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

December 6, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

ESTIMATES

CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE

MAGAZINES AND COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

CASA ABRUZZO HOUSING PROJECT

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ITALIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

TRUANCY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

VISITORS

MEMBER FOR LEEDS-GRENVILLE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

ONTARIO HYDRO INVESTMENTS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

WETLANDS

TEACHER MISCONDUCT

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

PENSION FUNDS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FIREARMS SAFETY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

AUTISM SERVICES

FIREARMS SAFETY

CHANGE OF VENUE

LADY EVELYN-SMOOTHWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

BICYCLING SAFETY

ADOPTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

LONG-TERM CARE ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1995 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have with me today petition cards for the Minister of Transportation from over 1,500 constituents from my riding of Ottawa West and adjacent neighbourhoods. They're opposed to any expansion of the capacity of the existing Champlain Bridge because it would significantly increase car and truck traffic through residential neighbourhoods, creating noise, pollution and safety hazards, and reduce property values.

They also oppose the expenditure of tens of millions of Ontario dollars on a project which would be detrimental to Ontario residents.

They do support a north-south commuter rail service and a bridge in the township of Cumberland which would connect to a city bypass, and urge you to reject any new bridge construction in established communities.

The minister should know that last year Ottawa-Carleton council passed a motion to pull out of a federal-provincial study examining a site for a new interprovincial bridge and also to reject car bridges at all four proposed locations. I hope he understands that his government cannot construct a new bridge where the people don't want one.

The views of these constituents, members of the Communities Before Cars Coalition, and thousands of other citizens across the region are not to be taken lightly. They will not accept unilateral decision-making on the part of the government in the way that it addresses this very important transportation planning issue.

MAGAZINES AND COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In Ontario today, magazines are eligible for up to $70,000 in grants per year through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, but by subsidizing magazines through these provincial grants, the NDP government in effect becomes a financial partner in helping some magazines compete for advertising revenue against community newspapers, which are not entitled to receive these grants.

I wrote to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation earlier this summer on this matter and the Ontario Community Newspapers Association also has conveyed its concerns to her. She responded by suggesting that Ontario magazines face competition from their US counterparts and require assistance from the government.

The minister fails to recognize that community newspapers also have a difficult time competing, with high taxes and with Bill 40. This situation has been exacerbated by the unequal playing field which the NDP government has created through these grants.

In a recent letter I received from Harry Stemp, executive director of the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, he states:

"While some magazines may be faced with unusual competitive situations, the same holds true for community newspapers as well. Daily newspapers, magazines and the electronic media are increasingly chasing advertising revenues from those who have traditionally used community newspapers.

"Our association does not believe that the publishing centre should be spending several millions of dollars annually in the form of grants and subsidies for items which we in the community newspaper industry would consider to fall within the realm of normal operating and capital expenditures."

I agree with Mr Stemp, and once again I urge the minister to reconsider the government's arbitrary subsidization of one segment of the print media, magazines, which directly competes against another segment, community newspapers.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to reflect on the murder of 14 women on this day five years ago at Montreal's École polytechnique. Across Canada and across Ontario, we remember this brutal and shocking event. London, Ontario, is internationally respected for its community response to women abuse. We know, sadly, that violence against women is not a minor and isolated occurrence.

Today, in Victoria Park in London, a monument designed by Leigh Raney will be dedicated to women who have died as a result of violence.

Every day for the past 10 years, the London Coordinating Committee To End Women Abuse has worked to inform and educate our community about the effect violence against women has on all of us. The statistics are clear and our federal Justice minister reported that a woman is shot to death in Canada every six days, most often at home and by someone she knows.

Taking action to end violence against women means that we take the problem seriously by developing an integrated response by our justice, medical and social service agencies. London's police services were the first in Canada to instruct officers to apply the Criminal Code to wife assault. Our police statistics continue to show a dedicated effort to ensure that violence against women is criminal behaviour which our community will not tolerate.

We must respond to the crisis of violence against women. I feel that the monument unveiled today in London's Victoria Park in commemoration of victims of violence is a solid reminder that will strengthen us in our efforts to end violence.

CASA ABRUZZO HOUSING PROJECT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I rise in the House today to share with members of this Legislature the blatant electioneering campaign undertaken by Premier Bob Rae and his comrades.

Two days ago, the NDP organized the ground-breaking of the non-profit housing complex Casa Abruzzo, located in my riding. In spite of the long hours which many community members have contributed to the project, none of their efforts were recognized. While I fully expect the NDP to completely disregard my efforts to ensure this project was successful, I'm upset that the NDP failed to recognize the efforts of the community.

I would like to formally recognize the hard work of the Keele-Falstaff Ratepayers Association for their contributions, along with Metro Councillor Judy Sgro, Mayor Mel Lastman and members of North York city council.

I must also correct the Minister of Housing, who attended this NDP re-election roadshow and displayed just how misinformed he is of the Liberal position on non-profit housing. I guess he must have been asleep in the Legislature on the numerous occasions when I and my leader, Lyn McLeod, spoke of non-profit housing.

I called for the moratorium on the construction of new non-profit housing units in June 1993 after the Provincial Auditor's scathing report on the mismanagement and misallocations uncovered at the Ministry of Housing. What we are taking issue with is the fact that the NDP mismanagement of the program is threatening its very viability. It is precisely because we know that there is a need for non-profit housing that we want to see the program assessed and adapted to the economic realities of the 1990s.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last December, this House voted 51 to 4 in favour of my private member's resolution calling for reform in how we support persons with developmental disabilities. A year later, it is time to review our progress in this regard.

I called for a change in how support is funded. Developmentally disabled persons and their families should receive funding directly. Community agencies would help their clients develop individual support plans and would deliver the supports that their clients request. The Minister of Community and Social Services has promised that the policy framework for developmental services will emphasize this new approach, but when will he deliver the framework?

One area of progress is the ministry's use of the community innovation fund for pilot projects in individualized funding, including a project in Mississauga. It is important that the ministry communicate the results of these projects to help communities understand how this new approach to funding would work.

In conclusion, some progress has been made since the House passed my resolution last December. However, there still is not nearly enough support for persons with developmental disabilities.

In Mississauga, we urgently need more support in four critical areas: (1) in-home support; (2) vocational day programs for adults; (3) support to persons needing a high level of care; (4) support for senior parents.

For families who need help, the situation has worsened in the past year. The government must move rapidly to give them the help they so desperately need.

ITALIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Today, the National Congress of Italian Canadians has issued a press release calling upon the federal Liberal government to immediately erase the criminal record of internees of Italian origin whose civil liberties were denied during the Second World War. I add my support and urge the support of the House towards this very important venture, which would only begin to address the injustices heaped upon this community during the 1940s.

Although former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney formally apologized to internees of Italian origin in 1990, he failed to follow through with the remainder of the national congress's requests. At that time, I raised this issue at North York city council. North York, Metro council, Hamilton city council, the Toronto Board of Education and many others added their voices to the call for reparations.

Financial reparations have not been addressed. Entire family businesses were obliterated and assets seized and not returned, even after no criminal charges were laid. Our community cries out for justice.

I call upon the federal Liberal government to act with haste and erase any criminal record against the internees. Due to the advanced age of these people, we can wait no longer. For some, it is already too late.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today, we commemorate the memory of 14 young women who were gunned down at l'École polytechnique in Montreal five years ago. As we mourn for them, let us also consider the ways in which each one of us can do our part to eliminate the violence which is so prevalent in our society today.

I was deeply concerned upon learning that several of my male colleagues have been barred from participating in events aimed at ending violence against women. One was barred from a Take Back the Night march, another was not allowed to join the mourners at a commemoration for the victims of the Montreal massacre. Why? Because they are men. They were told these events were for women only.

Violence in our society is not only a woman's issue. It is not only a men's issue. It is an issue of concern to every man, woman and child in this province and in this country.

I am convinced that the only way we can effectively curb the violence is for men and women to work together. While it is true that the majority of perpetrators of violence are men and the majority of victims are women, we must not assume that all men bear the guilt. Instead, we must harness the efforts of the many men who share our concern. Together we can help one another.

We will never erase the memories of the tragic Montreal massacre, but together we can prevent this tragedy from ever happening again.

TRUANCY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On June 16, 1994, my private member's resolution unanimously passed second reading. Action is needed by the Minister of Education and Training concerning habitually absent students and a change to the fiscal year of school boards.

The resolution urges the Ministry of Education and Training to continue with its intent to change the school board fiscal year to coincide with the school year, September 1 to August 31. It now coincides with the calendar year, which makes it very difficult for school boards to efficiently plan their budgets.

On October 20, I received a letter from the minister stating that this change would be considered for implementation after the Royal Commission on Learning has reported.

On June 7, I asked the minister if he would make changes to the Education Act with regard to habitually absent students. As a result of the present confusion and lack of clarity in the act regarding habitual absence, judges in some jurisdictions refuse to hear truancy cases. Many attendance counsellors working throughout Ontario share our concern on behalf of parents and students. The minister responded that any amendments to the Education Act that would come forward in a comprehensive way would come after the royal commission reports.

Minister, we know hear that the royal commission is not due to report until January or even later. It was originally supposed to report this week. These are two very important issues that affect students. We have been urging the minister to make these changes for years. He now tells us that they'll be addressed in the report from the royal commission.

This government has passed on its responsibility for the last time. For this government, its time has run out.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The leader of the third party was in my community recently trying to sell the so-called Common Sense Revolution, if you can imagine. Having difficulty finding something to criticize, he took a cheap shot at one of the most respected corporate citizens in Sault Ste Marie, the Ontario Lottery Corp. It wasn't appreciated by the Ontario Lottery Corp, by me, by the citizens of the Sault or by the people of this province.

The Ontario Lottery Corp relies on a very high level of integrity for its work. As a business, they show a profit. As a corporate citizen, they are known in the community for being community-minded.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): How can't they show a profit? Remember, lotteries are a tax on the poor.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Willowdale, order.

Mr Martin: As a major employer, they have created and preserved jobs. What's more, the dollars they generate go to recreational and cultural activities and to non-profit social services and hospitals across the province.

The OLC deserves respect, not cheap criticism. I'd put my money on them any day. I can only conclude that if cheap shots like this one are what The Common Sense Revolution is about, we need to call it the Common-Two- Cents'-Worth Revolution, because that's about what it's worth. I say, cheap shot and shame on you, leader of the third party.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber and indeed to our country, seated in the Speaker's Gallery, the Honourable Licia Kokocinski, MLA, from the Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Welcome.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Dagmara Chojecki of Amherstview and Kierin Gorlitz of Wellington are with us in the Speaker's gallery today. They are the winners of an essay contest for senior elementary students in my riding, the topic of which was, "What would you do to make Ontario a better place?" I just wanted members to know copies of their winning essays are in the east and west lobbies for them to enjoy.

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member does not have a point of order. However, his guests are most welcome in our chamber.

MEMBER FOR LEEDS-GRENVILLE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Last night the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Bob Runciman, declared in this House statements about me personally that violated my privilege as a member of this Legislature.

I call your attention to subsection 46(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, where it says:

"

(1) The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purpose of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts and without affecting the liability of the offenders to prosecution and punishment criminally or otherwise according to law, independently of this act, the acts, matters and things following:

"1. Assault, insult or libel upon a member of the assembly during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days proceeding or the 20 days following a session."

Mr Speaker, the quote went on like this: "Two Liberal cabinet ministers, Mr Wong and Mr Curling, attended his funeral" -- the funeral of Mr Lawson -- "the funeral of a man shot by police in a stolen car attempting to run down two Peel Regional Police officers. Two Liberal cabinet ministers attended that funeral. What kind of message does that send out to police officers right across this province? Not a very happy one, not a very encouraging one."

I have two points to raise, Mr Speaker. The first is that the statement is false. Mr Wong did not attend the funeral; he was not present. The second, which I consider more seriously, is that the member for Leeds imputed motives to me in that I attended the funeral solely with the intention to send an unhappy message and a discouraging message to the police of this province. I find these comments deliberately hurtful and vindictive. His comments were a gross violation of my privilege as a member of this Legislature. I'd like you to rule on this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Scarborough North, I certainly appreciate the concern which he has expressed. Unfortunately, he will know that since the matter was not dealt with at the time when the comments were made, there is no way in which the Chair can be of assistance to him today, the remarks already having been made last night and no attention paid to them at the time.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege today dealing with a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission about my attending a commission hearing on behalf of a constituent.

I was very careful in preparing for my request to attend the Ontario Human Rights Commission on behalf of a learning-disabled constituent who for seven years now has had a case before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I wrote and received permission in writing from His Honour Justice Gregory Evans, wherein he said to me, "Pursuant to

section 5 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, 1988, it is my opinion that with the authorization of your constituent you are entitled to attend the meeting scheduled with Ontario Human Rights Commission staff members and represent your constituent, not only in the meeting but in any hearing which may be held."

I have now received the reply from the Ontario Human Rights Commission on my request to attend on behalf of my constituent, who no longer can afford a lawyer or any other advocate in a paid capacity. They have now denied me the opportunity to represent my constituent in the hearing of his matter before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. For that reason, I would ask you to investigate it. I feel that as a member my privileges have been breached.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga South, I certainly appreciate the concern which she has expressed. I'm not sure if the member has a point of privilege. However, I'd be quite happy to take a look at it. I will endeavour to report back to the member tomorrow and to let her know if her point is valid or not.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): In 1987, Canada signed the Montreal protocol promoting the end of substances such as chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, which attack the ozone layer.

The ozone layer is located in the upper atmosphere and shields us from the sun's ultraviolet radiation, which has been linked to skin cancer and eye cataracts.

Our government made a commitment in 1990 to take action to meet the terms of the Montreal protocol, action needed to be taken to protect human health. I'm pleased to tell the Legislature today that our government has lived up to this commitment.

With the regulations I am announcing today, Ontarians can be proud of the fact that they now have the most comprehensive program on controlling ozone-depleting substances anywhere in Canada. I know that both the official opposition and the third party will be pleased with this announcement from the statements and questions they have raised on this issue in this Legislature.

Two years after signing the Montreal protocol, Ontario became the first province to pass legislation controlling the use and production of CFCs. Earlier this year, our government took action to control halons used in fire extinguishers and fire control systems. The halon regulation followed our regulation on CFCs and HCFCs used in refrigerants and air conditioners, including those in cars and trucks.

Today, I'm pleased to report to the Legislature that our government has finalized and passed into law two new regulations to control and phase out the use of ozone-depleting solvents and sterilants. Ontario is living up to its commitment to the people of Ontario and the Montreal protocol. The two regulations set a strict timetable for phasing out those solvents and sterilants which contain ozone-depleting substances.

The solvents are used in a variety of industrial cleaning processes. Many companies have already switched over from using ozone-depleting solvents in anticipation of the requirements of the Montreal protocol. Many of these companies are now helping smaller companies make the switch to ozone-friendly alternatives.

Sterilants are used primarily by hospitals to sterilize medical instruments and devices. Alternatives already exist and many users of sterilization units have already begun to make the switch.

These regulations are practical and workable. The most damaging ozone-depleting substances, those which destroy the ozone layer more quickly and last longer, will be phased out as of 1996. Those ozone-depleting substances which are not as damaging, but still have a negative impact on the ozone layer, will be phased out as of the year 2000. All these ozone-depleting substances, however, start an ozone-destroying process which lasts from 40 to more than 500 years. That's why it's important to act now, because what we do today really does matter tomorrow.

We have met with representatives from industry, unions, professional associations and the public about these regulations, and there is strong support from all quarters.

We said we would act, and I'm pleased to tell this Legislature that we have lived up to our commitment. Ontario now has a comprehensive program to control the release of ozone-depleting substances. In fact, almost 98% of these substances are now controlled by our regulations.

We also now have in Ontario companies searching for commercially viable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. These regulations support Ontario's green industries and create jobs, proving again that protecting the environment and creating jobs are not at odds with one another but are complementary. We can, and especially in the case of substances that attack the ozone layer, we must do both.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I don't believe there is anyone in this Legislature or outside who will oppose the announcement made today, but I think we should be clear that the announcement made by the minister only partially comes into effect in 1996 and is fully in effect in the year 2000.

This was an issue that should have been addressed in 1990. This government has allowed five years to elapse before it has taken any action in this area. The question we have to recognize and answer is: What took the government so long? We must recognize that in 1990 the action could have been taken, and the announcement that the minister makes today will only come into effect fully in the year 2000. So in effect, we are talking about almost 10 years that the government, through its own inaction, has dealt with this particular issue.

Now when one listens to the minister's statement, there are certain areas that I believe still must be asked about. The first is, why is the phase-in period the length that the minister has announced today? Why is the phase-in period to 1996 and why is a secondary phase-in period to the year 2000?

Secondly, we must recognize that in no small measure, private industry, the private sector, has taken the lead in this area. The minister's own statement has clearly indicated that the private sector in the area of solvents in the industrial cleaning process has already switched over from using ozone-depleting solvents. As well, in the area of sterilants, many users of sterilization units have already begun to make the switch, and those I believe are fairly in the words of the minister's statement today. So we must recognize and applaud the work done by the private sector in dragging government into action, which has been announced today.

I believe there is a third area that we want to take a look at and that deals with what happens in January 1998. I think the regulation has to be looked at. What is going to happen with the existing material that is not caught with this particular regulation? What we have to do is ask, how is the existing material going to be disposed of? What is the strategy of the government in dealing with the information, and the solvents and the sterilants that are already being stored and how is it that they are going to be disposed of in a safe, effective manner?

And is the regulation -- I do not know -- clear on that particular issue? The minister's statement today did not allude to that particular area.

Now it is also very strange that the minister's statement today speaks of the word "commitment" on, I think, four separate occasions. I wanted to take a look at this document that was delivered to me. It was almost in a brown envelope, but it was called the Agenda for People of August 18, 1990. I thought, my goodness, maybe we should take a look at that and see how the words of the minister are transformed into action. The minister has, I think, on four occasions, minimum, spoken about his commitment, maintaining his commitment.

Well, let's take a look in the area of the environment. What does the Agenda for People say? New Democrats would pass the safe drinking water act right away. What action have they done? Nothing. They have redefined the phrase "right away." New Democrats would look at the issue of pop sold in refillable containers. What have they done to date? Nothing. Oh, there's one other: New Democrats would overhaul the air pollution laws. What have they done? Nothing.

The minister's own inaction is clear testimony to the fact that the Friends of the Earth has ranked Ontario and his government eighth out of 10 provinces for his efforts.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Time has expired.

Mr Offer: Though we have no opposition to the announcement, it is clear --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Offer: -- that you have not met the commitment that you made to the people of this province.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I congratulate the minister for bringing forward these regulations. I think all of us on all sides of the House, all representatives of industry and the general population approve of what you are doing.

I do echo some of the comments from my colleague the Liberal critic, as you can well expect. There is a little bit of cynicism when you make comments in your statement that we must act now, notwithstanding the fact that Canada signed the Montreal protocol in 1987, which was almost eight years ago, that the government made a commitment in 1990, your statement states, which was almost five years ago, and the fact that it's going to be phased out as of 1996 and the year 2000.

I guess our major criticism is, what have you been doing so long? Why have you taken so long to take action? As good as it may be, the question is, why have you taken so long, particularly when you have stated how serious these ozone-depleting substances are? And I think we all agree with that.

I think the problem is that you have utterly consumed yourself, perhaps you and your predecessor before you, with respect to waste management, with respect to the three dumps --

Hon Mr Wildman: With MISA.

Mr Tilson: You mention MISA, and of course MISA is another story. The Provincial Auditor's report made it quite clear two years ago that we have water quality problems in this province.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, he didn't.

Mr Tilson: He certainly did. He said that the MISA program is beyond the capabilities of municipalities. We definitely have a water problem in this province, because this year, then, he started talking about water quality, and you expressed your frustration and your inability to deal with the criticism of the Provincial Auditor when he made it quite clear that there are municipalities in this province that may have bad water and they don't even know it, because it takes all that period of time to determine whether or not there's bad water in this province.

The question is that the ministry simply isn't testing our water in this province satisfactorily, to the requirements of the Provincial Auditor and the people of this province.

When you start making statements like that, I think that gets back to my initial comment, which is that your whole issue that you've been consumed with is with respect to dumps. You will not recognize the gases that emit from dumps and that indeed, whether it's methane or any other types of gas, have an effect on the ozone. I think we all admit that, yet there have been no steps by your government to study that.

There have been great strides across Europe, across the United States, to talk about the gases that have escaped from energy-from-waste facilities, from incineration, and there have been great strides to improve that. There have been no strides with respect to dumps, particularly by this province. You have ruled out energy-from-waste facilities. You have ruled out long rail-haul to other, willing host communities.

You have committed yourself to putting three superdumps surrounding Toronto which are going to have serious health problems for the people of this province, which are going to affect the water of this province and which are going to affect the overall wellbeing of this province, whether it be sociological or otherwise.

I think that's been your problem. That's why it has taken you all this time to come up with this very important policy. There's a whole slew of issues that you have ignored, and this is one of them.

I do congratulate you when you come forward with something like this, but I get concerned with the contradictory aspect of your waste management policy, and I zero in specifically with respect to dumps.

You can talk about the tire tax. The tire tax is another issue that was raised. The Liberals imposed this tire tax. You and our party fought that. But what did you do?

Hon Mr Wildman: We got rid of it.

Mr Tilson: You did get rid of it, but it took you all that time and still you have not devised a means of getting rid of tires in this province, which in turn is going to have an effect --

Hon Mr Wildman: There's 40% recycling.

Mr Tilson: What you're doing is a lot of these tires are being shipped to the United States and being burned. You have no plan with respect to the disposition of tires, so you take the tax off and yet you haven't come forward with another alternative.

Mr Speaker, I congratulate them. How can one not congratulate the minister with respect to this policy? I think we all do that. But I tell you, to take 10 years to come up with this solution is simply not satisfactory, particularly with many of the other problems that you've omitted.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for all-party statements on the provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am rising today to remember and commemorate the 14 young women who were murdered in Montreal five years ago. Today is the fourth annual provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This is an important day of remembrance for all of us.

It is a time to reflect on the talent and potential of the women who were murdered in the Montreal massacre, their lives destroyed at the hands of a violent killer, and it's a time to remember the families of these women. It is also a time to remember the thousands of other Canadian women who have been and who continue to be physically and emotionally abused, sexually assaulted and murdered. Today we mourn the women killed in Montreal and we grieve the violence against women that continues each and every day.

More than half of the women in this country have been physically or sexually assaulted, using the Criminal Code definition of these crimes, at least once in their adult lives. One in four of us is sexually assaulted during her lifetime, and more than half of women in the workplace have experienced sexual harassment or threats.

Tragically, violence against women is an everyday occurrence in our society. This violence also knows no social or economic boundaries, and its victims are our family members and friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. This is the sad reality we must remember this December 6, this day of remembrance. But this is a day of action too. It is a day to consider and to take real steps to stop the crime of violence against women.

All of us can attend a vigil today to make our voices heard. We can wear a meaningful symbol like a button or a white ribbon to signify our commitment to stopping violence against women. We can also volunteer our time with women's groups, shelters and other organizations working towards a safe and equal society for women.

As parents, we can raise our children without stereotypes. We can teach our children to solve their problems and express their feelings without resorting to violence.

As employers, we can make sure our workplaces are free of sexual harassment and that they are safe environments which encourage all employees to relate to one another in healthy, non-power-based ways.

As individuals within our families and our communities, all of us, men and women alike, can support a woman who has been abused by talking to her, by offering her our support. We must call for help when we see or hear of a woman being hurt, and we must provide our support for community services like the police, shelters and counselling agencies.

We can and we must continue to chip away at attitudes that allow violence against women to continue. These attitudes are rooted in gender-based concepts of power and control. We must learn to share power with one another if we are to attain an equal, supportive and non-violent community.

There are many things that all of us, as individuals and as groups, can work on to help end this terrible crime of violence against women. Today we must remember, we must never forget, and we must resolve among ourselves that the tragedy of December 6 in Montreal in 1989 will never happen again.

I would ask that my colleagues in the government caucus and all those across the floor join me now in a moment of silence as we remember the 14 young women who were so tragically lost to us five years ago today and all the women who have been victims of violence before and since.

I will read out the names of the victims of the Montreal massacre so that we can think of each woman as we remember and pledge ourselves to renewed action to end violence against women. The 14 women were Sonia Pelletier, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Michèle Richard, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Maria Klucznik, Annie Turcotte, Annie St-Arneault and Maud Haviernick.

Mr Speaker, would you ask for a moment of silence.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the other parties please participate before the moment's silence?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It will be agreeable that the other parties speak, and the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I participated a little earlier in a very moving memorial to the 14 women who were killed at l'École polytechnique in Montreal on that tragic night of December 6, 1989. I was equally moved by a tribute that I saw on television on Sunday night with pictures of each of these beautiful, vital young women, any one of whom could have been one of my daughters. I cannot imagine being one of the parents who received those terrible phone calls that day and I can only begin to imagine the grieving that will still be only too real for the families and the friends.

There are so many unexpected tragedies that can suddenly strike, but we are particularly shocked by senseless random killing because it is so deliberate, because we know that it should not have happened and because we feel somehow that we should have been able to prevent it. Random killings shock us too in the realization that the victims died just because they happened to be there. At l'École polytechnique, they died because they happened to be there and because they were women, and that's the focus today of our remembered horror and our grief and of our determination to do everything possible to ensure that it never happens again.

I do not believe that we can or that we should draw broad and sweeping generalizations from the murders at l'École polytechnique, but we can, and I believe we must, ask why a twisted mind expresses itself in crimes of violence against women and why we tolerate the slasher and the snuff films and the serial-killer cards that feed that kind of sickness.

We need to acknowledge that while this is the extreme, there is much other disturbing evidence of violence directed against women, statistics that suggest that one out of eight women in Canada each year is assaulted by her spouse or partner, statistics that one out of every four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

What does that statistic say to a mother of four daughters? Last year in Canada, 164 women were murdered by their spouses. Last weekend, three women were murdered very close to where we all live.

We still have a long way to go to make women safe and free from hurt, but too many tragedies have certainly heightened awareness of the need for action, and people are acting. Men and women are acting. They're banding together to take back the night, taking steps to make our neighbourhood safer, acting to control access to the weapons of violence and to get tough on those who commit violent crimes.

There is more that must be done. We must not simply accept a justice system which allows drunkenness as a defence for rape. We must be prepared to deal with violent sexual offenders, we must not tolerate abuse in any form, but we must focus our concerns not solely on the tragic outcomes of violence but on its root causes.

We must be ready to take the next necessary steps if we are truly committed to doing all that we can to end the violence, if we want to do all that we can to ensure that our daughters are not afraid to walk alone at night, that they are not vulnerable at home or at school or in the workplace, not just because they are there but because they are women. Only if we pledge ourselves to this goal can we draw anything but tragedy from what happened at l'École polytechnique.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today at noon I also participated in the Women's College Hospital candlelight vigil to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Montreal massacre. It was five years ago today that 14 young, beautiful women were senselessly murdered, and since that time millions have gathered each year at vigils such as this to share their shock, anger and sorrow and make a commitment to make a difference.

This vigil today was a powerful and moving event which reminded all of us not only of the tragedy and horror of that day but also of the fact that violence against women and children continues to escalate in our society. It also reminded us that we treat our daughters very differently from our sons, and I want to just quote from Stevie Cameron when she says:

"When they are born we see their futures as unlimited, and as they grow and learn we try so hard to protect them: This is how we cross the street, hold my hand, wear your boots, don't talk to strangers, run to the neighbours if a man tries to get you in his car."

"But as they grow and learn, with aching hearts we have to start dealing with their bewilderment about injustice."

"And as they grow and learn we have to go on trying to protect them: We'll pick you up at the subway, we'll fetch you from the movie, stay with the group, make sure the parents drive you home from babysitting, don't walk across the park alone," lock the door if we're not at home.

"It's not fair, they say. Boys can walk where they want, come in when they want, work where they want. Not really, we say; boys get attacked too. But boys are not targets for men the way girls are, so girls have to be more careful."

As they grow up we still warn them: "Park close to the movie, get a deadbolt for your apartment, check your windows, tell your roommates where you are. Call me."

Yes, as the mother of a daughter, I know that I treat her differently than my son.

Today we were urged by author Judy Steed to deal with the horror of the Montreal massacre and to break out of our collective trance and to make a genuine commitment to take action against the violence.

Ms Steed also said that it is time to acknowledge that the abuse of young children is one of the root causes of violence against women and children, since it is these abused children who later become those who are the batterers.

We in this House can do something about that. We must recognize this and we must take collective action and responsibility to help those children who are abused so that they do not repeat the vicious cycle of abuse. We must support children's counselling and support services, school abuse screening, child mental health programs, child care services and recreational programs for children which can offer affirmation and guidance.

We must also reject sexist language and behaviour which, no matter how casual or seemingly innocent, does contribute to the continuation of violent and abusive behaviour.

We must acknowledge and deal with the influence of media violence which we see in video games, movies and in the printed press. If we object to this media violence, we in this House and people across this province and country can write or call the TV station, the movie theatre and the program sponsors. We can boycott the products of people who pay for this violence.

Yes, there is much that we can do; however, if we are ever going to create a culture of safety, equality and justice for women, it is absolutely imperative that both men and women work cooperatively together in order that the day may come when no one, whether man, woman or child, will ever again need to feel the fear of being abused.

Today, let each one of us personally consider what we can do to ensure that the tragedy of five years ago is never repeated and that no more women and children are abused.

The Speaker: I invite all members and our visitors in the galleries to please stand and bow your heads for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: Please be seated.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today, and a question of concern to many people in the gallery, I believe, is directed to the Minister of Health. I believe she is expected. May I have some understanding from the government House leader as to whether she will be arriving?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I see her coming through the door, I think. The door opened.

Mrs McLeod: Shall I --

Mr Bradley: The door is open, I see. She must be on her way in.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would you wish to stand down your first question?

Mrs McLeod: If the Minister of Health is not to arrive momentarily, Mr Speaker, I'll stand down the first question.

Mr Bradley: She is here. Ms Boyd said she'll be right in here.

Mrs McLeod: Ah, yes.

Mr Bradley: Here she is here. Here she comes.

Mrs McLeod: If I may, Mr Speaker, in deference to the concern of many people who are in the gallery, I will await the arrival of the Minister of Health so I can place my first question to the minister.

Mr Speaker, as you have gathered, my first question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will note as she arrives that once again the galleries are filled, and they are filled with people who would rather be out working in their communities than protesting today. They're filled with people who have spent years delivering care to seniors and the disabled in communities across this province.

Minister, these people are here to protest the passage of your long-term-care bill. Throughout this debate, the minister has insisted that we on this side of the House are manufacturing the opposition to this bill. I want today to read to the minister from just one of the thousands of letters my colleagues and I have received.

This is a letter from the WoodGreen Community Centre, a multiservice, neighbourhood-based agency that's been serving seniors and families in Riverdale since 1937, and I quote the concern expressed in their letter:

"Innovation and flexibility will be lost in the multiservice agencies proposed by the Ontario government through Bill 173. Instead, seniors and people with disabilities will be served by bureaucratic, highly regulated and costly agencies without any choice."

Minister, can you explain to the people at WoodGreen centre why you're proceeding with Bill 173 despite the fact that people at this centre and hundreds of people like them have told you that this is the wrong thing to do?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The Leader of the Opposition and I and members on the other side of the floor have been having this debate now for quite some time.

I was a volunteer in my community when I think the Conservative government and then the Liberals began to recognize that we had in this province a first-class group of people providing long-term care but that it was fragmented, that not everybody could get the care they needed and that the professional work that was done by the people in the system, many of whom I know are here today, was undervalued, in many cases underpaid and was in fact excellent where it happened but not happening consistently across this province.

So the changes that are proposed and that are going to produce a system that is integrated, that does provide one-stop shopping, are a replica of the agencies that are represented here today.

WoodGreen I know well. My colleague from Riverdale knows it well, worked with it, created it, supported it. It is a voluntary agency with a voluntary board, and voluntary agencies with voluntary boards will continue to deliver long-term care in this province. That's what reforming the system is all about, creating in neighbourhoods the same kind of agencies that have been providing bits of long-term care and making sure --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that they provide coordinated, holistic care for the seniors and the consumers who are also here today to show their support for Bill 173.

Mrs McLeod: If the volunteers and the staff at a community centre that's been around for almost 60 years tell me that something won't work, then I think they are worth listening to. I know that you know the WoodGreen Community Centre well. That's why I chose to read excerpts from their letter, to express on their behalf to you their concerns in the hope that you would listen to the concerns of a group of people that you do know well.

Minister, let me read you a little more from their letter, another of their concerns:

"While the Ontario government is pushing the bill through the Legislature, the bureaucrats behind the scene are writing a policy manual that will dictate every single operation of the MSAs down to minute details. The policy manual that is being developed governs assessment tools, case management, even the square footage required for day programs. Not only are these rules culturally biased, they also stifle community development. It is a shame for the government to promise a consumer-driven system when the real control lies with the government and the bureaucracy." These are not my words, these are the words of the WoodGreen Community Centre.

Minister, for months now volunteers at community groups just like this one have been appearing at committees, they've been writing to you, they've been signing petitions, they've been doing anything to try and get your attention. Can you explain to them why you want to destroy community services that have been built by the people of this province over decades? Can you explain why you need to put in place a single monolithic bureaucracy to replace a truly community-based system?

Hon Mrs Grier: The long-term-care system that we have now and those 1,200 agencies that are so frequently mentioned range from agencies such as the VON and the Red Cross, which run across the whole province or in fact across the whole country, to very small neighbourhood agencies that provide home support services, services such as cleaning the oven and cleaning the windows for seniors who can no longer do that themselves.

As we ensure that no matter where you live and no matter what your needs are you get the services you need in a seamless fashion, it is precisely all of those agencies that are coming together to say, "Here's the minimum level of service that needs to be provided, and the province has a responsibility to see us provide it." But we have not done what your government wanted to do, which is to create coordinating agencies of bureaucrats run by the ministry of either Community and Social Services or Health.

We have decentralized and we have said to the district health councils, "You tell us how many multiservice agencies there should be in the district that you cover." We have then said to the volunteers on the district health councils --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and to the volunteers on the long-term-care committees, "You design the system for your area and, within that, help to develop the voluntary boards and the volunteers who will run those agencies."

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Mrs Grier: That's the big difference between how you were going to do it and how we're doing it.

Mrs McLeod: In one respect the minister is right. The concerns that we've heard have come from community groups as widely ranging as the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Red Cross and Meals on Wheels to the very small, community-based organizations that simply have devoted a lot of their lives to providing service to people in communities. These organizations all believe, Minister, that the very people you claim you want to serve with your legislative changes are not going to be served at all.

You have tended to defend this legislation by saying that this is a way of saving money and that in saving money with this restructuring, you will be able to devote more money to service for seniors. The WoodGreen Community Centre people are ready to challenge your claim that this will save money in organization that can be used for service, and they write in their letter: "It is also irresponsible" -- "irresponsible," Minister -- "to use cost savings to sell the reform to the public when no cost analysis has ever been done by the Ministry of Health or by the district health councils."

The letter also says that you told community groups to look at the experience in Victoria, BC, as a good example of a jurisdiction where services have been consolidated, so let me tell you what they found when they did. Nursing services in that consolidated model are $55 per hour. Presently, for Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association of Ontario -- I take this from the WoodGreen Community Centre -- their cost is $39 per hour.

The Speaker: Could the leader place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: In Victoria, service was lost. Seniors there have to wait three months for a call from their case manager.

Minister, you have no evidence that shutting down community agencies and setting up a new bureaucracy will reduce costs. In fact, it is likely to do exactly the opposite: increase costs and reduce service. Tell us why you are doing this. Tell us why you are deliberately ignoring and dismissing the pleas of volunteers and community organizations right across this province.

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition keeps saying that we have not listened to people in making the changes. I would remind her that when we became the government and the proposal for bureaucracies that her government had put forward was out there for discussion, we had the broadest consultation that I think had ever been held in this province, with about 75,000 people participating.

What the seniors and the disabled said was, "Don't patronize us"; they said, "Don't tell us what you think is good for us; listen to us"; and they said, "Let us design the kinds of services we want." They said, "Put more money into the system," and we have. We have put $400 million more per year into the system.

We've listened to the providers. They are part of all of the work that has been going on, but when it comes right down to it, one of the criticisms of what we're doing that was in a local paper I think puts it very succinctly. They criticized me, because they said, "You've listened to the consumers and not to the providers." I make no apologies for that.

Mrs McLeod: We will return to this issue, but I want to direct a second question to the Minister of Energy.

ONTARIO HYDRO INVESTMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We are reminded again today that Ontario Hydro has clearly launched itself into the international marketplace and that it seems determined to behave as if it was a private corporation.

Clearly, Ontario Hydro is not a private corporation. Its shareholders are the people of this province who pay their hydro bills every month. I think that the people of this province need to know where you, as Minister of Energy, stand today on risky speculative investments on behalf of Ontario Hydro. Will you tell us exactly what you are prepared to do to ensure that Ontario Hydro ratepayers' interests are protected?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The former Minister of Energy knows full well that the public corporation, the utility in this province, is appearing before the Ontario Energy Board at my request to deal with these very issues. We await the advice of the Ontario Energy Board in order to be able to come forward with a comprehensive position with regard to these very matters. It would be quite premature for me to make a statement in the House today prejudging what the Ontario Energy Board's recommendations might be.

Mrs McLeod: I'm interested in knowing the minister's policy and the government's policy on the specific issues of speculative investments on the part of Ontario Hydro. I think that people in this province were shocked when they realized that Ontario Hydro had already spent $108 million buying into a utility in Peru. Minister, this was a deal that you approved, even though you acknowledged that the ratepayers would be put at risk through this deal.

Now we learn that Ontario Hydro is looking at spending some $92 million more on six different projects in seven foreign countries, and what we hear today is that the chairman of Ontario Hydro wants -- in fact, I think it's fair to say the chairman of Ontario Hydro demands -- permission to go ahead with these investments without having cabinet approval on each project.

Minister, are you prepared to pick up the telephone today and tell the chairman of Ontario Hydro that he does not have free rein?

Hon Mr Wildman: It takes a bit of chutzpah for the former Minister of Energy to talk about this government, which has frozen electricity rates two years running, and for the first time in 30 years lowered industrial rates somewhat. To have this member, who put all of the ratepayers at risk in this province by deciding to proceed with Darlington, which wasn't needed in this province -- it really is ridiculous for this member to have the gall to get up and ask that question.

The member asked me if I will pick up the telephone and phone Mr Strong. I will be happy to do that at any time.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, just a moment to set the record straight: I was a former Minister of Energy. I was Minister of Energy from 1989 to 1990. Darlington was a project approved in 1978. I was Minister of Energy at a time when we were preparing to put Ontario Hydro's plans before an environmental assessment, which this government abandoned.

I also remind the current Minister of Energy that the Ontario Hydro rate freeze came after a 40% increase in hydro rates, and that Hydro never before has risked Ontario Hydro ratepayers' moneys with the kinds of risky investments that he approved on the investment in Peru. That's why this question is before this House today, and that's why this Minister of Energy --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Perth.

Mrs McLeod: -- today has got to give a clear answer to the people of this province as to what he is prepared to do with Ontario Hydro --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: The question of Ontario Hydro making speculative investments internationally, where they have absolutely no track record in making the investments, and yet they are looking for a free rein -- Hydro apparently overbid the Peru investment by some millions of dollars. There is no guaranteed return on the investment.

I ask the minister, based on that track record, do you have any confidence in the kinds of investment decisions that Ontario Hydro is making? And tell us once again: What are you prepared to do to make sure that Ontario Hydro ratepayers don't end up paying for Ontario Hydro's roll of the dice?

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess the honourable member opposite doesn't really understand arithmetic. She is concerned, and I think rightly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think that she is rightly concerned about the possible risk to the ratepayers in investments related to millions of dollars. But it is interesting that she believes that is a greater risk than the risk she put the ratepayers at by agreeing to spend up to $14 billion on a plant that their party said was not needed. It is interesting that this member can ignore the expenditure -- unwise, unwanted, improper expenditure -- of billions of dollars but raise concerns about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

This government and this minister are indeed concerned about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is for that very reason that the chair of the board of Ontario Hydro is putting evidence before the Ontario Energy Board. All interested groups will be able to put forward their positions and then the government will consider the recommendations based on all of the evidence as it relates to the risks facing the ratepayers of Ontario.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I want to begin by saying that my party and caucus are firmly committed to better access and more coordination of services in the long-term-care sector. However, we have come to believe that Bill 173 is not about helping seniors.

Interjection.

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

Mr Jim Wilson: It's about cutting deals with Sid Ryan and unions. According to Toronto's Eye magazine, your last-minute amendments that gave preference to the hiring of unionized workers in the home health care sector were tabled and passed so that Sid Ryan would keep his mouth shut at your party's convention two weeks ago in Hamilton. While Mr Ryan kept quiet during your convention and you delivered your Bill 173 labour amendments, seniors, the disabled and providers are left wondering what effect this backroom deal will have on the long-term-care system of this province.

Minister, now that Sid Ryan is once again loosening his lips, do you think it was worth it to gamble away the future of seniors, the disabled and home health care provider agencies in order to gain a couple of weeks of silence from CUPE?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): It's hard not to get as angry as the member opposite sometimes gets when that kind of allegation is made, because nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, had the member been here yesterday, he might have heard Mr Ryan in the galleries not being at all silent about anything this government does. We do not do things because we think somebody will be quiet. In fact, if that had been the reason for everything we had done as a government, perhaps we wouldn't have achieved as much as we have done.

If you're going to protect our health care system, if you're going to plan for the future, a future that is going to have a great many more seniors than we have even today, and if you're going to make some changes that can assure the people this system is designed to serve that it will be here to protect them in the future, you do what you think is right and you consult and you listen and then you have the courage and the leadership to make the changes that are required.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Minister, you talk about consultation, but this is not the model for long-term-care reform that Frances Lankin talked to Judith Leon and Senior Link about for years. It is not the model that Evelyn Gigantes, the other Health minister for your government, was discussing with seniors in this province. This is something you've developed since June. My colleague has indicated clearly, with evidence, that the labour unions have had a huge impact on this bill.

Here are the facts. Sid Ryan came before our very committee and openly said that the activities of the $37 million worth of human resources in volunteers daily going on in this province should be curtailed because they should only be doing recreational work. According to your bill, in the deal you made with Sid Ryan, you're going to have a laid-off registered nurse from a hospital out there driving Meals on Wheels. Now, that's not the system that's done efficiently, economically and in the best interests of seniors in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr Jackson: Minister, will you not consider a flexible model and eliminate this 80-20 rule to restore the autonomy and integrity of those agencies that are providing services in our community?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member starts his question talking about unions and deals -- nothing could be further from the truth -- and he ends it up by coming to the nub of what matters to the ideologues on the other side of the House, which is that they want to privatize the system, because by eliminating the requirement that there would be an integrated provision of service that is what they are opening the door to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please. Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to be very clear that our party and our caucus believe in the VON, in the Red Cross, in the Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, in Meals on Wheels and all the current service providers and thousands and thousands of volunteers who have done a very good job of serving our seniors, our disabled people and those needing home care services across this province.

Minister, clearly the evidence is in that this legislation will not be able to be implemented and up and running before you call an election. Given that within 60 days of forming the new government, our caucus will scrap the 80-20 rule in your MSA model, will scrap the labour adjustment clauses of Bill 173, which favour unionized workers only, given that commitment, given that there is no way to have this up and running before you call an election, will you do the honourable thing and delay 173, stop the forced unionization, stop the uncertainty, delay it until after an election and save the taxpayers and the volunteers turmoil and money? Will you do that today?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is no way that I or this government want to expose the seniors and the disabled of this province to the health care levy of The Common Sense Revolution that is going to raise $400 million for health care. We support a publicly funded system, we support a publicly administered system --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for London North, order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and we will not stand to see the health care system of this province privatized as the members opposite advocate.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: We're prepared to let the people of Ontario decide. We're prepared.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, there are over 25 district MNR offices in Ontario. Staff at these offices are responsible for fish and game law enforcement within their areas.

It is our understanding that you issued directives for 1994 which mean that conservation officers must now do most of their work from the office; that they don't have enough gas money to do routine checks in the field in order to catch poachers and others who violate our conservation laws; that they must rely more than ever on tips from the public and sitting in an office waiting for calls to come in.

Minister, is this true? Has the party that claims to have a monopoly on environmental conservation directed all ministry enforcement officers to now respond only to emergencies?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm pleased to respond to the question from the leader of the third party. In our government, we believe in managing the budget and we believe within the Ministry of Natural Resources in working with the budget we have, and we do that rather than engage in the kind of rhetoric that the leader of the third party engages in.

In districts across the province, district managers are working very hard to meet their budgets. In some places in the province that may mean they will not be doing as much flying as they have done in the past. In other places in the province, that may mean that staff are restricted in terms of travel outside the district.

In other places in the province, depending upon what the district manager believes will suit the priority of his or her district, depending upon what they believe are the needs that have to be responded to in terms of the provincial interest, district managers have assigned to staff certain levels of priority. In the case of some conservation officers in southern Ontario, yes, they will be replying to Crime Stoppers tips; yes, they will be replying to complaints; yes, where they have been told there is something they should investigate, they will be replying to those, and certainly to all emergencies.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: So, yes, the laws are being enforced, and I might say that if the member wants to look at some of the compliance results across the province for this year, he would be very impressed indeed.

Mr Harris: The Toronto Sun reported this morning that taxpayers will be footing the bill for a half-million-dollar advertising blitz that a downtown Toronto bureaucrat says is the top priority now for the Ministry of Natural Resources, an advertising blitz to promote your ministry's so-called efforts on forestry and wilderness protection.

Minister, since 1990 your ministry has already spent $1.5 million on advertising. I would like to ask you this: Just what could you be promoting when you have decreased the ministry's operating budget by $60 million? What good are the laws, what good are the regulations if in fact there are no dollars for enforcing them out in the field? And I would ask you this: How can you now justify taking an additional half a million dollars out of the hands of the conservation enforcement officers in some last-minute, desperate effort to boost your flagging image in time for an election call?

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm glad to reply to the rhetoric of the third-party leader again. The records will show that the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario now is advertising 40% less than the previous Liberal government, and if you factor in inflation, much, much less than the profligate ways when the member was the Minister of Natural Resources in this province. Check the record. Factor in inflation. These are the people who used to run ads -- get this -- called "Preserve it, conserve it" ads, and they asked the taxpayers of the province to pay for those ads.

In the area of forest management and forest conservation, our government has done a great deal. We have established a $100-million forest renewal trust fund, the first ever in the province. We have developed an old-growth policy. We are establishing forest policy in the province that treats the forest as an ecosystem, not just as a place to harvest timber. These are all things that the people of Ontario want to know about, and we are going to let them know about it.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: I should say that none of this money, this very minor amount of money, is coming out of the ministry budget. It is part of the plan to let people in Ontario know what's happening in our forests. A lot of good things are happening in our forests.

Mr Harris: We spoke with an MNR staff member in one district office facing severe financial constraints, who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified. He told us that for the area he covers within his district, he has $1,500 left in his budget for this fiscal year. That's less than $15 a day to put gas in the vehicles, to cover maintenance and to operate the office.

We asked him this question: Would it help to divide the half a million dollars that the minister says today is a puny or a teeny little amount, would it help to divide that $500,000 you are wasting on your public image among the provincial district offices? He said: "It would be a dream come true. It would be a dream come true if we could have our share of that half a million dollars to actually do our job."

Minister, will you allow the conservation officers in the field to have their dream come true, cancel this half-million-dollar advertising boondoggle and give the tax dollars to the field offices where they rightly belong?

Hon Mr Hampton: We have established a forest renewal trust fund and we intend to let the people of Ontario know how they can take

part in the forest renewal trust fund. We've established a private woodlot sustainability fund and we intend to let all of the woodlot owners in Ontario and other people who are interested in rural farm woodlots know how they can take

part in that. Investment in our forests in Ontario is higher how than in other provinces and it's going higher, and we intend to let people know that's happening and let them know how they may be able to take

part in some of those good things.

I would like to say to the leader of the third party that we make some tough decisions in managing our budget, and yes, that may not meet favour with everyone out there. But I'd say to the leader of the third party, the author of the so-called Non-Sense Revolution, that with a budget of $500 million in the Ministry of Natural Resources, which he proposes to cut by 20%, $100 million, that wouldn't be just a difficult decision for some of those people out in the field, it would be a nightmare, and it would be a nightmare for the resources of this province.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to return to the Minister of Health on the issue of long-term care, because I do not believe it is too late to fix the long-term-care bill so that we have a workable solution. We have worked a long time in this caucus for the reform of the long-term-care system and we don't want to see it lost.

Let me make it as clear as I possibly can that we support a coordinated approach to long-term care. What we cannot support is bringing that about by creating a monolithic bureaucracy that replaces community-based organizations.

Minister, I believe that if you are willing to listen to the people who are here today, if you are willing to listen to the concerns of all the people who have written to you, you could fix the bill and you could have a system that builds on community strengths instead of devastating them.

Again, let me share with you not my concerns, but the concerns of one of those community organizations, a letter from the Catholic Family Services of Toronto. "While we need coordination, we fear the prospect of high degrees of centralization and bureaucratization of long-term care in the province. We wonder if the creation of multiservice agencies will ultimately lead to the loss of control by the local communities, by a highly centralized structure of a multiservice agency."

Minister, you've told this House repeatedly that this won't happen, that the members of the opposition are simply wrong when we believe that's going to be one of the results of this bill. What do you say to a dedicated agency like the Catholic Family Services of Toronto when they tell you that's their concern?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I say to them, as I hope the Leader of the Opposition has said to them, that a multiservice agency that serves a population of 50,000 or 60,000 people, that has a board of volunteers elected from among those people and has on that board one third consumers or caregivers to consumers, and that that agency will be receiving an envelope of funding within which to provide services, I hope she will join me in explaining that nothing could be less centralized or less bureaucratic.

Mrs McLeod: No, I will not join with this minister in telling these agencies that they are wrong, because I share their concerns. I believe their concerns are legitimate.

Another of the concerns they've raised with you and that we've raised with you over and over again is the impact of this bill on volunteers.

The Sudbury

chapter of Meals on Wheels wrote and said, "The view of the NDP government that suggests that volunteers will wholeheartedly volunteer for the MSA is a very broad statement given that the volunteers I speak to deny this." That's what volunteers across the province are telling me and telling my colleagues, and I know they're telling you and your colleagues the same thing.

My colleague Dalton McGuinty received a letter from the director of public affairs at the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, who outlines his concerns about the MSA model. Here's what he said about its impact on volunteers:

"The importance of the volunteer sector, its role in developing values of citizenship and community responsibility, its potential to enable governments to cut their budgets while preserving our quality of life, will become more apparent than ever in this decade. These are some of the reasons why I believe the Rae government's proposed MSA structure" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- "which would undermine community-based voluntary organizations to create another government bureaucracy, is a serious public policy error."

Minister, from the executive director of Meals on Wheels in Sudbury to an authority on volunteerism --

The Speaker: Leader, please place a question.

Mrs McLeod: -- people are telling you that volunteers will not volunteer for your government agency. You say we're raising alarm bells. What do you say to the people at Meals on Wheels in Sudbury, to the public affairs director at the centre for philanthropy, when they tell you you are making a serious public policy error?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know what the date is of the letter the member is quoting from, but I would remind her that the concern that was raised to ensure that volunteers continue to play their invaluable role in this system was precisely why amendments to the legislation were put in place to ensure that each multiservice agency develop a volunteer plan and have the resources to support and to educate and to train and to recruit volunteers.

Let me point her to those areas of the province where coordination of community-based services has already occurred, areas like Durham, where with my colleague for Durham-York I was visiting Community Care last week, areas like Victoria-Haliburton, like Haldimand-Norfolk, like Grey-Bruce, where in fact the community-based services have already begun to come together to coordinate, to integrate, and are finding that they are creating new and enhanced opportunities and satisfaction for volunteers. That's what's going to happen as volunteer agencies called multiservice agencies are created by volunteers for volunteers and with volunteers.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. Madam Minister, as you know, I've had some involvement with Bills 108 and 109, with the Consent to Treatment Act and Substitute Decisions Act.

We've had over the past year many articles written in the press which have been quite frightening, particularly to many seniors in our province, about the impact of powers of attorney for property and powers of attorney for personal care. Quite frankly, I found those frightening stories to be very erroneous and false, and in fact I think it's a very, very good piece of legislation in that aspect.

However, I feel the press and the public have missed perhaps the most frightening part of this legislation, and that is the insertion of an advocate between a patient and his or her health care provider and the family and that health care provider.

When are you planning to proclaim this legislation, which is going to have a dramatic effect on how health care is delivered in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The three pieces of legislation that for the first time in this province give the vulnerable some rights and some ability to exercise those rights, the Advocacy Act, the Substitute Decisions Act, and the Consent to Treatment Act, will be proclaimed early in the new year.

Mr Sterling: Madam Minister, my concern is that I don't think many people, particularly health care providers -- I believe there are probably somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 health care providers in this province -- have any idea about how this is going to impact on them.

I might remind you, Madam Minister, that under the bill it is incumbent on any health care provider who finds a person they are treating to be incapable to advise that person in writing and to advise that person orally that they have the right to call an advocate and they have the right to challenge the finding that the person is incapable. If those people are truly incapable -- and there are many people who are incapable and are being treated in our health care system -- there are going to be many of those incapable patients who will want to see a rights adviser.

Madam Minister, there are, as I said, 300,000 to 500,000 health care providers in this province. There are plans to have I believe 150 or 200 advocates in this province. How on earth are we going to have a health care system which can function efficiently and can treat people in a timely manner if in fact the regulations are not even struck under this act at this present time?

Will you assure us in this Legislature, will you assure the people of Ontario that you will stall the proclamation of this act until the regulations have been proclaimed and every health care provider in the province of Ontario has had ample time to be educated on how these are to be applied and we have trained advocates in place, whatever a trained advocate might be?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know of the member's support for this legislation and I'm very glad to be able to reassure him that all of the health care professionals -- in fact our number is 200,000; he says 300,000 -- have already been sent a package of information about the legislation so that they can understand it and recognize their roles.

There have been extensive consultations with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for example, with respect to the development of the regulations, which are expected to be passed very shortly. There has been a travelling group of lawyers and representatives from the various ministries going around the province holding sessions and public forums so that everybody can be aware of it. The Advocacy Commission has been advertising and is in the process of recruiting the advocates. The concerns that he raises are legitimate ones of which we are very much aware and ones which I can assure him are being very adequately addressed.

WETLANDS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Howard Hampton. My concern is in regard to the Lynde Marsh, which is located on the north shore of Lake Ontario, in the riding of Durham Centre. The marsh, which is a marvellous and dynamic natural resource of plant and animal life, is located entirely within an area protected by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. However, there is a proposal to develop the land to the east of the conservation area. The proposal has developed a great deal of controversy in our area. A lot of people in our town, Whitby, and Oshawa and Ajax are deeply concerned about this development.

My question refers to the steps followed by your ministry to ensure that this class 1 wetland is preserved. Did your ministry comment on the proposals, known as Lynde Shores, to develop the land east of the Lynde Marsh and south of the 401 highway in Whitby?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): On the subject of the Lynde Marsh, there is some history to this issue. Back in about 1988-89, a development plan was circulated by the developer. It's my understanding that at that time the Ministry of Natural Resources commented on the draft plan of subdivision. At that time there was no wetlands policy statement in place in Ontario; it was still under development.

The official plan amendment which designates these lands for development was circulated in 1989 and was subsequently approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. MNR, as I said, did not object to the plan at that time because there was no wetlands policy statement that had been approved. Since that time, however, there has been a revised plan of subdivision, so some work has been done on that revised plan of subdivision, noting what potential impacts on wetlands there might be.

Mr White: Since your ministry commented on these proposals, our government has developed the wetlands policy you mentioned, a policy that has been rather virulently opposed by the opposition members. Would these proposals in any way be changed, moderated by the wetlands policy? Would that likely have an effect on a proposal like Lynde Shores, or would they in any way affect the buffer area around those wetlands?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I'm sure the member knows, the whole issue of the Lynde Marsh has now been referred to the OMB for a hearing, so I will not comment on that specific proposal. But the idea behind the wetlands policy is to give municipal councils the tools to identify provincially significant wetlands within their boundaries and the tools to arrange for the protection of those provincially significantly wetlands by means of the Planning Act.

If this kind of proposal were to come forward now, it would be subject to the wetlands policy and all of the tools that have been placed in the wetlands policy and that are at the disposal of municipal councils and municipal planning bodies would be available to ensure that development could take place but development could not threaten or otherwise risk harm to the wetland.

TEACHER MISCONDUCT

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of Education.

Minister, I think you'll know that today in the province of Ontario a school teacher can, one, admit or be found to have engaged in sexual activity with a student; two, after due process be found guilty of professional misconduct by a professional association; and three, after the teacher is terminated from his or her employment by a board of education, that teacher can in fact literally walk across the street, be hired by another board and continue teaching, sometimes literally within metres of the school from which he or she was fired as a result of sexual misconduct.

I remind you that that happens after a finding by a professional association of misconduct.

The question I have for you, Minister, is, what are you prepared to do today to address this obvious deficiency in our system and, in so doing, protect the integrity of the teaching profession and, equally if not more important, afford a greater sense of protection to the students who are entrusted to our care in the educational system in the province of Ontario?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think the member would also be aware that there's a process under the act that involves the professional organization as well that can provide for a teaching certificate to be pulled from a teacher, and that does happen in the province.

It's an independent process that ultimately comes to the minister's desk for approval and, whatever the recommendations are, those recommendations have consistently been accepted by Education ministers. So there is a process to pull a certificate, but it's an independent process that ultimately reports and recommends to the minister.

Mr McClelland: I am in point of fact aware of that, as I would think are most, if not all, members of the House. I'm referring to a situation that is not hypothetical but in fact does exist, where after due process, after a hearing by the appropriate professional association and/or federation, a finding of misconduct is obtained.

In that situation there seems to me a deficiency, where a teacher can, as I said, literally walk across the street and continue teaching, notwithstanding the finding of misconduct by that professional association in that due process. It seems to me very, very evident that there is within the system a grave deficiency.

The question I'm asking you, Minister, is not in terms of the process, but will you commit today to sitting down with the appropriate association reps and federation reps and looking at regulations that would ensure that that deficiency no longer exists and, as I said, look at the interests of both the profession and, more importantly or equally importantly, I would say, the appropriate protection that should be given to students within our system? Minister, I'm asking you to commit to sit down with the federations and address this issue to close that obvious and apparent deficiency.

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess it would be helpful to me, if there's a specific case that the member is referring to, that he might want to share that information with me privately. Of course, whatever action needs to be taken, we would all be committed to making sure that if a teacher engages in misconduct, abusing a student physically, sexually, then obviously that is the type of teacher whom none of us would want to have in the classrooms or have contact with our students. It would be helpful to me if the member could share the specific information, and then we'll go from there.

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Every day Ontarians receive junk mail which is often immediately thrown out. Many find that in doing that, they have given their consent to be billed for some sort of good or service. This is considered negative option marketing because the onus is on the consumer to say no before being taken off the direct-billing treadmill.

Recently, every Ontarian with cable service received this magazine in the mail. Enclosed with this third-class mail was a deeply personalized letter. The salutation reads, "Dear Movie Lover," and it goes on to suggest that: "You don't have to do anything to continue with this free service. You just simply have to phone in to your cable company to avoid being automatically billed $3 per month plus taxes." But nowhere in this letter does it give you a phone number. There's a card buried inside.

My question, Minister: What are you doing, as the minister responsible for consumers in Ontario, to ensure that you're protecting unsuspecting consumers who are getting caught in the money trap of negative option marketing?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Indeed, it's a very good question. I should inform the member that, as he well knows, under existing legislation, negative option marketing of fixed-term contracts for goods and services is not covered. If you have a fixed-term contract, in fact there's nothing at this point against the law with the negative option.

I would at this point advise consumers who are currently receiving contracted goods or services to really carefully screen their contract and know what they're getting into. I would also suggest to those who don't wish to renew their contracted services or receive additional or repackaged services to notify the company of their wishes in advance. People should do that.

What I should let you know is that under the Consumer Protection Act at this time, people who receive unsolicited goods who do not have or haven't had a previous contract, do not have to pay for them. Unfortunately, at this time under the law, if they have a contract and they don't notice it, if they don't screen their contract properly, they do.

Mr Jackson: That sounds more like an insert from a pamphlet that's buried somewhere in her ministry, not an answer to this question.

Consumers deserve better personal protection for their budgets at home. They deserve better from your ministry, and Ontario consumers deserved better from even the previous government. I recall that Monte Kwinter, who was then the minister, sounded the alert back in 1989 on negative option advertising, but nothing was done then and nothing has been done with your government.

I'd like to send over a copy of a bill which I'll be tabling in the House tomorrow, entitled the Consensual Transactions Act. It will stop negative option marketing in this province. I raised this issue with you in the House on November 23, and to date I've not received a response. I hope you'll consider this bill and give a proper response, because Ontario is lagging behind Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, three provinces that have already brought in legislation to protect their consumers on negative option marketing.

Minister, my question is: Will you take the time out from your promoting casino gambling in this province to support a simple bill to help protect vulnerable consumers who are forced to gamble with their own personal budgets and planning because of the continuation of your government's inaction on negative option marketing in Ontario?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I would say that --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Why don't you just make it illegal?

Hon Ms Churley: I think I have another question. Whose should I answer, Mr Speaker?

Mr Mahoney: Answer mine. Just make it illegal.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I think I prefer Steve's.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I find it really interesting that almost every day I hear Tories stand up in this House and ask for new regulation and a new bill. Every single problem that crops up, they're on their feet asking yet again, "Spend more money, bring in new bills, bring in new regulation." But on the other hand, in their Common Sense Revolution they talk about cutting, revolutionarily, regulations and bills and making the marketplace easier. They really can't have it both ways.

People out there are going to start recognizing after a while -- at least you're trying to have it both ways, but you can't -- people out there are going to start noticing, "Hey, one day they're asking for a new bill and the next day they're saying we're going to cut them all."

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Churley: There is a need to deal with this problem, as I said to the member. There are many, many consumer issues out there that are not covered by legislation that perhaps should be covered by legislation that we have to take a look at, and I'll be happy to work with my colleague to see what we can do.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention today something that concerns most of the members in this House from time to time, and that is the length of the oratory leading into questions, which severely limits the ability of each and every member, whether they be a government member or an opposition member, to ask a question of a minister in this House.

I have concerns from my constituency that I feel I should be able to address in this House. My concern is with the speeches that are given in this House that have a small question attached to the other end.

I would like the privilege, as every member in this House should have, to rise in this House and ask a question. Mr Speaker, if you would check throughout Hansard in question period, I believe you will find that members are being severely restricted from asking pertinent questions that deal with their constituency to ministers of the crown in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, there's no need to drag this one out. Indeed, it's not just the length of the questions, it's the length of the replies. Today the member in fact was not done a particular service by his colleague who was answering and took a bit more time than perhaps was needed.

If all members would keep the length of their questions short and the length of the replies short, we would have a lot more members from all sides of the House having an opportunity to pose questions, to try and assist the concerns which are expressed within their constituencies. I appreciate the matter raised by the member for Norfolk.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I have great sympathy with the member for Norfolk and, considering the length of time of some of the questions and some of the answers, I think the member makes a very valid point that should be addressed. As a consensus I know that we can reach in this place, I will put the question to ask for unanimous consent to add another hour to question period today.

The Speaker: The member has a legitimate point of order. Is there unanimous consent to extend question period by one hour?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Aside from myself, I heard at least one negative voice.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I want to be able to help you out with this and to express sympathy with the member's concern. I guess what we have to explain, and you as Speaker have to explain, are your limitations on just how much you can limit either questions or answers. You can implore members.

If this is to be addressed appropriately, it would seem to me that the Legislative Assembly committee or some similar committee could talk about giving the Speaker authorization to cut either questions or answers off after a certain period of time. I don't blame the Speaker, because you don't have that latitude at the present time and you try to be as accommodating as possible.

I listened to some lengthy questions here, a very lengthy question by one of the member's colleagues and a lengthy answer on a matter of importance to Durham Centre. All of those things add up and individual members can't get their questions on. I'm very sympathetic to that. I would also be very supportive of the member for Etobicoke West, who suggests that we have a two-hour question period.

Interjection.

The Speaker: All right, but briefly, please.

Mr Jamison: The point that I was making was that in some of the questions presented there are three and four questions given at one time from the opposition, which call for an expanded answer. If you were to check, Mr Speaker, you would find this to be true.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jamison: -- that I have heard you in this House asking that the question be concisely put. I have listened to you from your chair, I have listened to you on your feet saying the same thing, and I've also watched you try to bring a question about when no question seemed to appear.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the problem is not just the length of the question, it's the number of questions presented at one time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Briefly.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Unless members are prepared to change the standing orders, which is being suggested by the honourable House leader of the opposition, indeed the best discipline in this matter is self-discipline. The Speaker does not have an opportunity to pose questions or answer them. It is your question period. If you wish to have more members asking questions, then indeed some self-discipline has to come to rule in this chamber.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition submitted by some Ottawa residents from my riding.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

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

"Whereas 81% of all driving fatalities are alcohol-related;

"Whereas 59% (or 18,000) of the 30,000 total convictions for drunk driving in 1992 involved repeat offenders;

"Whereas the Drinking and Driving in Ontario Statistical Yearbook released by the Ministry of the Attorney General's Drinking/Driving Countermeasures Office confirmed that drunk driving is on the rise;

"Whereas drunk driving is the number one killer of young people;

"Whereas the existing measures and penalties have failed to deter chronic drunk drivers from reoffending;

"Whereas driving is a privilege, not a right, and chronic drunk drivers have failed to take their driving responsibilities seriously;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact Margaret Marland's private member's Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act" --

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: -- "or similar legislation prior to the recess of the Ontario Legislature on December 8, 1994."

I am upset by the fact that the member for Perth would not want to protect people from being killed by drunk drivers. I will lend my support for this petition with my signature.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): This is not a petition that pats myself on the back. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP government has stressed that equality of treatment is essential in a modern society; and

"Whereas the former Liberal government chose to exclude thousands of workers in the Pension Benefits Act, 1988, whose employment was terminated prior to January 1, 1988; and

"Whereas workers are being denied access to pension funds that are in fact deferred wages;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact changes to the Pension Benefits Act that will enable workers whose employment was terminated prior to 1988 the options to:

"(

a) purchase a locked-in retirement account (LIRA) or a life-income account, or

"(

b) transfer the pension money to the pension fund of the new employer, and that these workers be allowed the right to begin receiving payment of their pension funds or LIRA at age 55."

This is a petition that's put together by members in the Blenheim, Chatham and Tilbury area and I do affix my signature to it.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, I wanted you to know that these petitions keep coming to my office, and this petition reads:

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed homes and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents and business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers; and not even the NDP member of the government for Fort York;

"We, therefore, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by over 1,500 residents of Leeds and Grenville addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae and Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm affixing my signature.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): On behalf of my colleague Bob Huget, the member for Sarnia, I have a number of petitions for him here. He, as you know, with his new position as minister, cannot bring petitions. We have one here:

"Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Environment and Energy to deny the county of Lambton the right to establish a composite waste management facility, including the landfill site north of the Sombra-Moore town line at either site designated I or H by Lambton county's consultant, M.M. Dillon Ltd, in the draft master plan report."

This I bring to you on behalf of my colleague Bob Huget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Eglinton.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm not going to pout any more.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a dearth of therapeutic/educational programs for hundreds of children in the province of Ontario who have autism spectrum disorder;

"Whereas 'Giant Steps Centre' for neuro-integrative disorders will provide the needed treatment and programming for these children and their families;

"Whereas the 'Giant Steps' model has been presented to the triministry committee, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Premier's office;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for help in bringing this project to fruition so that the needs of these children can be addressed."

I heartily support this petition and have affixed my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've signed that petition.

CHANGE OF VENUE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here and it's signed by 880 names from the town of Cochrane. It was presented to me by the mayor, David S. Hughes from Cochrane.

"The Genereux murder trial that is taking place in Timmins in 1994...in order to save the people involved the emotional and financial stress of travelling to Timmins, we believe the trial should be relocated to the Cochrane District Courthouse in the town of Cochrane."

I support this petition. As I said before, it's signed by 880 people from the town of Cochrane.

LADY EVELYN-SMOOTHWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the comprehensive planning committee is developing a park plan for Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater designated wilderness park and land management plan for surrounding area; and

"Whereas there has not been an economic or social impact study carried out that would explain the impact on the surrounding area's economy; and

"Whereas there are concerns for safety and security of users of such a proposed massive wilderness park system; and

"Whereas the draft date of January 1995 does not leave time to complete such studies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require the Ministry of Natural Resources and the comprehensive planning committee to develop both an economic and social impact study and a plan that could ensure the safety of park users. Therefore, an extension of the draft date of January 1995 is required."

I affix my signature to this.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Again I have one here for my colleague, Bob Huget from Sarnia, and this is a petition with regard to the bicycle helmet.

"To the 35th Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 124...Traffic Act" -- it's with regard to the bicycle helmet law,

"We, the undersigned, petition the 35th Parliament of the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"An age limit with...because of freedom of choice and the rules and regulations."

There are a number of people from his riding who signed this and I give it to the Speaker.

ADOPTION

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): "Whereas the right of adopted persons in Ontario to know their natural identity is denied; and

"Whereas the present disclosure system under the Child and Family Services Act is discriminatory, inefficient and expensive and government has demonstrated an inability to provide service in a timely fashion since 1979; and

"Whereas provincial government studies since 1976 have repeatedly recommended that adopted adults be granted unrestricted access to their original birth registrations; and

"Whereas there is widespread public and political support for these rights to be recognized and codified; and

"Whereas Bill 158 has passed second reading in the House by a wide margin and is now before the standing committee on social development; and

"Whereas this bill addresses the right of adopted persons to obtain their own birth certificates and provides a mechanism for birth parents to register a veto prohibiting contact from the person they surrendered parental rights to; and

"Whereas 1994 has been designated the Year of the Family;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the 35th Parliament of Ontario to act without further delay and respectfully request that Bill 158 be put on the committee's agenda."

I have signed this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Bob Huget, my colleague, has a petition with regard to the Workers' Compensation Board, and because it's fairly long, I'll finish with this:

"That the Ontario government withdraw Bill 165 and accept the responsibilities that business recommendations provided to the Premier to ensure the sustainability of the workers' compensation system."

This is again signed by a number of residents in his riding and I have put this for the record.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to help us to protect our children by changing the current maximum penalty of 10 years for sexual interference to a minimum of five years with mandatory counselling and up to and including life imprisonment as a maximum penalty."

I have signed the petition and support it.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I have several hundred petitions that read as follows:

"We object to the manner in which the IWA's work is being rushed through a constrained environmental assessment. We do not agree with the review's conclusion that IWA's environmental assessment is adequate in addressing required components of the EA Act for satisfactory and technical quality, level of detail and range of alternatives.

"We refer you to the submissions made by the King-Vaughan Environmental Coalition for a fuller explanation of our concerns."

As I said, this is signed by several hundred residents of my riding.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Cooper from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs / Projet de loi 176, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne le panneau de véhicule lent.

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

Shall Bill 176 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1546 to 1551.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Coppen has moved third reading of Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise, until recognized, one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Crozier, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63, the nays are 45.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Before I call the first order, again we have some agreements that the House leaders have discussed to bring to the House and seek the consent of the House to proceed with.

Firstly, the first two items I'll be calling today are the eighth order, which is Bill 173, and the seventh order, which is Bill 171. On both of these bills we have agreed that, regardless of the presence in the House at the time, we will see a division on both of these items, on no other items today but on both of these items. So that's the eighth order and the seventh order.

Secondly, on the eighth order we have agreed that the minister will start off the debate, taking 10 minutes, and that the government will reserve two additional five-minute slots for other members, for a total of 20 minutes, and the opposition will split the remainder of the time in that debate.

With respect to the seventh order, the minister will lead off with a five-minute opening, we will reserve two five-minute additional pieces for other government members, and the remainder of the time will be split by the opposition on Bill 171.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Say when the votes will be.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The divisions.

Hon Mrs Grier: The divisions will be tomorrow.

Hon Mr Charlton: Well, we're just coming to that, yes. And we've also agreed to continue today, that on any votes between 6 o'clock and midnight where a division occurs, the standing vote on that division will be deferred until orders of the day tomorrow.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

LONG-TERM CARE ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Mrs Grier moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 173,

An Act respecting Long-Term Care / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les soins de longue durée.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): It is with great pride and with great pleasure that I open this third reading debate on Bill 173,

An Act respecting Long-Term Care. I know we have with us for this debate in the galleries representatives of a number of groups, from the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, the Ontario Coalition of Seniors' Organizations, the CAW Retired Workers and the Ad Hoc Consumer Coalition on Long-Term Care, as well as representatives from the Red Cross and home care organizations and home support organizations.

I want to say that this bill is about all of them and I hope they will come to realize that this bill is for all of them, because if there is any aspect of health care where I think both the providers and the consumers are integrated entities, it is in the provision of long-term care and particularly the provision of long-term care in the community.

I hope they will recognize that some of the amendments and provisions in this bill are designed to provide a continuance of a seamless delivery of service and an enhancement of that delivery of service for the consumers, about whom I know the providers care deeply, and to ensure fo