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

May 3, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CRIME PREVENTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

RED SHIELD APPEAL

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

WOODBINE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

SEXUAL ASSAULT

SEXUAL ASSAULT

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

LABOUR RELATIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

GAMBLING

MEMBERS' BENEFITS

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

RECYCLING

REPORTS ON EDUCATION

QUESTION PERIOD

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PUBLIC SAFETY

BICYCLING SAFETY

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

LAW ENFORCEMENT

RETAIL STORE HOURS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

BICYCLING SAFETY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): There is a program in this province that possibly doesn't get the recognition that it deserves. It's a program that brings citizens and law enforcement officials together in the prevention and solving of criminal activity throughout not only Ontario but internationally.

I had the privilege to attend the northwestern Ontario Crime Stoppers regional training conference this past weekend. Guests to the conference travelled from as far away as Austin, Texas. The training was directed to the volunteers who dedicate many hours to ensure the operation of Crime Stoppers in Manitoba and northwestern Ontario.

I am sure that many citizens in the province can point to an example where this most unique organization has helped them. In the northwest, they have expanded their operations on to first nations communities, into schools, and have as well developed a program with the Ministry of Natural Resources. The results speak for themselves. Since its inception in northwestern Ontario alone, Crime Stoppers has recovered over $700,000 in property, resulting in the laying of some 793 charges.

Again, I cannot say enough about these dedicated individuals who give of their time as board members to ensure the successful operation of Crime Stoppers across the province.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Although the government has stated that it intends to continue with job-creating capital projects, eastern Ontario is again left behind.

A major concern is the delay in completing the construction of Highway 416 between 401 and Century Road. This is the most dangerous

section of Highway 16 at the current time. From 1985 through to last fall, there were 39 deaths and 721 reported accidents on Highway 16. Ninety per cent of these accidents have been on the

section of Highway 16 for which the government has not yet set a completion date. We need that completion date and commitment from the government. The former Liberal government stalled on 416, and eastern Ontario just can't afford to let it stall again.

Last Friday, 50 representatives from eastern Ontario municipalities and businesses met in Kemptville with area MPPs and MPs to demonstrate the urgency in completing Highway 416. This is a situation where we have urgent safety reasons for completing the highway widening. This highway is the main access from the United States into the capital of our country. The need is greater today than it was some four years ago when the current minister, of all people, heckled the government of the time for its delays in announcing a completion date. This year, to the end of February we've had already four more fatalities.

Local police departments have had to be called out to help to deal with accidents because the OPP does not have enough manpower.

Mr Speaker, 416 has got to be put back on the front burner.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This is Elizabeth Fry Week in Canada. I would like all members to join with me in paying a special tribute to Elizabeth Fry Society chapters throughout Ontario, whose members work tirelessly to assist women in conflict with the law.

Here in Ontario there are eight autonomous chapters supported largely by volunteers who provide counselling, training and support to women and girls who are in the provincial correctional system. In addition to their presence in institutions, Elizabeth Fry chapters also deliver a wide variety of community programs in cooperation with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Chapters are represented provincially by the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario, based here in Toronto.

The Elizabeth Fry movement has been instrumental in drawing attention to the circumstances that commonly lead women into conflict with the law and the special needs women face while involved in and emerging from the criminal justice system.

I urge you to support local events taking place in your communities to recognize the importance of work done by the Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Premier Rae has frequently asked for the cooperation of the opposition as we all try and wrestle with the fiscal situation in the province, and certainly we on this side of the House are prepared to cooperate. However, I would say that it is in the Premier's best interests to give the opposition and the people of Ontario his best estimate of the true finances of the province.

You will remember that a year ago, when the Premier brought out his budget saying there would be a $9.9-billion deficit, we said we didn't believe the numbers, and we enumerated the areas that we didn't. We said the Premier was wrong in what he was doing with pensions. The Premier owed the pension fund $570 million, which was delayed until this fiscal year. It's just a shell game. It cost the taxpayers $50,000 a day just in thrown-away money for that one thing alone.

We said to the Premier, "You will not get all of your fiscal stabilization money"; that came to pass, and now the Premier has floated a $17-billion deficit. The numbers are serious, but I would ask all of us to look behind the numbers the Premier is using. They have inflated, in our opinion, the interest payments; they have dramatically understated the money they're going to get from fiscal stabilization and the money from asset sales.

So as the Premier looks for cooperation from us, I would urge him to come forward with the real numbers. They are serious. They're not the numbers that he's presenting to us. If you look for cooperation, it's a two-way street.

RED SHIELD APPEAL

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This evening, from 6 pm to 9 pm, is the Salvation Army's 1993 Red Shield Appeal residential door-to-door blitz.

Every day the Salvation Army is engaged in a fight against economic hardship, human despair and spiritual poverty. The Salvation Army makes an invaluable contribution to the quality of life in communities throughout this province and across the country by helping the homeless and the needy.

During 1992 in Metro Toronto alone, more than 51,000 families received practical assistance through the family services program and more than 22,000 families received special assistance at Christmas. The basic criterion for providing assistance is need.

The national target for the 1993 appeal is $36 million. Our hope is that $9.5 million can be raised in Metro Toronto for the 82 services in this area.

Homelessness is a major problem which the Salvation Army is trying to address in Metro. In 1992 almost 35,000 beds and 54,000 meals were provided at a single emergency shelter in Metro Toronto; 15,000 contacts were made with street youths.

When a canvasser calls at your door this evening, please give what you can. Every financial contribution is important and appreciated.

If you can't give money, you can still give time. We still need some volunteers for tonight's blitz. Call 489-0094 to get involved.

As someone who has helped the Salvation Army for several years, I can assure you it is gratifying as an experience. By working together, we can make a difference.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Since 1936, Ontario has dedicated one week of the year to the achievements of its schools. Now Education Week is Education and Training Week, an opportunity for all the partners involved in lifelong learning to celebrate their success.

Today is the first day of Education and Training Week 1993, which runs from May 3 to 7. The theme is "Partners in lifelong learning / L'éducation la vie durant, c'est un effort collectif."

This theme highlights the growing importance of partnerships in meeting the education and training needs of the people of Ontario. There are many outstanding examples of such partnerships in Ontario. These include industry and education councils; articulation agreements between school boards and colleges; cooperative education programs with business, industry and labour; and the school-workplace apprenticeship program.

Education and Training Week recognizes that all have important roles to play. It is time to show how we are working together: government, business, industry and labour with students, parents, adult learners, schools, colleges and universities.

To give special recognition to the contribution of teachers during Education and Training Week, the Minister of Education and Training has declared Friday, May 7, to be Teacher Appreciation Day, and as a former teacher I think all teachers need to be appreciated.

Education and Training Week is a time to promote Ontario's achievement in education and training. It's a time to show how we are building a network for lifelong learning. We are all partners in learning, and I invite all members to get involved in this week's activities.

WOODBINE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to congratulate the dedicated staff and the very talented students of Woodbine Junior High School in my riding.

Last Thursday, April 29, I had the pleasure of attending Woodbine Junior High School's play. This year the students performed a unique and thought-provoking musical. It was entitled Save the Planet. Saving our planet identified some of the many problems that the planet Earth is facing today. The students then proceeded to inform and educate the audience about some of the possible solutions which we can do to help save the Earth.

The performance was excellent, provocative and extremely entertaining. We must all learn, listen and learn, from their important message, and this was the chorus of the song that they sang:

I hear the calling:

It is time to save the planet.

There's no more stalling;

it's our home we must defend.

Our generation must come forth

and save the planet.

The night is falling

and our time is at the end.

It's my hope that the students will accept my invitation to sing the theme of their song here at Queen's Park. I hope that their words will not only be heard in their school auditorium at Woodbine Junior High but will also be heard throughout the riding of Oriole, Ontario, and that we will all respond and come together to do what we can to save our planet.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): This week is Education and Training Week in Ontario, and for many schools, their teachers and their students and parents across the province there will be many different celebrations taking place in local communities. During this week, many education programs will be displayed through artwork, creative writing, science projects, musical performances and career nights. This is an opportunity for members of this House, for people in their communities, for the general public to visit their schools and to encourage the schools in their work.

Accountability is extremely important in these times, and this is an opportunity for people to visit at the invitation of the schools that we criticize so profusely in these times.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of some of the events schools in the London area are participating in and events that are open for the public to visit and be part of: Sir John A. Macdonald school will host a primary choir concert; Lord Elgin will take

part in the pitch-in neighbourhood cleanup; Montcalm Secondary School will host a seminar, "What are you going to do after you leave school?"; Banting secondary school will have an exhibition of students' artwork at the London Regional Art Gallery; St Anne's school will have a folk dancing demonstration for Kensington Village residents; St Theresa's school will host a talent evening with students, parents and staff.

I would also like to mention that the official ground-breaking will begin for the construction of the St Thomas Aquinas Catholic Secondary School at 1 o'clock today.

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

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise in the House today to speak out against sexual assault against women and children wherever it occurs in society.

While there has been an increase in public awareness around this issue, it has not led to a decrease in acts of violence committed against those least able to protect themselves. The media deserve some credit for helping to focus public attention on the issue. However, there is room for much more to be done.

Advertisements for films depicting the most violent and frightening aspects of those films still invade the living rooms of homes across the province. Several recent films have as their theme the sale or rental of women by men.

Many recently reported incidents are of people in positions of authority taking advantage of those who are seeking help. Professional organizations are developing their own guidelines to try to deal with the problem.

This does not relieve the government of its responsibility to the women and children of Ontario to protect them from sexual assault. I am proud of the support my government is giving to groups across the province to assist them to get the message that sexual assault is a crime and will not be tolerated in our society, but we need to do more.

I urge every member of this House to speak out vigorously against sexual assault of women and children, not just this month but every month. We must send the message to those cowardly individuals who use their power to hurt others that we can remove their power and we will. The campaign against drunk drivers has been successful in changing attitudes in this province. Surely, we can mount an even stronger campaign to say once and for all, sexual assault against women and children must stop.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario, and today marks the beginning of the fifth annual sexual assault public education campaign.

Market research conducted following last year's sexual assault prevention campaign reveals a disturbing persistence of the myths about this crime. These myths prevent us from seeing sexual assault clearly for what it is and from dealing with it appropriately. Many still believe, for example, that the consumption of alcohol or drugs is a major cause of sexual assault. Sixty-six per cent of those surveyed believe this to be true. Another prevalent myth is that the victims of sexual assault are somehow to blame for the assaults against them. Forty-nine per cent of those surveyed believe that women provoke sexual assault by their behaviour or by the way they dress.

Of course, neither of these myths is true. In reality, alcohol or other intoxicants do not cause sexual assault; drugs and alcohol are too often used as an excuse to absolve men of the responsibility for their actions. The same is true for our tendency to blame the victims and our belief that women somehow bring on the attacks against them. We still hear people say when a woman dresses in a way that men find appealing or when she is out by herself late at night that she is "asking for it."

Women do not ask to be sexually assaulted any more than seniors returning from a bank ask to be mugged or home owners who leave their homes unattended ask to be robbed. We need to stop blaming the victims and focus on the criminals who assault them. Men and women alike need to accept that those who force women into sexual activity are guilty of sexual assault and must take responsibility for their actions. We must put the myths to rest.

There is one key issue when it comes to sexual assault, and that is the issue of consent. As the government stresses in our public education campaign, sex without consent is sexual assault. That means that if a boyfriend, a husband or an acquaintance forces sexual activity on a woman when she indicates that she does not want him to, that man is committing a crime.

But what we most need to understand about sexual assault and to remember and internalize is that women always have the right to say no and men must respect that right. It doesn't matter what a woman is wearing or that she's in a bar by herself or even that she's gone to man's apartment for a drink. Unless that woman consents to sexual activity, to have sex with her or to touch her sexually is to commit a crime, and this is what many Ontarians don't seem to understand.

In our sexual assault prevention strategy, the government strives to address sexual assault and its consequences in three ways: The first is to provide services to the survivors of sexual assault; the second is to prevent and reduce the incidence of sexual assault through public education, including the mass media campaign; and the third is to improve the criminal justice system's response to this crime and its survivors.

We must flush out of our legal system the attitudes which devalue and discriminate against women. We still hear courtroom comments about "sexually aggressive three-year-olds," and offhand remarks such as, "Rules are like women; they are meant to be violated," and the trivializing of sexual violence against women, as in the description of a man "coming along, seeing a pair of hips and helping himself."

Evidence of the attitudes revealed in these remarks can be found in schools, in courtrooms, in homes and in offices across this country. If we are to have any real hope of reducing sexual assault within our lifetimes, or even within the lifetimes of our children, then we must educate adults and children alike about the difference between consensual and non-consensual sexual relations.

Experience has shown that the attitudes towards women that encourage sexual assault are shaped early on. The earlier we can send more positive messages to our youth, the more we can help them to regard violence-free relationships as the norm, the greater chance we will have of reducing sexual assault over the long run.

This year we are continuing our special focus on teenagers with radio ads directed at them specifically and with other events taking place in schools across this province. It will be no easy feat to counter the images of women's subordination that teenagers encounter daily in the form of movies, television programs and music videos, but if we can't eliminate these negative messages, then we can at least provide some positive ones to strike a sort of balance.

The myths surrounding sexual assault are tenacious ones, and the reality is that one in four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Our community's awareness of sexual assault developed through the efforts of the women's advocacy groups to focus attention on this gender-related crime. While this crime is gender-related, women are not its only victims: One in seven men will be assaulted in his lifetime, and the victims of both genders are far too often not adults, but children and youths. Because of the long-lasting trauma suffered by victims, male and female, we have a responsibility to improve services for all victims of sexual assault.

Changing people's attitudes is possible. We've seen this with the directorate's wife assault campaign and the drinking and driving countermeasures campaign. But these changes do not take place overnight and attitudes are slow to change. While market research shows that attitudes towards sexual assault change slowly, public education efforts continue to be very important.

This is our second full-scale campaign in which we've used television, radio and print ads to communicate our messages. It may take time before we see the results for which we are hoping, because it takes time to dispel the myths, but dispel these myths we must, and to ensure the safety of women and children and to take us one step closer to equality in this society, we must continue to dedicate ourselves to education around sexual assault.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): This is the fifth year since the Liberal government first declared a Sexual Assault Prevention Month, and the Liberal caucus is pleased that the current government continues to make it a priority.

We particularly welcome the continuation of the public education campaign that reinforces the theme we have heard in other years: first, that any unwanted act of a sexual nature is sexual assault; secondly, that sex without consent is sexual assault; and thirdly, that women always have the right to say no, and men need to understand and respect that right.

One thing that I want my 15-year-old daughter to understand is that women have a right to say no and not feel guilty. What I want my 17-year-old son to understand and to realize is that young men have an obligation to listen, to truly listen to what women are telling them. This is not to listen and only hear what they want to believe they are saying, but to truly listen and hear what the women are telling them.

Last year, I joined the minister at Northern Secondary School, which is a high school in my riding, where in fact my two children attend, and I was incredibly impressed by the young people there. They were knowledgeable on the issue, they were sincere and they were thoughtful. Both the young men and the young women were obviously getting the message about sexual assault. Education was making a big difference to them, and I think that's where it's at: the education of our young people.

As the minister indicated, recent surveys have shown that there are still many myths about sexual assault. We must work to destroy those myths. Women do not ask to be sexually assaulted, and drugs and alcohol are not the reason to exercise abhorrent behaviour.

Along with destroying the myths, we must also create an environment that does not tolerate sexual abuse, an environment that does not treat women as sexual objects or use the suffering of women as a form of entertainment.

Mr Speaker, I wish all members of this House thought this was an important enough issue that they would listen to the people in this House who are trying to say that sexual assault prevention is an important issue.

The members of this House recently made a positive move to help change the environment and make it more hospitable towards women by unanimously supporting my private member's resolution on slasher films. Surely, we have to ensure that what currently passes as entertainment does not convey messages that encourage the abuse of women.

I believe that for women to achieve true equality, we must be able to feel safe in our communities. So when the government is considering which programs to fund, surely eliminating violence against women must be a priority, yet we recently learned that $700,000 is targeted to be cut from the Ontario women's directorate's budget for violence initiatives. If this government truly believes that violence against women must be stopped, this is one initiative it cannot afford to cut.

I don't believe that spending almost $700,000 on bumper stickers, buttons and promotions for the failing Jobs Ontario Training fund is the right way to go. I would rather see that $700,000 reinstated in the budget so that violence against women can be stopped.

I urge this government to continue funding campaigns aimed at ending violence against women. Surely we as legislators must have principles by which we operate, surely we do not condone violence against women, surely we do not believe the myths about sexual assault and surely we must agree, as legislators, that this has to be one top priority of the government to ensure that women, children, the most vulnerable in our society, are prevented from harm.

I would ask for the support of all members of this Legislature for the government to continue strong initiatives in violence against women.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses, third party, the member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): In responding to the fifth sexual assault public education campaign announcement that has been made by the government, I would like to congratulate the government for acknowledging the fact that indeed assault is carried out against both male and female. I think it's important we recognize that both sexes suffer from assault. I've certainly had men into my office who have been assaulted as children, and teenagers as well. I think that's quite significant.

I'm pleased the minister has stressed that it's time to put the myth to rest that victims are somehow to blame for their assaults. Several weeks ago, a 12-year-old girl in my community was sexually assaulted. She was out on the streets at 9:30 and for some reason people in the community thought it was her fault. There is never any excuse for sexual assault. We do need to stop blaming the victims and focus on the criminals who did the assault, and I'm pleased that point's been made today.

I'm also pleased we are recognizing that the time to start, if we're going to change attitudes, is not as adults. We need to send a much more positive message to our young people; in fact, it's before they even become teenagers if we're ever going to have any chance of establishing violence-free relationships as the norm.

However, I'd like to comment on the announcement that was made regarding the economic control plan of the government. They've indicated that they are going to be taking away $700,000 from the area of reducing the cost of violence initiatives. They're going to take money away with the provision of services that would impact on women survivors and victims and prevention activities. For some reason, the statement this minister has just made regarding the importance of focusing on this issue, and yet the announcement that they're going to take away the money, are a contradiction.

I would rather have this government not have a mass media campaign, not provide me with buttons and big newspaper articles. I would prefer that the government use the money and use it for the support services for the victims. I'm really quite surprised that they're making these cuts, and yet they're going to go ahead with yet another mass media campaign similar to the one they've done in the area of the family support payments. Again, I think it's long past the time of mass media campaigns. I believe that if we have limited resources, those resources should be devoted to action and support services. That's where the government needs to be focusing its dollars.

I'm really quite surprised that the minister has indicated that some of the reasons for the negative messages regarding women are in the media and yet we can't eliminate these negative messages. I believe it's important that this government start to look at ways in which we can eliminate the negative media images, because I think they're having a very, very negative impact. Our schools and our parents have a bigger job than ever before because children now are exposed to countless scenes of adult sexual behaviour on TV and in videos and in the movies.

Certainly, the ideas they're getting and the attitudes they're developing are contributing to this intolerance, this inequality and this violence.

I believe it's not enough for the minister to say that we can't eliminate these negative messages and that we have to strike a balance. I think it's time the government took some very constructive action to change the attitudes, because I have to tell you that I'm very concerned about what's going on. A 14-year-old, recently, in my community, a boy, was charged with sexual assault. Six girls had brought charges forward. The six girls told the crown attorney that if all the misbehaving boys at their school were charged, and I quote, "There wouldn't be a courtroom big enough to hold them."

Obviously, we need to be taking a look at the media influence and starting to focus on making our school environments safe and comfortable for both boys and girls. We need to take a look at making sure that sexual harassment and assault are discussed and action taken more seriously in our elementary and secondary schools. Children need to be taught to approach the opposite sex in a spirit of equality and respect. They need to learn that certain behaviours are not acceptable and they need to realize that they are responsible for their actions.

I would suggest to the government that it is time to start focusing our attention on the children in the elementary and the secondary school systems.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Last Tuesday, the member for Renfrew North, Mr Conway, rose in the House to bring to my attention two matters arising out of developments at the organization meeting of the standing committee on resources development on the previous day.

Additional submissions were made by the member for Etobicoke West (Mr Stockwell), the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos), and the government House leader (Mr Charlton).

Let me say at the outset that, generally, the Speaker does not intervene in a matter that is before a duly constituted standing or select committee of this House unless that matter is appealed to the Speaker by a majority of the members of the committee. However, since it is logistically impossible for there to be an appeal when a committee Chair has not even been selected, as was the case in the standing committee on resources development last Monday, it is open to the Speaker to review the procedural occurrences that transpired at that time.

The first matter raised by the member for Renfrew North dealt with the ability of a whip to make a temporary substitution for a permanent member of a standing committee. In this regard, standing order 110(

c) states as follows:

"A temporary substitution in the membership of a standing or select committee may be made provided a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the whip of a recognized party, is filed with the clerk of the committee either before or within 30 minutes of a committee meeting being called to order."

In the case at hand, the member for Welland-Thorold had been made a permanent member of the standing committee on resources development by virtue of an April 20, 1993, order of the House. The member attended the committee's organization meeting last Monday afternoon, at which time the clerk of the committee initiated the procedure for electing a Chair for the committee.

In the course of the meeting, the clerk of the committee duly and properly indicated that she had received a substitution slip that purported to temporarily substitute the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Wilson) for the member for Welland-Thorold pursuant to standing order 110(c). Members will know that the member for Welland-Thorold and other members in attendance, challenged the validity of the substitution slip. In the end, the members of the committee dispersed without electing a Chair.

I will make certain observations concerning these developments. First, standing order 110(

a) provides for the membership of standing and select committees. Second, a permanent member of a committee and a member purporting to sit on the committee by virtue of a substitution slip cannot both sit on the committee at the same time. And third, while standing order 110(

c) is silent on this point, the intention of that standing order could not have been to prevent a permanent member appointed by the House from sitting on the committee in circumstances where that member attends the committee with a definite view to sitting on it.

I say, then, that in situations such as the one before me now, the permanent member will be the sitting member if he or she actually attends the committee meeting and then indicates, within 30 minutes of the committee meeting being called to order, that he or she does not relinquish this entitlement. If these requirements are not met, then the member attending the committee meeting pursuant to a valid substitution slip will be the sitting member.

On a related matter, the member for Renfrew North expressed some concerns as to whether a member could hold the positions of parliamentary assistant and committee Chair at the same time. While I have some sympathy for the rationale behind the member's concern, he will know that our recent practice has been to permit a parliamentary assistant to become a committee Chair without resigning his or her position as parliamentary assistant.

I want to thank the member for Renfrew North and the other members who spoke to the point of order. I know that all members join me in thanking the clerk of the standing committee on resources development for her handling of the delicate situation last Monday afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, today is May 3, 1993, and as you will be well aware, that means the academic year for university and college students is over. University and college students are back in their homes and they are out looking for work.

Premier, you know and we know that many companies that traditionally have created summer employment opportunities for students are laying off full-time workers, and there won't be any jobs for students this summer. We also know that the summer employment opportunities within government ministries are on hold.

A year ago, we brought to your attention the problem of youth unemployment. A year later, Premier, we find ourselves dealing with exactly the same situation.

Premier, a year ago you were forced to at least deal with the short-term needs of unemployed youth, and I ask, why again this year are you simply too late in dealing with this urgent situation?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'll refer this question to my colleague the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think the Leader of the Opposition will know that this government has committed to and announced just a few weeks ago the renewal of the Jobs Ontario Youth program, which will create 10,000 opportunities for jobs this summer for our young people. There are obviously also the existing programs. I believe the total is something in the neighbourhood of $180 million that is invested in job creation for young people.

While all of us in the House would agree that that's not enough, that we'd like to spend a lot more, that we'd like to be able to have enough money to create a job for every young person this summer, the fact is that with the limited resources we have, the job creation programs for young people have maintained themselves as a priority for this government, and Jobs Ontario Youth has been renewed to create 10,000 additional jobs this summer.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we're well aware of course of the announcement about Jobs Ontario Youth, and we welcome the fact that there would be some additional resources put into what we consider to be a truly urgent problem. But we still feel that this problem is not addressing some of the most basic needs of the students who need jobs, because as you will be well aware, the Jobs Ontario youth positions are only for 10 weeks, and this 10-week program, while it creates some jobs, does not provide students with enough time to earn the money that they're going to need to go back to college or university this fall.

So I ask, Minister, why was no thought given to the fact that most college and university students need four months of summer employment to earn enough money to continue their education? Why are these jobs, once again, providing only 10 weeks of employment?

Hon Mr Cooke: I suppose that anybody can stand up in the House at any time and say that you haven't done enough, that you should be spending more money. But the Leader of the Opposition knows that the resources of the government are very tight and that we're doing the best we can with very limited financial resources for the young people of this province. She will also know that the Ontario student assistance program was revised last year, which does in fact allow for more resources to go to individual students who are returning or going to the post-secondary system for the first time.

No one would disagree that we would like to do more, but maybe the Leader of the Opposition can tell us, and I'm sure she will in the final supplementary, that while the resources we're investing are inadequate, what programs would she cut in order to free up more money in order to put into jobs for young people, or what taxes would she raise in order to create more money for jobs for young people? Be specific, or are you just suggesting that the deficit should be increased further?

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you particularly keep urging us to be constructive on this side of the House. I am attempting, in raising an issue which we are deeply concerned about, to be constructive, to bring to your attention and your government's attention the urgency of a problem that we have been dealing with for the last few months. We are truly concerned about the unemployment rate among young people at 17% and we do believe that summer employment opportunities are an important part of providing some hope for those disillusioned youth who are out there.

What we are asking today is that you stand by what you said you are offering to these young people because, as we talk to many of the students who have been visiting your government ministries -- and this is a program separate from Jobs Ontario Youth -- to find out what access they are going to have to the programs that are offered for the summer through your ministries, they're being told that while the money has been promised, none of the money has been actually allocated, these programs are on hold, there is no funding in place that allows the ministries to hire or to make commitments for summer employment.

In other words, in spite of all the words you've given, the jobs are simply not there and the students need them now.

I would ask you simply whether you can tell us exactly how many summer jobs will be available through your government ministries and when those jobs will be made available.

Hon Mr Cooke: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the moneys that have been spent traditionally within ministries plus the Jobs Ontario Youth program have not been put on hold; none of the moneys have been put on hold. In fact I remember when we specifically talked about job creation programs for young people in treasury board and we looked at the expenditure review process, those programs were specifically exempt from any reductions because the same concern that you have we share.

We will check into the member's concern and the statement that she says the ministries are passing on to young people, but there's no decision that has been made by treasury board or cabinet that would put any of those moneys on hold.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Just to be helpful to the minister, perhaps he would begin by asking his colleague to his left-hand side why the Environmental Youth Corps is not hiring any students at this point. But I will move on to a second question and direct my second question to the Premier.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, I suspect that all of us who have spent the weekends in our ridings have been absolutely besieged with questions and concerns about the chaos that is being created by your social contract talks and by your expenditure control scheme. Nobody understands what you plan to do and nobody understands what it is you have already done. In fact, as people examine the decisions which you've already made, there is more and more confusion. Let me give you just a couple of examples.

The conservation authorities were told that they are facing exactly the same cuts as everybody else in their ministry but in fact by their calculations they are likely to be cut by something in the order of 30% to 40%, not by the 10% that the ministry indicated.

Municipalities have been told that they can expect something in the order of a 2% cut but in fact our calculations suggest that they are looking at something like an 11% cut in unconditional grants.

People in agriculture had press conferences across certainly northern Ontario this weekend, and they tell us that millions of dollars in economic spinoffs are going to be lost to this province as a result of the decision to shut down agricultural research stations.

Premier, you'll remember that I didn't get a lot of help last week when I asked the Chairman of Management Board what the net savings would be from the cancellation of plans to relocate government offices to six communities, and we're told that he couldn't give us those numbers.

Premier, it is increasingly obvious that none of these decisions were well thought out and I ask: How did you decide what to cut, what studies were done to figure out net savings? In fact does anybody over there really know what's going on?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I guess it all depends on where you are and where you go, but I was out and about a good deal last week and on the weekend and I was rather struck by the amount of support in the general public: people literally stopping me on the street while I was out shopping, saying they were very supportive of what we were doing and they understood the reason why. People who said that they had never even considered supporting the New Democratic Party before saw that we were the one party that had the courage to deal with a very difficult issue and that we're dealing with it in a very straightforward way, and they appreciate it.

So I can tell you if the honourable member was besieged, I'm sorry she was besieged, but I must say I found a very different response from the people I spoke to on the weekend and I'm sure that experience was shared by all of my colleagues behind me here.

Let me say that, in describing the process to her in terms of how it was done, basically the decision was made that -- first of all, throughout the year we had what we called a corporate review process, whereby a team led by the Minister of Finance and the people at treasury board looked at government programs generally and we then supplemented that approach, starting six or eight weeks ago, with a very intensive review by ministries themselves, led by the ministers and by deputies, which culminated in the meeting which took place at the convention centre, where we had a three-day meeting with ministers and deputies and members of their staff.

It was a very fair process. It was a very tough process. We think it's one that involved --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- as much as possible the participation of people, and it will have to be supplemented again by additional reductions in payroll through the social contract discussions.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you're right. It certainly does depend on where you went and who you were talking to. I guess we were tending to talk to people who were affected by some of the decisions your government made.

We were talking to people in Brantford, Premier. You'll remember Brantford where, it seems to me, they put up a billboard at the request of the local member thanking you for the commitment you had made to move those jobs to Brantford about two months ago.

We were talking to people in the agricultural colleges that were cut, Premier. They showed us a document they had been given the day before their cuts that showed that New Liskeard College would have no change and Centralia College would have no change, and the next day they were called in and told their departments were gone and their jobs were gone. They have very different views, Premier, of how much long-term planning and intensive review and consultation went into your decisions.

Premier, it is increasingly obvious to us that the decisions you made about what programs you were going to cut were made unilaterally and arbitrarily and at the last minute. We know only too well that you and your cabinet gathered together at the Metro convention centre a week before the decisions were made to decide what you were going to do.

Premier, you have tinkered around the edges of some problems and have refused to touch some of the unjustifiable spending your government is so committed to and you keep asking for alternatives. Let me simply ask, if you were ready to make real and serious cuts, why were you not prepared to shut down the Interim Waste Authority, which has already wasted $30 million? Why are you proceeding to set up a $30-million bureaucracy to implement the Advocacy Act, which so many people opposed? Why won't you take a serious look at the $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program with its 87% failure rate?

Premier, you keep asking for alternatives. Let me ask if you were prepared to look seriously at any of these alternatives. It depends on what choices you make.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I guess it does depend what choices you make and we've made ours. She's saying she'd get rid of the Jobs Ontario Training program. Well, let the record show that. Let the record show that in the face of the most serious change in Ontario's history in terms of its economy, the most sudden and dramatic change, when we have worked consultatively in a program which is supported by industries across the board and by companies across the board, that has more private sector support than almost any other initiative carried out by this government, let her be the one to say, "We'd cut training."

I would say to her it's not easy to make the decisions we made, but rather than dilly-dally around and, as she describes it, "dither around the edges," we decided to go to the heart of many of the things that have been done for a long time to say, "What can we stop doing to deal with the thing?" -- like the international offices, for example, a tough decision to make. We made that decision. We stand by that decision. I'd rather do that and cut back on the cars in London and Tokyo than cut back in Jobs Ontario Training programs for young people who are desperate to get off welfare and desperate to get back in the workforce. That's what I'd rather do. That's where our record stands.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you're absolutely right. Because I believe in the importance of job training so that people can get the skills they need to get back into the workplace, I will continue to question the expenditure of $1 billion on a program with an 87% failure rate and I will continue to question the kind of cuts that you make or the kind of chaos you create when literacy programs that provide literacy training for laid-off workers are thrown into jeopardy because of your inability to confirm the funding for those programs.

Premier, you said last week to me that it would be a very foolish government that refused to listen to concrete, practical suggestions from whatever quarter. I would suggest to you that you simply refuse to listen to the concrete and practical alternatives that those of us on this side of the House suggest. You refuse to listen to any alternatives that would force you to look at some of your particularly special programs.

I do not question the need for restraint but I will continue to question the kinds of decisions that your government has made. You have cut only $720 million from within your own government. You have pushed the real burden of restraint on to hospitals and municipalities and schools and colleges and universities, and I don't call that making the tough choices.

Premier, on the eve of the social contract talks, as you sit down to look at $2 billion more in cuts, will you agree at least to look at the programs that you simply would not touch before? Would you be prepared, for example, to put your government's sacred cows, like the Interim Waste Authority and the Advocacy Act bureaucracy, on the table?

Hon Mr Rae: I have a bit of a memory for this because this is an issue that was of concern to me back to the early days of my political career with respect to advocacy. I can remember when the Attorney General at that time appointed Father O'Sullivan to study the question of people living in institutions and their rights. I can recall Father O'Sullivan coming into my office and saying to me, "Bob, the only reason I'm taking this on is because I have the solemn commitment of the government of the day that they would act on my recommendations and they would act on my report."

Father O'Sullivan's report lay on a shelf somewhere buried within the Liberal government and the Liberal bureaucracy for years on end. We resurrected that report and we took that forward. I say to you, Mr Speaker, we did that because we support the rights of disabled people, because we believe that people who are vulnerable ought to have rights and those rights ought to be enforceable. We support the rights of the most vulnerable in our society.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, if the honourable member is saying that she would rather see Father O'Sullivan's report gone for ever and forget about that concern, I disagree with her on that. I disagree with her on Jobs Ontario Training, but of course we're prepared to listen to any practical suggestions, and I emphasize the word "practical," with respect to what needs to be done.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last week you and I talked about a number of areas where if we could cut back on the amount of government spending, on the cost of running programs, that would lessen the need for tax hikes. I went home for the weekend prepared and committed, as I indicated to you, to find even new ways that we could downsize government without having to hike taxes.

Number one on that list, I suggest to you, Premier, should be government-owned housing. The Urban Development Institute says the vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto is at its highest level in the province since 1972. As a result, tenants in government-owned units, who are paying what your government calls "market rent," are moving out. They're moving out of those units because real market rents in the private sector are lower than they are in your government units. Can you explain, Premier, why this obvious waste of tax dollars, which today costs Ontario $625 million, has escaped your government's cost-cutting axe?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer this to the minister responsible.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): There is nothing that has escaped our desire to make sure that all the expenditures undertaken by this government are practical, commonsense expenditure reductions, and that includes the field of social housing.

The leader of the third party has talked about the vacancy rate in market units in social housing, and there is a vacancy rate which is very much of the same nature as we've always seen in the private market. The rents that are charged in those market units are indeed market rents. They reflect the rents in the community. When those market units are filled, it helps to pay off the cost of social housing faster, which I assume is something that the leader of the Conservative Party would be interested in seeing.

Mr Harris: To the Minister of Housing, last year I raised the example of, I don't know, 40 or 50 or 60 new units being built in Wawa -- $125,000 a unit they were, a 23% vacancy rate in Wawa. Nothing happened. That went ahead and was built.

Today I want to raise the issue of Temagami. The government announced construction will soon begin on a 20-unit apartment building in Temagami. This project will cost $1.8 million. That's over $90,000 per unit. I would ask you, Minister, one of the questions: Do you know what you can buy in Temagami today for $90,000 a unit, how many luxury homes are available at that price? The annual operating subsidy, according to your press release, is $161,000 a year, every year. That's about $700 a month. The average rents now in Temagami are $300 to $400 a month in the private sector.

If we gave even a portion of that $700 or $800 a month to the needy families in Temagami in the form of shelter subsidies, they could actually afford to rent three $350 units, instead of these $700-a-month subsidies for 35 years.

I would say to you, Minister, given at least your Treasurer and your Premier's commitment to cut out the waste, to cut back on government spending, particularly the needless spending, isn't it time that your ministry and the government-owned housing program, such a boondoggle to the taxpayers and providing so little help to needy families, isn't it time that we froze this program and turned the dollars either into shelter subsidies to help more families or into tax cuts?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I do not believe it's time. I don't know if the leader of the Conservative Party is aware, but the standing committee on public accounts took a very close look at all the things, for example, that the Provincial Auditor had to say about the social housing program in Ontario between the years 1985 and 1991. He will also be aware that in many cases projects will take a year, a year and a half, two years and three years to get under way, so the conditions, particularly in a small town like Temagami or Wawa, may change quite dramatically, depending on the economy, during that time.

That does not mean, nor should it mean, that communities such as Temagami or Wawa are not going to benefit from affordable new supplies of housing.

I'd like to point out, just as a final point, that the Conservative leader fails to recognize that of the social assistance spending last year, 1992-93, which totals $5.2 billion, a full $2.5 billion was spent on shelter allowances. If that is not a rental subsidy in this province, how much more does he want to put into payments which are subsidies to landlords, which don't create new affordable housing?

Mr Harris: Why do we need new housing in Wawa? Why do we need new housing in Temagami? I'm not asking for the dollars to subsidize landlords or builders or bricks or mortar. I want the money to help people, subsidize people who need help.

The interesting thing about some of Bob Rae's cost-cutting efforts is that there are some traditional Liberal-NDP programs that are not touched by the government axe. In November the minister announced 3,045 new homes built over the next two years, yet the vacancy rate in the private sector is rising and rising and rising. Government's role in housing, I maintain at all times -- but today even you, I think, would have to agree -- should be to help those who need help affording housing. That's what we should be doing, but that is not what is happening.

The private sector is ready, willing, able to help. They're providing it a lot cheaper than you are. Your own figures estimate that if you carry on, you'll spend over $1 billion by 1995 on subsidies. This past year, that figure is $625 million. By putting a freeze on this boondoggle, this waste of money, you can save $375 million by 1995 to either actually help people who need help or to cut the need for higher taxes in the Treasurer's budget. Will you do that to help the homeless, to help the needy and to help taxpayers?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the Conservative Party has such a simple-minded approach to life, and it is not very practical. There are vacancies in rental housing in Ontario, that's a fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: They are at the high end of the market, as people who have suffered during the recession simply can't afford the rents that are out there in that market.

I don't think that the leader of the Conservative Party understands what CMHC has been telling us, which is that people are doubled up in their homes, in their apartments, because they can't afford the rents out there. There are vacancies, and landlords are starting to address that, at the upper end of the market, not at the affordable end of the market.

Furthermore, the program that he speaks of in such scathing and dismissive terms is offering affordable new housing, it is offering employment at a time when the construction industry desperately needs it, and it is being redesigned to tighten every element of the cost-effectiveness of that program.

I think the Conservative leader is just going to have to learn more about this subject before he goes around the countryside and describes it in such pathetic terms.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'd like to say at the outset, Madam Minister, that we in the Ontario PC Party know the vision that we have for the future of this province, and it's one without violence against women.

It's rather appropriate to have heard your minister today speak about Sexual Assault Prevention Month, because you are the minister who is responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board and you know as well as I do that there are enough research studies which confirm the causal link between violence against women and the viewing of obscene pornographic films and materials.

Madam Minister, instead of flipping through your answer book, I'd like you to listen to this question.

Right now, you have, as the chair of the Ontario Film Review Board, a person who has admitted lying to the public, and I read from her own memo:

"I am officially on public record stating the board's use of the search-and-scan feature for the viewing of adult sex product. In my public statement, I stated that this feature enabled the board to view at double speed...but we all know the reality is that panels do use a much faster speed than double speed when viewing," and that is underlined in her own memo.

If the Ontario film review panel reviews a sex film at warp speed without the sound track, Minister, how can the reviewers tell whether a film depicts consensual sex or rape? We must remember that if a film shows any combination of sex and crime, horror, cruelty or violence, its distribution violates the Criminal Code.

Madam Minister, I ask, under these circumstances of the chair of the Ontario film board lying to the public, if you will call for her resignation.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): This question was raised last week and I had difficulty in getting the attention of the member in hearing the answer. At that time, I wasn't aware of the memo which she was talking about. I have, of course, checked into it since that time, and it's very clear that what the chair of the board was doing was reaffirming with the members of the board how important it is in viewing these hundreds and hundreds of films that come through, which they diligently watch, screen and label, that they must at all times adhere to the rule, to pay attention to that rule and watch it only at double speed.

May I say that the term "search and scan" is somewhat misleading, and you have helped in your discussion and your actual description of what "search and scan" is to lead to misunderstandings of what "search and scan" is. It is actually used also by the federal government and by customs to view films. It is not the same thing as your video at home where you just speed ahead and cannot see clearly the images. It is double speed and the film review board makes a point, where necessary, of slowing it down completely. But the image is always crystal clear. They are totally aware of what they are seeing.

Mrs Marland: If they're totally aware, Madam Minister, then why is she saying that she lied to the public? Why in fact, if they're totally aware of what's on the screen, is she concerned about it? You can't say both things.

Madam Minister, last year in a letter of May you said that "the board does not classify films with sexually explicit scenes that degrade or humiliate women, depict brutal exploitation and violence with sexual overtones." You also say the board's classification decisions reflect "their awareness of and sensitivity to the standards of the communities." I wonder if this board thinks about communities like Burlington and St Catharines.

I also would like to point out to you that I have learned that Dorothy Christian sat on a panel for a slasher video called Slumber Party Massacre 3. This is the fourth film in a series about a killer who gores teenage girls to death with a large drill. The first panel deemed this video unacceptable for Ontario, but Ms Christian approved it last April, 1992. This is the person you're protecting.

I also would like to ask you if you are aware that this Thursday the board is going to review a recommendation to lower its standards, and I do not have the stomach to read for you what that recommendation includes which it will now approve for viewing which previously was not approved.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude her question, please.

Mrs Marland: I ask you, Madam Minister, how you can defend the operation of this board under this chairman with this kind of information, if you understand it.

Hon Ms Churley: As I said when this issue was raised last week, a lot of the slasher films that the member referred to at that time predate the film review board. I think it's unfortunate, but this government as well has to obey the law and that is the fact that many of those slasher films --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: We all feel, I think, in this House that those films are not acceptable and we abhor them.

The situation, as I outlined at that time, is that I am urging the federal government to make critical changes that are needed to relevant statutes in the Criminal Code that very badly need to be made.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Get away from your note and talk about the chair. That's what the question is about.

Hon Ms Churley: I note that the member keeps commenting that I'm reading from time to time. I note that she also read her question. It makes sense to refer to notes from time to time. I think the important issue here is not whether I look at my notes from time to time, but to clarify to the people of Ontario and to the women of Ontario that the film review board is made up of members of a diverse selection of our community who, to the best of their ability, screen and classify films under the Theatres Act.

I've already said in this House that I've asked the board to look at more information pieces, including an information piece that outlines when there is extreme violence against women. They are reviewing these kinds of information pieces. I think they're important, and the board will continue to be vigilant in watching out for violence against women, but we do need your support in lobbying the federal government to change the Criminal Code in order that the film review board can do its job better.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorry, Madam Minister, that you don't understand this question. I'm really, really sorry. I'm sorry for your government, but I'm terribly sorry for the women in this province.

The fact is, you have a chair who admits that when she comes back at lunchtime, very often everybody is gone for the day. She also has to appeal to the panel members to pay attention while viewing the product. We already know that they view it at seven or eight times the normal speed, yet you think it's the federal government's fault. I am talking about the Ontario Film Review Board.

I'll just give you one other quote from the chair's memo. She says, talking about reducing the scheduling time for viewing" -- get this one -- "We do have a certain responsibility to the distributors who submit their product to this board in having a relatively short turnaround time."

In another document, in the OFRB's response to a human rights complaint about slasher films, the board says its first service is a direct service provided to exhibitors and distributors, while its second service is an indirect service provided to the public as a whole.

I wouldn't think they have their priorities the right way around. I believe it's outrageous. I believe the Ontario Film Review Board's mandate must be to serve the public. It's the public that's spending three quarters of a million dollars a year to operate it.

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

Mrs Marland: Minister, my question is, if the board thinks its primary purpose is to serve the industry, the board could be influenced by distributors who want violent films to carry non-restricted ratings in order to increase their revenue. Will you review the mandate and procedures of the Ontario Film Review Board to ensure that it protects the public by thoroughly reviewing the films and rating them and perhaps even prohibiting material such as your chair approved last April 1992?

The Speaker: The question's been placed. Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: First of all let me say that I think the member is being quite selective in terms of the quote -- direct or indirect -- which she is taking from that memo. I want to assure the member that in fact the review she's talking about has already been conducted by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I have responded to that most directly and immediately, and in fact many of the suggestions they are making we are already in the process of implementing. We also, as I said at the time, rejected some of their recommendations in terms of not classifying films any more at all.

Furthermore, I find it really interesting that, overall, I've had complaints from time to time lately from some of the film distributors who have been upset about some of the classifications that this very film review board that she is now talking about has classified most cautiously, "For adults only" --

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

Hon Ms Churley: -- when of course they would have preferred the lower rating. I think that, on balance, if she looked at some of the positive things -- she's having such fun criticizing and enjoying the criticism role that she is not looking at the positive things that are happening at that board, which I'd be very happy to meet with her and talk through with her.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marland: Point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of order?

Mrs Marland: I'd like to advise this minister that if she thinks I'm having any fun asking these questions --

The Speaker: There is nothing out of order. Would the member please take her seat.

GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations as well. Minister, now that the NDP ship Casino has left harbour with you as its captain, at least in title, one of the things you've said in this uncharted course you're ventured upon is that you are going to allow lines of credit to be established onsite when potential gamblers arrive at the casino. Minister, you know very well that the history and the tradition in terms of the gaming industry for charities, indeed racetracks in Ontario, has been that there are no lines of credit. Why the sudden change, Minister, and where do you expect this to go in its ultimate conclusion?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We announced, I believe it was on March 12, that we would be allowing credit in casinos. I have to tell you that it's something that we considered very, very carefully and that we did consult with the law enforcement team we've been working with under the project team. We will be allowing credit only under very tight controls and with strict conditions.

The reason we decided to go ahead with credit is that the law enforcers and the regulatory agencies actually recommend it, on the basis that some limited, at least, amount of credit leaves a paper trail.

Hon Ms Churley: The laundering of money therefore will be avoided in many cases. The other aspect of it of course is that people won't have to carry large amounts of money in their pockets, especially people coming from across the border. So we did look at it very carefully, and it appears to us that on balance it makes sense to allow at least a limited amount of credit.

Mr McClelland: It's interesting, your particular spin on this scenario, Minister. The fact of the matter is, as I'm told by a number of people engaged in this process, that you're operating on a mandate that says: "I've got a mandate to build a casino. I don't really know where I'm going on this, but at the end of the day I'm going to arrive there some way, somehow."

You've changed the fundamental policy that has been established. The fact of the matter is that there's a great debate in terms of the very issue you raise: Is it appropriate, is it not, to have credit available?

Minister, I'm asking you today, in light of that issue and countless other issues, are you prepared to commit to full public hearings to canvass the very, very serious issues that are arising on this? It's clear, and you know very, very well that the jury is out in terms of the issue that we just talked about -- tremendous divided opinion on this, and in fact many people say that, quite the contrary, allowing a line of credit invites organized crime into laundering. I'm not sharing an opinion on that, because quite frankly there's a great debate out there.

Minister, the fact of the matter is this: You don't really know where you're going. You're bouncing from day to day with no sense of direction.

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

Mr McClelland: Are you going to have public hearings, allow these issues to be canvassed and allow some expert evidence to be brought forward so that everybody can participate and the right decisions can be made, Minister?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, credit is not something that can just be arranged on the spot; a very difficult process has to be gone through to get it. But in terms of the public hearings that the member is calling for, obviously, after we introduce the bill in the House, there will be public hearings.

MEMBERS' BENEFITS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Over the weekend, the Premier of Alberta announced that he plans to do away with the defined-benefit MPP pension plan.

Premier, while some of my research over the last few years -- I think reflected in a speech I gave in this House in 1991 -- indicated that there may be legal challenges and problems with retroactively changing when somebody didn't have an opportunity to contribute to an RRSP, surely you would agree with me, as you and I chatted in opposition about pensions and tax-free allowances, that there could be no better time than now, when we are facing the cutbacks to both the public and the private sector; that one of the bees in the bonnet, if you like, of taxpayers and of Ontarians are the so-called "special status" arrangements that they see we have.

Premier, in 1991 in this House when we discussed this issue, I said we are at the point where we should take a leadership role on this pension issue. I would ask you today, Premier, whether you would agree today is the day, that from at least this day forward we should do away with any portion of our pension that is not fully funded.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I notice with interest the members of this caucus who didn't applaud, as we all do, and also the quite substantial degree of silence in other quarters.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: A lot of people are both encouraging me and warning me, Mr Speaker, so, as I always do, I'll choose my words very carefully. Let me say to the honourable member that obviously this is a subject of which I took note of what's taken place. I think we're all taking note of what's taking place around the country and in discussions. The one thing I think it's important to avoid, in an issue which, frankly, involves all members of the House, would be for the Premier to make some unilateral statement.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Why? You do on everything else.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. I mean affecting the position and the circumstances of many different members.

So all I would say to the honourable member -- I was in fact looking for an opportunity to do this in any event, in light of the social contract discussion -- is to say to him and say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am quite open to our sitting down together, and to the House looking at this question in a responsible way. I think we all have to do that with some understanding of the positions and choices and circumstances that members face, as well as the need for us to be fiscally responsible at all times.

I can tell him I have no difficulty at all with our sitting down and discussing it. I think we all have to understand -- and I feel quite conscious of this, as somebody who's been a member here for some time -- that there's a need to do this in a way that is understanding of the circumstances of individual members. I know members opposite will understand me when I say that, but I look forward to a discussion with the honourable member on all these issues, including the issue of pensions. I'm quite happy to discuss it with him.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Premier. You'll recall we discussed this when you were in opposition; then, shortly after you took office, you and I the leader of the Liberal Party of the day, Mr Nixon, had two private meetings where we discussed this.

Then, when the proposal came forward, there was a pretty firm commitment on your part to deal with both this issue and with the tax-free allowance. There was nothing there. That's what prompted me then to go public in 1991 when I said that as well as the pensions, we needed to show leadership and make sure that our pensions were fully funded either through an RRSP or some other method of making sure we don't have an unfunded liability, or a defined benefit.

At the same time, I said then that I wanted to get on the record that I was prepared to sit down, to live up to the commitment to deal with the tax-free allowance. There is absolutely nothing more frustrating than people saying: "Why is it that your pay, Madam Mayor of Toronto, is a third tax-free? Why is it that you, as MPPs, have $14,000 tax-free?" They say to me: "If you have a legitimate expense, reimburse it. Put the expense chit in and reimburse it if it's a legitimate expense." But carte blanche, $14,000 tax-free, the public doesn't understand that.

So Premier, I'd welcome sitting down again on the pension issue. I hope this time we can bring it to fruition. I think Klein may run into trouble with the retroactivity --

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

Mr Harris: -- but I think from today forward we can deal with it. Are you also prepared to deal, Premier, with the tax-free expense allowance paid to all of us? Then perhaps we can talk to all of the other elected officials in the province of Ontario, once we've set the examples, with all their tax-free allowances?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member, just so that everyone understands, we've been wrestling with this question, as members, for a time. The difficulty, without getting into too many technicalities, is that if you get rid of the tax-free allowance in various ways, that impacts the pension, not in the way in which you're anticipating but in a very different way. That's why the two have to be discussed at the same time and that's why you have to deal with both of those issues at the same time.

All I would say to the honourable member is that I'm not going to comment on the activities of another Premier and another province, because that's not what I do.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I don't. Look at the record.

I would only say to the honourable member that I think we have to all talk very candidly with one another about the circumstances we're all facing as individuals, and at one and the same time about the need for us to show an example and the need for us to show leadership to the public, and an understanding, and at the same time I share the thought that there's no point in systematically undervaluing or devaluing the work that members of this Legislature or members of the House of Commons do. That's a parade this Premier is not going to join.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response please.

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition won't join it either.

If we want to talk realistically about the numbers, the costs, how we can ensure a fair program, then that's something I'm certainly prepared to do, even though I can assure him that it is a delicate and difficult task, which I'm not unhappy to perform, but I think that if we did it together, it might make it a little easier for all of us to do it.

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, today I'm accompanied by a group of constituents in my riding of Yorkview. They're seated in the east government gallery. They're called the YESS committee, Yorkview Educates Students for Seneca.

Minister, it's simple. We want a college campus at Jane and Finch. A few months ago, your ministry funded a study. That study was to be conducted by Seneca College and was to indicate to Seneca, as well as to your ministry, where the best possible location would be for a campus west of Yonge Street. Minister, are you aware of the study and would you not agree with me that Jane and Finch should be the site for a new campus?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I am very much aware of the study that was funded by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for about $200,000 and was announced by the previous Minister of Colleges and Universities. It's my understanding that this study is involving people in the communities, to make recommendations as to the location for the Seneca College, and that's all part of the planning process.

I expect to receive a copy of the report some time in June. Once I've received the report, I'll certainly be in a better position to judge the merits of each of the sites they propose, but obviously, the purpose of the study is to involve everybody in the community and have an independent recommendation, and I look forward to the recommendation.

Mr Mammoliti: The Lewis report, Mr Minister, on race relations clearly indicates that the Jane and Finch community is a need community, and of course wants and deserves the campus. Why? you ask. Approximately 60% of social assistance recipients in the community are single mothers. Our dropout rate is higher than most communities in Ontario and our students want a college close to their home.

Mr Minister, a college would be the first step in addressing and achieving the goals set out in the Lewis report pertaining to a community, of course. Won't you agree that the Jane and Finch community deserves this?

Hon Mr Cooke: I agree that the member is doing a very good job at advocating on behalf of an area of the province and an area of Metropolitan Toronto that has some community challenges, and those challenges need to be met in a variety of ways, but I think the previous minister set up an appropriate process to involve the communities. That report will be coming forward in June, and I can assure the member that the points of view he's putting before the Legislature in a very aggressive and appropriate way will be considered by the consultation committee.

RECYCLING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the part-time Minister of Environment. Minister, last week you announced that blue box recycling, and leaf and yard and home waste composting will be mandatory for all municipalities with a population greater than 5,000 people. You indicated that the regulations would be law by August, with implementation within one year, except in northern Ontario which would have an implementation date of within three years.

While we support the blue box program and reducing waste going into landfill sites, you must know that the blue box program is not just a box in front of a house but rather entails specialized trucks and source-separation facilities. Your government has already announced that you're going to be reducing grants given to municipalities.

My question, Mr Minister, is, how do you expect the municipalities to obey your orders when you are giving them less money? Who pays?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would never think of referring to the member as a part-time member. I would say that the member is correct in saying that the regulation will be in place as of August and that there will be a phase-in period of a year in southern Ontario, and up to three years in northern Ontario. The member is incorrect when he indicates that there is a but in the funding. As a matter of fact, this government is committed to maintaining this government's funding of the blue box program and of the 3Rs in general.

Mr Offer: When there is a Minister of Environment who shares other portfolios with an area so important to so many people -- the Minister of Environment is sharing a portfolio and is one of the very first ministers who has ever done so. That is a part-time minister to a very important area that affects many people in this province.

You have clearly and carefully not answered my question. This is a program which is going to cost municipalities many millions of dollars. You have said and your Treasurer has said that you have no more money, that you are going to be cutting back on dollars to municipalities. The municipalities say they are stretched to the bone.

My question, since you have not answered the first question, is, what happens when a municipality says to you it cannot comply with your orders because it does not have the money necessary to obey your directive?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member should be aware, if he's been working full time as critic of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, that this government is committed to providing 50% of the cost in the first year, 40% of the cost in the second year and 33% of the cost in subsequent years. That is the amount that we have maintained and that his government maintained, and we will continue to maintain it.

We are committed to working with the municipalities. We are also concerned that the private sector play a greater role and become more involved as a partner in this process. We look forward to those who might put single-use, disposable products and/or packages on the market paying a greater share of the 3Rs to ensure that we do meet the target of 50% diversion by the year 2000.

REPORTS ON EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Earlier today in this House, we heard the Premier complaining about the previous government and all of the reports that were gathering dust on the shelves. I would like to say that we have four reports here that have been gathering dust on the shelves since 1985.

Both the previous government and this government now for three years have paid no attention, in my view, to the fourth report of the select committee on education, to the Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education and the Issue of Dropouts, to the Macdonald Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Ontario and to People and Skills in the New Global Economy, one of the best reports that was ever written three years ago. Now I understand the minister is going to establish another commission on education.

My question to the Minister of Education is simply this: Mr Minister, you're establishing this commission on education. You haven't paid any attention to the previous reports. Should we expect that you're really going to take two years for this commission, given all the information that you have? Secondly, will this report gather yet more dust on the shelves, as did the previous reports on education by both the Tory government and the Liberal government?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that if the member were to look at some of the reports that she's referred to in an objective way, she might realize, and I think she would agree, that some of the recommendations from the Radwanski report have in fact been acted on, and certainly some of the recommendations from the Macdonald report were implemented by the previous government. I'd certainly like to look at a couple of the recommendations that Macdonald made on having fewer school boards in the province.

I think what the member should do is wait for tomorrow when the announcement is made on the mandate of the commission, look at the focus of the commission. It's not going to be a two-year royal commission. In fact, the throne speech indicated that we'd expect a final report by the end of 1994. We're already into May, so just give it a chance and wait for tomorrow's announcement and then make a negative judgement at that point.

Mrs Cunningham: I agree that some recommendations have been acted on, but very few recommendations have been acted on that have anything to do with core curriculum, testing, talking and communicating more with parents, involving teachers and educators in the decision-making and the input that needs to be done in this province -- very few in the last five years.

Specifically, very little, if anything, has been done in the area of apprenticeship training. In this report, and I hope the minister will pay very close attention to it, because he has ignored the fact that educators are looking for more representation on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, I should read this:

"Nowhere is the mismatch between existing policy and the long-term needs of the economy more evident than in the case of the apprenticeship system. As the industrial training approach with the longest history, it displays a powerful, embedded resistance to change. This resistance occurs despite ongoing and potentially serious shortages of skilled labour. It also persists in spite of a succession of major reviews and renewed calls for change."

Mr Minister, are you going to involve as part of your process and act very quickly on any recommendations that have anything to do with the apprenticeship system, because it is sorely needed in this province today?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think that the member, to be fair, would certainly indicate that this government, through the Jobs Ontario Training program and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, has taken major initiatives in terms of training initiatives in the province, and as to the reference you made at the beginning about educators being on the OTAB, I'd just ask the member to take a look at the philosophy behind OTAB, that the labour market partners control the process as opposed to the providers of service, and that's one of the basic fundamental principles of OTAB.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just like for the record to state that question period did not allow a question to be put today. I had a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy in regard to non-utility generation, and I would like the record to show that time did not permit that question to be put.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand the member's concern but if he would read the standing orders, like many of us do, he would understand that he can give notice to the minister in writing that he does have a question and he doesn't have to waste more of the House's time by showing that he never reads the standing orders.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We really don't want to debate this. Well, you may wish to debate it, but I don't. In response to the honourable member for Cochrane South and the honourable member for Bruce, indeed the member has the opportunity to serve notice. Secondly, of course, the members will notice that we utilized some 40 minutes of the clock with leaders' questions and the responses, and it would help all backbench members if those leadoff questions were a bit shorter and the responses a bit shorter.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Martin exchange places with Mr Farnan in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health is proposing to reduce the budget of the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals to $45 million without first having developed community services for the seriously ill; and

Whereas we believe that this measure will have tragic results for those individuals who have major illnesses, such as schizophrenia, which afflicts one out of 100 people at some time during their lives and places an enormous burden on them and their families if left untreated;

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

"We, the Peterborough

chapter of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, and others who support us, wish to petition the Ontario Legislature not to cut back the funding to those who need care and services in our psychiatric hospitals and in the community."

Mr Speaker, I concur with this petition and affix my name to it. As you can see, there are many hundreds of names involved in the petition.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Hundreds and hundreds of constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 114 requiring persons convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 14 to make a report to the police; and that failure to make a report will be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment; and to order a register of sexual offenders to be kept by police; and grant the public the power to disseminate the information."

That has been signed by hundreds of members in my riding, and I am signing it as well.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of petitions that are signed by citizens of Kent county. It's addressed to the Speaker of the House and the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of bicycle helmets promoted as part of a comprehensive bicycle safety program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, oppose the province's plan to mandate the use of bicycle helmets as an exclusive restriction of the personal rights to choose their own...."

The petitions that I'm introducing were conducted over a four-week period, and it's 1,000 and 4,000 I'll be presenting through the week.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again I add to the thousands of signatures that I've presented in this House so far.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature hereunto, Mr Speaker.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

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

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

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

In addition to the undersigned, this petition is further endorsed by municipalities, business and labour groups as well as the riding associations for the Bruce provincial Liberals, the Bruce provincial Progressive Conservatives and the Bruce New Democratic Party. I have affixed my signature.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition from a number of constituents in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers;

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It was sent to me by the Oxford Centre/Curries pastoral charge of the United Church. It says:

"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 (Macdonald and Macdonald); 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 the 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."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

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

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

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This is supported by councils, chambers of commerce, business associations, labour groups, riding associations, Bruce county school board and other organizations. I affix my signature.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding and nearby areas including Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Woodstock, St Catharines and Burlington have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there has been a marked increase in crime, particularly violent crimes and crimes against women and children; and

"Whereas there has not been adequate support for law enforcement agencies on the streets and in the courts; and

"Whereas the morale of police officers in Ontario has been undermined;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to join with the citizens of Ontario in demonstrating significant and strong support of our law enforcement agencies and that the Premier meet on an ongoing basis with police officers and deal seriously with their concerns."

I have signed that as well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of petitions signed by the residents of the town of Wallaceburg in my riding, dealing with Sunday shopping. They believe that Sunday should be kept as a day of holiday for family time and quality of life and for religious freedoms, and I do wish to present these petitions on behalf of those citizens.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This petition forms part of a petition circulated and accumulating well over 15,000 signatures. I affix my name to this particular petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As you can see, they are politically active in Chatham-Kent. I have a petition here that's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario dealing with casinos. They are opposed to casino gambling in the province of Ontario.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This is supported by business groups, labour groups, chambers of commerce, councils, school boards and riding associations, including the Bruce provincial Liberal association, the Bruce provincial Progressive Conservatives and the Bruce NDP.

I affix my name to the petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I've been asked to submit this petition on behalf of some community residents, and it reads:

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

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

I'd like to submit this, Mr Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

There are over 400 signatures from people in London and southwest Ontario attached to this petition, and I have signed my name as well.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons...."

This gives a sample of what is in the petition. I have attached my name to it. This is part of a petition that has collected well over 15,000 names.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here addressed to the Speaker of the House and the Parliament of Ontario which is signed by our future voters in the province of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of bicycle helmets promoted as part of a comprehensive bicycle safety program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, oppose the province's plan to mandate the use of bicycle helmets as an exclusive restriction of the personal rights to choose for ourselves as guaranteed under our Constitution," and they are petitioning this Legislature.

Also, it is accompanied with a letter from the police services board of the city of Chatham.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The first item of business is a deferred vote on the second reading of Bill 4. There is a five-minute bell. Please call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1529 to 1535.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Malkowski has moved second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education. All those in favour of Mr Malkowski's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion should please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cordiano, Cunningham, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Morin, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Speaker: The ayes are 62 and the nays 35. I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Social development committee, I believe is what we've agreed.

The Speaker: Social development committee? Agreed.

LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long-Term Care / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): It is a pleasure today to speak on Bill 101. I had the privilege of taking this legislation through the social development committee, where we had extensive hearings and also a clause-by-clause study. Certainly, this bill has benefited very much from the public input we had, and I'd like to thank all members of the public for their constructive suggestions for improving the bill. Also, it has benefited from constructive input from both opposition parties.

This is a substantial reform of the long-term care legislation with respect to facilities. The major reform of this legislation is to bring equity with respect to the funding of facility care; that is, by introducing level-of-care funding. Unfortunately, in the past, too often the level of care depended on the type of institution in which a person resided, whether it was a home for the aged or a nursing home. Level-of-care funding will move towards providing equity in the funding for residents in these facilities.

The second aspect of the reform is the establishment of a single point of entry into long-term care facilities through the establishment of placement coordination. This will also have the advantage not only of providing a single point of entry to facility long-term care, but it will also provide a single point of entry, with the long-term care reform, for people receiving care in their own homes -- that is, community care -- or referral to supportive housing or other appropriate agencies.

Thirdly, this legislation will bring in accountability with respect to the whole question of facilities. There will be accountability with respect to the moneys to be spent on personal care and nursing care. There will be no profit in this area of nursing care and personal care.

Fourthly, I would suggest that this does preserve the principle of universality with respect to health care, because the total cost of nursing care and the total cost of personal care will be covered at no cost to the resident. The resident will be required to pay for his or her accommodation.

Some members of the opposition suggest it is a user fee. I think if it is a "user fee," it's a user fee but not on health care; it's a fee paid for accommodation. I think it's only fair that persons should pay for their own accommodation in a facility as they would have to pay for their own accommodation if they reside at home. Basically, it'll be the same principle: If individuals receive care in their home, nursing care and personal care will be provided for at no cost to the persons receiving it, whether it's at their home, in a supportive housing unit or in a facility.

Lastly, one of the major points that came out through the hearings was the fact that many persons were concerned that it was not made clear enough that there would be consumer choice. I'm pleased to indicate that it was made very clear through amendments that consumer choice was paramount and that individuals will be able to choose with respect to where they are going to live. Also, that choice will be in line with their linguistic, familial and cultural wishes.

There have been several points raised by the opposition. I'm not going to respond to all of them, but I'd like to respond, first of all, to indicate that this government has a clear commitment to continue the $647-million commitment to long-term care. That is a solid commitment and I'd like to assure everyone that is a solid commitment.

Secondly, I'd like to refer to some of the comments by the -- I don't know where the opposition members were suggesting we ought to have open-ended funding with respect to facility care, but I would suggest, in the present fiscal circumstances of this province and in this country, that anyone advocating open-ended funding would be irresponsible.

Thirdly, the suggestion was made that the multiservice agency might be the creation of a new bureaucracy. That could be nothing further from the truth. The reality is that now we have several agencies providing various levels and types of care in the community, and the establishment of a multiservice agency will provide a single point of entry and will coordinate these agencies perhaps in a devolved model which will be determined as a result of the planning and recommendations made by the district health councils.

With respect to the appeal process for consumers, again, there's been a major improvement. The appeal body is the Health Services Appeal Board. The bill has been amended to make it a more friendly process for consumers. In addition, there will be established an informal local dispute resolution mechanism in order to avoid, in many cases, the necessity of appeals.

Lastly, with respect to district health councils, the suggestion was made that district health councils need a legislative process. I don't need to remind the members that district health councils now have an extensive mandate without having any legislative framework and will continue to do so with respect to long-term care.

Some concern was raised with respect to how governance of non-profit institutions might be affected. I'd like to assure the members and the House that this legislation in no way affects the governance of non-profit institutions. They will continue to elect their boards of directors the same way they always have.

Another point raised was the question that this legislation incorporates some substitute decision-making powers. This is necessary because until we have our Consent to Treatment Act and Substitute Decisions Act proclaimed, we would leave residents who are incapable with no one able to give direction with respect to their medical treatment.

In closing, I'd just like to say that it's been a pleasure to lead this bill through the legislative approval process, and I want to thank all the staff who worked long and hard hours to make this happen. In particular, I would like to thank Gail Czukar, Ministry of Health counsel, leading the legislation development project. I'd also like to thank Joanne Gottheil, legislative counsel, who drafted the bill and the many motions for amendments in committee. I think all members of the House recognize the difficulties in developing and drafting a very large amending bill such as this.

It was a major task to rework the three facility statutes and keep them consistent throughout. However, the outstanding leadership demonstrated by Ms Czukar and the remarkable precision and tolerance for complexity and detail demonstrated by Ms Gottheil have paid off.

I'd also like to thank Geoff Quirt, executive director of the long-term care division, for all the information he has provided and his hard work on the long-term care reform.

We have a finished product before us today and one that has been considerably improved by the efforts of the Chair and my fellow members of the standing committee on social development. I personally appreciate the supportive and cooperative spirit of all members of the committee throughout the hearings on clause-by-clause review and I look forward to joining with them and other members of the House to pass this bill today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Simcoe Centre and invite questions and/or comments.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's very interesting listening to the member, who was newly elected in 1990, because he probably doesn't recall the days when his party's representatives in this House were arguing exactly contrary to his words with which he opened, about the user fees. It's very, very interesting to read some of the old speeches by his predecessors and now to read his and try to find some parallel logic.

I understand, if I remember reading correctly the newspapers of this past weekend -- beginning on Thursday, if I'm not mistaken -- that maybe Steven Langdon had been reading some of the old speeches by the New Democratic Party as it was going through its formative years. On the way to government, maybe, is how to describe those previous speeches.

I can really understand how there has been a vast change in direction, all these new members who have no connection with the old days of the New Democratic Party; in fact, no connection with the CCF. Both of course used to stand for some real principles, some principles you could really identify as being consistent and persistent over the decades.

Now this member stands up and speaks not like a New Democrat at all. He speaks very much like a government bureaucrat who is looking for promotion. Of course, that's really what's at the heart of this. This gentleman is a parliamentary assistant, and he carried this bill at least partway through while they were changing the minister. He's really the power over there now. In fact, as I understand it, he gets to carry this bill in the House while the junior minister who's responsible for Health is here observing. I find that to be a contradiction in protocol in a very big way.

But let me just add this: That surely, when this gentleman wraps up his remarks, he will try and tell us what it is about this new version of the New Democratic Party that leads him to start saying all these fine and interesting things.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Simcoe Centre has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Wessenger: I will just respond very shortly and not use my full two minutes. However, the member for Bruce may not realize that I probably have longer roots in the New Democratic Party than most members within this Legislature. The fact is, I sometimes have difficulty understanding the philosophical approaches --

Mr Elston: Then why don't you speak like one? Why don't you speak like a New Democrat?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): When you speak like a Liberal, there's no risk.

Mr Elston: I suppose the next thing, he'll be talking a little bit like the Waffle.

Mr Wessenger: I would not say that. No, I never was that. I have to admit, I've never been that radical.

But the reality of this is that I am, and I think our government is, interested in bringing forward excellent legislation. This legislation meets a need by putting the priority to ensure that those people most in need get the appropriate care they need.

I think that's the whole essence of what our Treasurer is telling us: to be the most cost-effective and efficient and meet the needs of our community in the best way we can and ensure that those most in need get the services they do need. I think that is what we have to do in today's world.

The Speaker: Is there further debate on this bill? The member for Northumberland.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I am pleased to be able to participate in the third and final reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long-Term Care. I must say, I was also very pleased to be a part of the committee, even though we didn't always agree on what the government was putting forward and we still have concerns.

To be more specific, this bill addresses the level-of-care funding for nursing homes, municipal homes for the aged and the charitable homes for the aged. While everyone welcomes the fact that this long-awaited bill is finally getting closer to becoming law, it is with a great deal of nervousness that we in the official opposition will be supporting this bill. Even though there are many areas of concern, all of which were adequately addressed in the Liberal amendments put forward by our critic, the member for Halton North, the government disregarded many of these.

Our amendments definitely reflected what the many presenters who came before us in the hearings were saying, but unfortunately, the government chose to plow straight ahead, regardless of what the experts were sayin