province, we sought advice from many sources and we interviewed several excellent candidates. Nancy Smith was picked by a committee on which I did sit but on which I certainly was not a majority vote. I was among other people on a committee, and I was one vote on that committee. The other people on that committee unanimously chose Nancy Smith.

Mr Cordiano: It's interesting, because on top of the $90,000 salary and a newly created full-time position, Nancy Smith also spent some $50,000 on transportation and accommodation over the past two years.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Cordiano: This is why this is important, because taxpayers are shelling out $1,100 a month to rent a luxury apartment and over $11,500 per year to travel to and from her home for Nancy Smith. She lives in Ottawa. People are sick and tired of hearing about the lack of accountability in the Ministry of Housing, in the way things like the Houselink non-profit project are spending money that just gets blown out the window, and they're tired of hearing about the government spending money on its friends.

Don't you think it's time to clean up your act and become more accountable to the public for the very few dollars you have to spend in the Ministry of Housing? After all, the money isn't endless, and you should be more circumspect in the way you spend your money. This is what we're saying.

There's a lot of expenses here for this person, Nancy Smith, who is spending this kind of money in her position going back and forth from Ottawa. That's a lot of money for taxpayers to spend each and every year.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I remind the member that the appointment of Nancy Smith was reviewed by the legislative committee that reviews appointments. It was the view of that committee that Nancy Smith was an entirely appropriate appointment. Furthermore, at that stage, I know of no questions that were asked by members of the committee -- and I've read the Hansard -- about the terms of her contract.

She does not earn $90,000; she was appointed at less than that. Her salary has been subject, as all of ours have, to the social contract. She has indeed been given travel expenses in lieu of selling a house and moving a household to Toronto. Once the equivalent of moving a household, under Management Board guidelines for an appointee of the nature of that position, has been filled, there will be no more expenses permitted.

The member has his facts wrong. The member is a member of a party which had ample ability to question all the matters he's raised in the appointments committee --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- and he's being terribly silly in his accusations.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I regret to inform the House -- and I seek your guidance -- that the Minister of Housing I believe has inadvertently misled the House about the property at 55 Kildonan.

I have just spoken to the project manager at Cityhome, a Mr R. Gauzitis. Actually, my staff has just spoken to him. He has confirmed to my staff that in fact that never became a Cityhome project, that there were some discussions, but in fact it remains with its sponsor, the Supportive Housing Coalition.

My question remains: Is it true that the province there as well is on the hook for, I believe, $3.5 million to $3.7 million worth of costs?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First, to the honourable member, I know that with his respect for Parliament, he would not want to use unparliamentary language. Indeed, earlier on there was a discussion around the very point he raised, and the minister at that time did rise to correct the record. The member does raise an important point. However, he knows he should not use the term "misled the House." I would ask the minister now if she has a reply to the concern raised.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I will verify the situation. It may be the case that discussions which I had assumed had concluded with Cityhome acquiring the project did not conclude there. I'll be quite happy to report to the House on that. The fact is that the property was not approved as a project. Therefore, I think all the information he was seeking has been provided, except inasmuch as I can't confirm at this stage the exact situation with the proposal itself.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for your guidance when a member of the Legislature is harassing my interpreting staff by saying, "She earns $60,000; she can hurry up." I would ask for your guidance with this.

Interjections.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Sarnia take his seat, please.

Mr Huget: Point of order.

The Speaker: Would the member for Sarnia please take his seat. If he has a point of order, I will hear him.

Mr Huget: Withdraw.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I will withdraw.

The Speaker: Order. I can only deal with one point of order at a time, and I am asking the member for York Mills also to take his seat.

First, the member for York East rose on a point of order. I appreciate the concern which he has brought to my attention. I must say to the member that I did not hear the words which he alleged to have been spoken. Earlier on, the member raised a similar point of order, to which I offered the member for Leeds-Grenville an opportunity to withdraw the remarks if he believes he made unparliamentary remarks. He chose not to do so.

All I can ask is that members always try to use language that is courteous and not intemperate in any way, nor demeaning to any individual in the House. All members are deemed to be honourable and I trust they will abide by that title that is given to them, "honourable members."

The member for Sarnia had a point of order.

Mr Huget: I do, Mr Speaker, but the member for York Mills has indicated he wishes to withdraw a remark. If he does so, I don't have a point of order.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, Mr Speaker, I wish to withdraw my comment.

The Speaker: I appreciate it.

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for your guidance in this when a member harasses a member of the interpreting staff. I'm asking for your guidance when another member is harassing the interpreting staff. I need your guidance here.

The Speaker: The member has made a very serious allegation. On the one hand, I cannot assist him directly because I did not hear the comments he refers to. However, I take the member's concern seriously. I would suggest that the member has a number of alternatives available to him, one of which is to take his concerns to the Legislative Assembly committee; second, perhaps to discuss this matter directly with the member for Leeds-Grenville; or third, to request his House leader to raise this matter with the other House leaders.

Finally, I can say to the member that always, whenever there are intemperate remarks made or unparliamentary language used in the House, I deal with them, but I cannot deal with remarks that I do not hear. I understand full well the deep concern which the member expresses.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by more than 850 people from my riding and all over eastern Ontario who are concerned about cutbacks for funding of the Special Program Opportunities for Knowledge in the Educational System, or SPOKES. The majority of these signatures represent students in the program. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, implore you to reconsider your cost-cutting strategies. We urge you to reinstate funding for the program at 100% so that it may continue to meet the needs of the consumers it serves."

I've already contacted the Minister of Education and Training on this matter and I hope he will soon respond. I have also affixed my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

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

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

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

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

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this in full support.

HOUSING LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition that comes from the residents and family members of Bearbrook Court Retirement Residence in Gloucester:

"We are consumers who will be directly affected by Bill 120.

"Whereas this government has ignored thousands of letters and postcards sent in 1992 opposing the concepts of this bill by ourselves and other seniors in other retirement residences across Ontario; and

"We have been effectively denied the opportunity for a direct oral presentation to this committee by the time constraints you have imposed; and

"We feel strongly that our residences should be regulated under the Ministry of Health or Community and Social Services and definitely not under housing legislation; but

"We nevertheless realize you intend to use your majority in the Legislature to pass this bill despite the objections of consumers."

The petition goes on. I am very glad to affix my signature to this petition and I approve totally of its content.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by about 60 people from different parts of Ontario.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have a petition that's addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too have a petition from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereto.

GAMBLING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by members of the United Church of Elgin:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the daily presence of a principal in each of our schools is fundamental to the education and wellbeing of our children, we are firmly opposed, therefore, to the Lennox and Addington County Board of Education's concept of removing any principals from our community schools, including Centreville, Enterprise, Tamworth and Newburgh public schools."

The member for Frontenac-Addington has affixed his name.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition that was sent to me by many people from Chesley, Ayton, Durham, Hanover and Mount Forest, and it's to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition here from an organization known as ALOHA, which stands for Association of Local Official Health Agencies (Ontario):

"Dear members of provincial Parliament:

"ALOHA is the collective voice of Ontario's public health agencies. It provides leadership and expertise on the management and delivery of efficient and effective public health services and advocates for the role of public health agencies and on public health issues that promote community wellness.

"We, the undersigned, the medical officers of health and associate medical officers of health, have a responsibility for the public's health in Ontario. The use of tobacco continues to be the number one preventable cause of death and ill health in Ontario. The promised Ontario Tobacco Act intended to prevent this from continuing to be the death of the next generation has still not reached the Legislature.

"We call on members of the provincial Legislature to ensure that this legislation is brought forward and passed during this session of Parliament. Each delay represents too many thousands of needless deaths and illness."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single, local point of access for long-term care and supportive services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating the use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

This is signed by a number of people in my area, and I am proud to affix my signature as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 20th report.

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I really do not have any comments. The decision of the committee was unanimous, and we were all very happy, including the Chairman, with the appointments.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr107,

An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr70,

An Act respecting the Town of Napanee

Bill Pr86,

An Act to revive Tuberate Heat Transfer Ltd.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported, it having been withdrawn at the request of the applicant:

Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 110,

An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la

Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York Mills, I believe you had the floor.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The question of health care funding is problematic for any government. We're seeing the problems that the US government is having, wrestling with the health care system, which indeed it urgently needs to change. It has been asserted by members of the government that the US should be looking at the Canadian health model, but the fact is the Canadian health model isn't working.

We now have a situation that doctors across this province are desperate to get out of the system, and many of the best surgeons in the province are being lost to the US simply because of the stubbornness not just of the provincial government but also of the federal government.

I noted in today's clippings that in fact the NDP government in BC is being threatened by the federal Health minister with withholding of funds unless they comply to the letter with the Canada Health Act.

It's time for radical changes in the way that we fund health care because the problem is that there isn't adequate access to treatment on a timely basis. We have the situation that the affluent are going to the US to get treatment or to get some procedures in the US, such as electromagnetic resonance scanning, which are not available on a timely basis here in Ontario.

It can be arranged within a couple of days in the US and the affluent are going, and not just the affluent. Some of the very well connected people in politics in Canada are going to the US for treatment. We only have to look at the example of the former Liberal Premier of the province of Quebec, who went to the US. Why? Because they didn't have the trust in the system here and they couldn't wait.

The fact is that some of our health care facilities are being used by vets in the evening because the equipment isn't being used by our health care professionals. Instead it is being made available to vets at the same time that the very same equipment is urgently needed for the backlogs. So indeed we have a two-tier system in Ontario at this moment. The sooner there is intellectual honesty applied to this question, the sooner we might begin to start to address the very serious concerns.

I mentioned yesterday in debate that we have the situation that the nurses got a much-deserved increase in pay after the NDP came into power, one of the few things I applauded you for.

But immediately you started closing hospital beds, beds that could quite easily have been made available on a paying basis to US patients who would in fact potentially find the Canadian facilities attractive because they could be priced at a rate which was competitive with US hospitals, which would give a cash infusion into our medicare system that we urgently need and would allow the specialists to at least make some extra income and not attract them down to the US.

I don't believe it would detract, as the concern is expressed, that in some way these specialists would only concentrate on the people who were paying. I don't believe that.

I must say that the riding I represent, the riding of York Mills, probably has the largest concentration of doctors and specialists in the whole of the province. I would suggest probably more doctors live in York Mills than in the whole of northern Ontario and I can tell you that these doctors are alarmed at what is happening in our health care system.

Only last night, after a meeting on an entirely different subject, I was introduced to a doctor who absolutely pounced on the opportunity to speak to a politician about what was going wrong with the health care system. During the social contract, we had the spectre of the government essentially dealing with hospitals which had already made savings on more or less the same footing as those hospitals which have not achieved any savings.

Instead of the government looking at a cost per procedure and saying to each hospital, "You must comply with these costs" -- given the fact that there would be some variance according to the size of the hospital because there are some economies of scale and, in addition to that, the fact that the most difficult cases are typically referred to large teaching hospitals in the urban areas, we would have to make allowance for those procedures.

But other than that, why not make those hospitals which are not efficient comply with those cost standards, instead of across-the-board cuts, which is what this government has got involved in? I don't believe that the government has done it with any evil thought in mind. I just believe that they are ill-advised in the approach they're taking to health care.

In a survey which I conducted during the summer householder for 1993, 74% of the respondents to my survey, and I asked many questions on a whole host of subjects, said yes to the question, "Would you accept user fees for health services, for example, a $10 charge for the visit to the emergency ward of a hospital?" and 25% no and 1% was undecided. I had an unusually large response to this questionnaire and I'm talking about the response of some 600 or 700 people who took the trouble to answer this questionnaire.

I believe there is a mood afoot, that people recognize there are some serious problems in the health care system. Nobody wants to pay more money for anything -- that is the nature of people -- but there is an acceptance that maybe we have to bite the bullet.

Rather than saving on the availability of technology, for example electromagnetic resonance machines, perhaps we should be paying a small user fee. That's anathema to the government, but nevertheless it is a way of us trying to get some much-needed funds so that we can ensure the continued viability of our health care system, which we can be proud of, which has been built up over a long period of years but is beginning to be eroded by all the cuts that have been engaged in by this government.

I believe these are practical solutions to the problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to respond to the member for York Mills. Let me say that when he talked about what his constituents said about using user fees, he didn't make any comparison in terms of what the economic status is of his constituents and those in other ridings. I think that needs to be taken into account when we're talking about user fees.

He talked about the efficiency of the health care system. He talked about people going to the States to use MRI, CAT scans etc. I want to bring to his attention a recent study that I heard on the news -- it appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine -- which indicated that there are probably too many CAT scans and MRIs being done unnecessarily. So if we really want to look at how we're going to improve our health care system, we can't just say, "There automatically should be more MRIs and CAT scans." We've got to look at the efficiency of them.

I know in one community, before they had a CAT scanner, the waiting list was three weeks. After they got a CAT scanner, their waiting list went to six weeks. That doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

In terms of the third party talking about the employer health tax and the cost of health care, I want to remind him again, because he talked about driving jobs away, that the cost of health care for employers in this province is far cheaper than in the United States.

I would cite to you, when we were looking at the underground economy, I believe the Institute of Chartered Accountants was in and said that basically when you look at the tax burden, when you include health care costs, because when you compare taxes of course in the United States, technically they're not paying taxes for their health care, but if you take in those health care costs, the costs of doing business aren't really any cheaper in the United States.

In terms of managing the health care system, my only question to the member for York Mills is, can he tell us why health care costs increased on average 10% a year during the 1980s, and why finally it was this government, not the Liberals, not the Tories, that got a handle on the health care system and finally started providing some real management to that system?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This debate on Bill 110 I guess could rapidly evolve into a full debate on health care. In fact our communities probably would sustain us in a direction that would allow us to discuss health care.

I have to tell the member for Oxford, and I'm not going to talk about whether he's involved in the proper debate or not today, but his government, our government, the Liberal administration and the Tories have been struggling with the one real problem which has beset our health care system.

I disagree with Mr Turnbull. It's not because our health system is not functioning. In fact our biggest difficulty in this province is because our health system works. Our health system does intervene and it does save critically ill individuals. It has intervened in a way which means that severe trauma victims now require extremely intensive care, and some of us here know that.

It isn't perfect, I understand it's not perfect, but to say that our system doesn't function, that we cannot save individuals and our health care system isn't functioning properly or that any government hasn't paid a lot of attention to the administration of health is bumf. Everybody's been concerned about the rising cost of health care.

I'll tell you, if