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

July 13, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TOURISM MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

LEONARD CONOLLY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

EPILEPSY SUDBURY-MANITOULIN ASSOCIATION

EMANCIPATION CELEBRATIONS

ONTARIO STUDENTS AGAINST IMPAIRED DRIVING

BROOKLIN VILLAGE VOICE AND COUNTRY RAMBLER

ENERGY CONSERVATION / ÉCONOMIE D'ÉNERGIE

HEALTH CARE

FOREST INDUSTRY

TEMPORARY ABSENCE PROGRAM

VIDEO GAMES

ONTARIO HYDRO

HOG INDUSTRY

HEALTH CARE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DRUG BENEFITS

CASINO GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

FOREST INDUSTRY

GAMBLING

CASINO GAMBLING

ALCOHOL ABUSE

COURT REPORTERS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CASINO GAMBLING

DRUG BENEFITS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

EDUCATION FINANCING

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM MINISTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): A short while back, the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation announced that she had set up a committee to develop a tourism sector strategy for the province of Ontario. Although we as an opposition are very pleased to see that this has finally happened, may I remind her and the government that this was suggested over 18 months ago, that something was going to happen, and it never did.

I should also remind the government that the tourism industry, people from Tourism Ontario, met at that time with the Premier, in January of this year, and suggested many changes and things that they thought should be done to help the tourism industry, but as we are very well aware, none of these things happened, and in fact many of the things that happened in the budget were very detrimental to the tourism industry in the province of Ontario.

These people who will be forming part of this tourism sector are very high-profile people within the province and within the tourism industry and will be making, as I understand, some very excellent recommendations to this government on the things that should be done to help the tourism industry.

But I might also remind the minister that these people from the tourism industry are not going to be used. They will be coming forward with some very important recommendations that the government should act on right away. If the minister and the government do not act on them, the tourism industry will be even more badly affected than it already is. I would suggest that they look at these suggestions very carefully.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The NDP government has decided to ban the use of chlorine or AOX in pulp and paper mills by the year 2002. This decision is an irrational response to pressure from environmental groups that is not based on scientific evidence or fact. There is a high degree of evidence that contradicts the studies used by this government, as did evidence by Environment Canada. As stated by the Financial Post, "The precedent for imposing regulations in the face of contrary scientific opinion is an ominous one."

In order to illustrate this ominous effect, I ask the ministers of Environment and Energy and of Natural Resources to consider the James River pulp and paper mill in Marathon. Over the past several years, they have spent $20 million to create one of the first elemental chlorine-free mills on the continent. Under this government's proposed regulation, they will need $130 million in no-return capital to comply with these restrictions. As stated by the chief executive officer of this Virginia-based company, this program will dash any hope for the mill's future.

Here is an example of 350 pulp and paper jobs that will be lost due to irresponsible regulatory policies. In fact, over 6,000 jobs will die from Dryden to Espanola as a result of this pernicious act.

LEONARD CONOLLY

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): As of January 1, 1994, Trent University in Peterborough will have Mr Leonard Conolly as its president. Len is presently the acting vice-president, academic, at the University of Guelph. Before this, he was the associate vice-president, academic.

Len is originally from Walsall, England. He received his BA from the University of Wales and his MA from McMaster University in Ontario. He received his PhD from the University of Wales in England.

He and his family -- his wife, Barbara, and two children, James and Rebecca -- reside in Guelph. Len is not only a progressive, moving force at the University of Guelph, he's very active in our community.

Len moved to Guelph in 1981 and was a member of the board for the Guelph Spring Festival. This year he was the president of the Guelph Spring Festival board, and an exciting year it was. Mr Conolly is also a member of the organizing committee of the Guelph civic centre. I know Len hasn't moved to Peterborough yet.

I would tell the member for Peterborough, if she was sitting here, that Trent University is not only getting a top-notch individual as president, but Peterborough also is receiving a very fine citizen who will not only contribute much to the university, but also to the community of Peterborough. Guelph's loss is Peterborough's gain.

Let me wish all the best and my sincere congratulations to Len Conolly and his family and also best wishes for the future.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to bring to the attention of the Legislature today the growing crisis in health care in Ontario. This is happening all over the province but it's very apparent in northern Ontario.

I, with my northern colleagues Frank Miclash from Kenora and Mike Brown from Algoma-Manitoulin, travelled northeastern Ontario last week. It was very apparent that in towns and city after city there's a growing crisis in health care in the north, besides the whole province.

In Sudbury, for instance, there's a severe shortage of orthopaedic surgeons. Of course, this surgery now has to be done in other centres and it means the transportation of our patients and it's very costly to the health care system.

I don't have to look very far from home. Right in the riding of Timiskaming, the great town of Kirkland Lake on the north end of Timiskaming is now short of anaesthetists. This means that elective surgery has to be postponed. In fact, by September only 40% of elective surgery will be able to go ahead if nothing is done, so the town is looking for some sort of emergency funding in order to fund anaesthetists to carry on elective surgery in Kirkland Lake.

The town of Englehart, just down from Kirkland Lake on Highway 11, is in a severe, critical situation where by August now we will only have one doctor. If anything should happen there, of course, that means that hospital would not be able to operate.

It's time that the government brought some clear policies so that our new doctors, who primarily are candidates for underserviced areas, understand what the rules are. Is it 25%, 75% or 100% for our doctors? We'd like to know.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This Friday and Saturday, doctors in Wellington county, out of total frustration with this government's mismanagement of health care services, will be hosting Operation Barefoot.

Doctors in Wellington will be walking in one-mile intervals in bare feet all the way from Arthur to Guelph to protest this government's health care policies. The walk is a unique and innovative method of drawing the government's attention to the importance of maintaining the availability and delivery of health care services in rural Ontario, a protest which does not affect patient care.

Wellington county is served by three hospitals: Groves Memorial Community Hospital in Fergus, Louise Marshall Hospital in Mount Forest, and Palmerston and District Hospital. Each one of these hospitals provides vital health care services to the communities it serves.

Health care is one of the most important issues in Wellington. People in Wellington county depend on Groves Memorial, Louise Marshall and Palmerston hospitals for chronic care beds, obstetrical services and emergency care. In rural areas, where people often have to travel great distances for goods and services, basic health care services such as these are very important.

The government, through bureaucratic means, is rationing health care in this province. Many services are currently under review. In rural areas like Wellington, further erosion of health care will have devastating consequences. It is time that this government heeds the message which Wellington doctors will be sending via their symbolic walk.

EPILEPSY SUDBURY-MANITOULIN ASSOCIATION

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): As you know, there are many associations in all our ridings that do good work in usually volunteer capacities. All of them, of course, are fund-raising, and I want to talk about one that's an especially hard worker in my riding, the Epilepsy Sudbury-Manitoulin Association which, under the expert guidance of Lorraine Lavigueur this Sunday, July 18, from 11 o'clock in the morning till 4 o'clock in the afternoon, is having a family day out at the Anderson farm in Lively.

It's a day for not only the family, but also all funds and proceeds are going to be going to the epilepsy association for Sudbury and Manitoulin. Lionel Duquanne, Jim Fortin and Lise Martel all have put in numerous hours of work trying to make sure that this is going to be a success.

I would like to invite everyone to attend, and if you're on holidays up in north country, you will enjoy not only the blueberry festival but you can enjoy blueberry muffins at the epilepsy picnic. There will be the all-day children's movies, line dancing, which I'm sure all of us could get into, a dunk booth, live music -- I've been invited to sing; that alone should be worth coming up -- pony rides and much more.

I hope that everyone will attend. Anderson farm is in the Treasurer's riding and I'm sure I expect to see him there too.

EMANCIPATION CELEBRATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This past weekend marked the 200th anniversary of the first anti-slavery legislation in Canada. On July 9, 1793, it became illegal to bring slaves into Upper Canada. This was the first step towards the complete abolition of slavery.

This anti-slavery legislation was largely the result of one man's moral outrage at the existence of slavery, John Graves Simcoe, Upper Canada's first Lieutenant Governor, and led to the establishment of the famous Underground Railroad, which became the road to freedom for thousands of slaves fleeing bondage in the United States.

On Saturday, I joined in one of the many events commemorating this proud achievement at the British Methodist Episcopal Church in St Catharines, where a plaque commemorating Harriet Ross Tubman was unveiled.

Lord Simcoe's anti-slavery law set the tone for the proud Canadian tradition of belief in equality and freedom, and of respect and tolerance for the richness and diversity that has become the hallmark of our society and for which we are respected worldwide.

Yet while Lord Simcoe's law marked the beginning of the end of a sad

chapter in our history, it did not put an end to all racism and discrimination.

So, as we celebrate the passage of this landmark legislation, we are reminded that we must all continue our efforts to ensure that all Ontarians and indeed all Canadians from all walks of life can live lives of dignity free from discrimination and free from hate.

ONTARIO STUDENTS AGAINST IMPAIRED DRIVING

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The elimination of drinking and driving is one of the most important challenges facing our society, since each year many people die in tragic automobile accidents caused by impaired drivers.

I would like to congratulate the young people, teachers, health professionals and police who are part of the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving organization. Over 75% of the high schools in this province are members of this organization, which provides programming and promotional campaigns through which young people are sending their peers and their community the message: Drive sober.

This organization is urging the provincial government to take immediate action on the following measures which will contribute significantly to the reduction of impaired driving: mandatory server intervention training for all personnel who serve alcoholic beverages; mandatory licence suspension for 90 days based on the model presently used in Manitoba; comprehensive assessment and treatment programs for all repeat offenders; ignition interlock systems based on the model presently used in Manitoba; and expansion of the RIDE program, as it believes this is the strongest deterrent to the impaired driver.

I join Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving in calling on the government to implement these measures as quickly as possible.

BROOKLIN VILLAGE VOICE AND COUNTRY RAMBLER

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): There's hardly a day goes by in this House that we don't hear in one way or another from members of the opposition that the province has gone to the dogs.

If you listened to the leader of the third party -- who isn't here today -- for more than a few minutes, you would surely believe that business has fled the province and there isn't anyone left with a desire to start a business in Ontario.

How wrong he is. Today I want to salute a brand-new enterprise in my riding of Durham East. The new business is a newspaper located in Brooklin, and the weekly is rightly named the Brooklin Village Voice and Country Rambler.

This weekly newspaper serves over 10,000 readers with its mix of local news, sports, community events and comments.

I am pleased to welcome the Brooklin Village Voice and Country Rambler to my riding of Durham East, and I wish every success to the publisher, Mr Barry Conway, and to his staff. Long may you serve the community of Brooklin and long may you serve the riding of Durham East.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENERGY CONSERVATION / ÉCONOMIE D'ÉNERGIE

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to be able to report to the House on the first stage of a pilot project to conserve energy in non-profit and public housing and to announce the beginning of the second phase of the project.

L'an dernier, boulot Ontario Construction a engagé plus de 28 millions de dollars dans un projet pilote destiné à économiser l'énergie, à créer des emplois et à mettre à l'épreuve une nouvelle technologie.

Le projet est un effort conjoint du ministère du Logement et du ministère de l'Environnement et de l'Énergie. Jusqu'à maintenant, plus de 12 000 logements sociaux ont profité du programme et plus de 260 emplois ont été créés.

And we've learned a lot in the process.

When we started the program last November, our main target was to convert as many social housing units as possible from electric heating to heating with natural gas or other fuels.

On that basis, we'd calculated that we could convert about 7,000 units of non-profit and public housing, but we found that by broadening our energy conservation strategy to include measures such as more efficient shower heads and better building insulation, we could substantially increase both the number of units covered and the scope of the technology involved.

Instead of the 7,000 units we had initially contemplated, we'll now be able to improve energy efficiency in about 23,000 social housing units, and we expect to create more than 1,100 jobs before the demonstration project is completed.

As we're creating these jobs, we're also developing and testing new technology. We're breaking new ground in the fuel substitution field and we're working closely with the private sector so that the lessons we learn today can be used more widely in the future.

In the first phase of the project, we concentrated on fuel substitution in low-rise buildings, where there's some experience with the technology we'd be using. For the second phase we'll be doing more work in high-rise buildings, where the technology is least known. In fact, when we were developing the program, we found that internationally there was very little information on retrofitting in high-rise buildings. Ontario is really going to be breaking new ground here.

We're also working with a range of alternative energy sources such as passive solar heating.

The buildings that have already benefited from this program haven't been through one of our Canadian winters yet, so we don't know how much money we'll end up saving. But we do know that in an average row house, converting from electric to gas heating can mean savings of up to $600 per year; that's $50 a month.

Building partnerships with the private sector was also a goal in this initiative. Final tallies aren't yet in but, on a cautious estimate, about 8% of the costs are being contributed by private sector partners. We're now working with energy supply companies and gas utilities to promote new funding partnerships.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting four communities to announce the beginning of the second phase of this program. Another 3,300 social housing units will participate in the program and another 300 jobs will be created. I'll be announcing the rest of the second phase in August.

I'm excited about the potential of this program and I'm proud of the progress we have made so far. It's a program that means cost savings for the taxpayer, the development of a made-in-Ontario technology with great export and job creation potential, and a significant contribution to our conservation and environmental goals.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Housing today. On the surface, of course this announcement looks very good. Is there anybody in this Legislature who is not going to support having energy conservation and using energy sources wisely? It makes economic sense, it makes conservation sense, it makes social sense, it makes environmental sense, so we certainly do support that. We also support the fact, as we did when the minister made this original announcement for the first phase in November of last year, that it does create jobs.

But I'd like to look at a few things in this announcement that are, as our old friend Sam Cureatz used to say, passing strange.

The first thing is that the minister says, "Instead of the 7,000 units we initially contemplated, we'll now be able to improve energy efficiency in about 23,000 social housing units." I think we all have to admit that's a little strange: that the government originally estimated that with the same amount of money, it could have conversion in 7,000 units and that now it's been tripled with the same amount of money.

Doesn't this lead you to believe a number of things? The first is that the planning that went into the original announcement was not very thorough. They didn't know what they were going to save. They didn't know what they were going to spend. They did not know how much labour they were going to use. They had no reliable estimates of what this program was going to cost, so they threw it out.

Now they find, after they've been in the first phase of the pilot project for eight months: "Oh no, we made a mistake. It wasn't 7,000 units we could have energy conservation in; it's actually 23,000. That's right."

One of the other strange things is that the minister says, "And we expect to create more than 1,100 jobs before the demonstration project is completed." I go back to the press release and the announcement of November 16, 1992. How many jobs were they going to create? The same number: 1,100.

So we've tripled the amount of work that's going to be done, but it's going to create the same number of jobs.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): That is passing strange.

Ms Poole: As Sam used to say, it's passing strange.

If we go on further in the minister's announcement, she makes a couple of statements. "We're breaking new ground in the fuel substitution field and we're working closely with the private sector so the lessons we learn today can be used more widely in the future."

Then she goes on to say:

"For the second phase, we'll be doing more work in high-rise buildings, where the technology is least known. In fact, when we were developing the program we found that internationally there was very little information on retrofitting in high-rise buildings. Ontario is really going to be breaking new ground here."

That's a bunch of garbage. There is all sorts of information available here in Ontario. If the minister had gone to the Ontario Home Builders' Association, if she'd gone to the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association, if she'd gone to the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, if she had gone to co-op buildings, there are any number of sources where they have expert information available on what it costs to retrofit high-rises and on energy retrofitting.

But what really galls me about this is that this minister has the nerve to say she's forging a partnership with the private sector. I sat through those Bill 4 hearings and I sat through those Bill 121 hearings, and there was no partnership forged with the private sector. In her own legislation, Bill 121, which I voted against on third reading, this minister had the nerve to put in disincentives to the private sector for energy conservation. Not only did they not provide incentives, they actually provided disincentives.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That is not the case.

Ms Poole: That is absolutely the case, Madam Minister. It was brought to this minister's attention at the time and she ignored it. She said, "No, no, the apartment building owners will go ahead and they will do this work in energy conservation and energy retrofitting." Even though the tenants are able to apply for a rebate for the entire amount back, they will do it in spite of what this minister said. The fact is, Minister, they didn't do it and they won't do it.

I raised the issue of the Caterpillar and the joint Japanese venture last fall. They were going to go ahead with energy retrofitting of our apartment buildings and they were going to use capital losses through the Income Tax Act because the feds changed the rules. This minister put the kibosh on that with her legislation in Bill 121. That's what they told us. We lost those jobs. So don't think you can placate us with these announcements and these reannouncements, Minister.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In rising to respond to this statement by the Minister of Housing, of anything we've heard in the last two weeks this really confirms the fact that these sittings are an absolute waste of time. This government is so hard up for something to say and something to announce that it's reached all the way back not only to November of last year when this same minister made this announcement, but in fact to the spring when Mr Cooke made the same announcement. It's kind of interesting. We're now getting an announcement made three times by two different people.

It's unfortunate that the government can't be a little more imaginative and come up with some programs that it not only announces but intends to do something about.

In this particular case, when I look back at the Hansard from last year and see the numbers the minister announced, it becomes even more intriguing when we look at the announcement today, because instead of 7,000, as has already been said, she's now saying 23,000. It's really announced under this wonderful global pot called Jobs Ontario. If some of us had nothing else to do, we could really enjoy checking back through Hansard about how many times Jobs Ontario Capital has been announced and reannounced and yet not executed. That really concerns us.

One of the things that really concerns me this afternoon about this particular announcement is that if hydro is too expensive for residential use, what does that say for business and industry in this province? Frankly, I think it's an irony that this same minister would not accept my PC amendments to Bill 121 that would permit private landlords in this province the same option of retrofitting and then recovering their legitimate costs of retrofitting their buildings.

But no, as always, there's a double standard here. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about child care or care of the elderly, whatever it is that this government is involved in, it thinks it's fine to look after the public sector and ignore the private sector. I wonder where they think the taxes come from for them to have money to spend at all in the first place. They all come from the private sector. The public sector does not put any money in the treasury in this province, and the fact that we do have one set of rules for the public and one for the private really is unacceptable to us.

The best part of this announcement today of course is that, "We're also working with a range of alternative energy sources such as passive solar heating." I simply have to say to this minister, why? It's so incredible that she would be considering passive solar heating when that has been investigated to death and we know how it's just simply not an alternative at this time in terms of the kind of storage batteries that are available for solar generation.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It is too bad the Minister of Energy isn't here. Timing's everything.

Yesterday Ontario Hydro announces it has got a $1.6-billion deficit. We come into the House today and we hear an announcement by this government about the conversion off of Ontario Hydro, thereby increasing the deficit that Ontario Hydro will face.

This particular government is saving nothing. They're saving nothing. The fact is this: Every buck they save by not using Ontario Hydro with the deficit simply gets passed back to the taxpayer, because they're going to run a deficit on Ontario Hydro this year after they told us they were running a surplus. I mean, it's clearly a case of the left hand not knowing what the other left hand is doing. We have a government that will announce today, or yesterday, that their pure surplus they called for last year is now gone. Energy demand is now down. The energy operation, Ontario Hydro, is reeling. We're talking in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion in losses.

If this conversion takes place, you do away with your customer base, your customers who were paying their bills to keep Ontario Hydro afloat. Now they're driving them out of business, they're working against themselves and then claiming this is a panacea because we're actually going to save the taxpayers money. You're saving them nothing. You're reducing that intake at this level, driving up the deficit of Ontario Hydro, and you underwrite it.

The decision-making over there, it's pretty obvious, is very, very poor.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, the members of our caucus, and I am sure the members of your caucus, are hearing more and more concerns about access to medical services in this province, and people are concerned that it is going to get even worse.

We're hearing about specialists who are leaving the province, in fact leaving the country. We're hearing about communities that can't secure the services of family physicians. In Leamington, they need to replace a doctor. They can't find a family physician who will come. In Englehart, they need family doctors. They can't find any who will come to their town. In Kirkland Lake, they need an anaesthetist. They apparently have two physicians who are prepared to provide services, but the Ministry of Health will not approve their proposal under the underserviced plan. In Chelsea, they need a family doctor.

They found a graduating physician who will come, but the Ministry of Health will not issue this young doctor a billing number.

Every member of this House is hearing similar kinds of problems, and I believe, Minister, that you and your colleagues yourselves have raised these issues over the years and that even since becoming Minister of Health you've identified the gaps in service and the fact that some towns and communities are not yet adequately served as being a serious problem.

Minister, I ask you today, why do you think that these communities are having difficulty in finding physicians who can provide the needed medical services, and can you tell us in what way Bill 50, which is the centrepiece of your new health policy and your plan, is going to solve this particular problem?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say that I appreciate the question, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition and members of her caucus have wrestled with this issue too -- it is a long-standing one -- of how do we ensure that we have the appropriate health professionals in the places where they're needed and how do we begin to manage the health resources of the province in a way that ensures that needs are met and that the particular needs of particular communities are addressed?

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I don't see Bill 50 as being the only way of doing that. It is an element of the work of this government in trying to address cost and trying to get some tools to better manage the system. But what I hope we can manage and what I am firmly committed to developing, in conjunction with the profession, with the academic health science centres and with the district health councils, is a better way of identifying the needs of the kinds of communities the member has noted and a long-term solution by better planning and better management of our health resources.

Mrs McLeod: I'll tell you today there is no sense out there that this is what you're involved in. This is an entirely different problem than this province has ever faced before. There is a tremendous sense that we have a growing crisis in our health care system in this province, and I would say to you, Minister, that it is no longer just the underserviced areas that are a concern and this is no longer just a distribution problem.

Access to doctors, to health care is becoming a concern right across this province in every community. I would say to you again today that Bill 50 is not part of the solution, Bill 50 is very much part of the problem. Your unilateral attempts to run this health care system are already driving physicians out of this province, and I would say too that the problem began with your ad hoc and your unilateral proposals to cut funding for the services that are provided by new physicians to 75%.

It is now July. Medical students have finished their training. These young physicians want to stay in the province. They want to meet the needs in Leamington, Englehart, Chelsea and Kirkland Lake, and they still don't know what the status of your proposal is.

Will you confirm today whether new doctors are indeed going to have their fees reduced and to what level, will you tell us whether or not you are going to be denying billing numbers to new physicians and will you tell us how these policies are going to help the people of Leamington, Chelsea, Kirkland Lake and Englehart recruit the physicians they need?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that discussions, negotiations are ongoing at a number of tables with not only the OMA but other health care providers and that we are discussing still the potential for the OMA being part of the social contract. We are discussing with the OMA under their framework agreement fee schedules and with the joint management committee how we can better manage resources. At some point some discussions are going on; at some point other discussions are going on.

Let me caution the Leader of the Opposition that in the climate of difficult negotiations and in a climate of attempts by the government to better manage resources -- and let me remind her that over a period of 15 years the population of this province grew by 19% and the number of physicians in the province grew by 47%, so it is the distribution that is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed and the problem that has to be addressed by some fundamental changes in the way we manage those resources for the long term, and that the short-term difficulties, debates and negotiations colour our attempts to find solutions to that, as always happens when negotiations are ongoing.

But I would again caution the Leader of the Opposition that what has to happen is a long-term solution. That doesn't mean we can ignore the short-term issues, but those short-term issues are no different today than they were last summer or the summer before.

Mrs McLeod: I would say to the minister that those words do not reflect in any way what is actually happening to health care in this province right now. The health care system of this province is in a state of crisis because of the policies of this minister, and the minister will not answer even the most basic questions about how her policies are going to be put in place and what the impacts of her policies are going to be.

The minister has talked about the importance of long-range planning, the importance of working in partnership with health care providers. In fact there are not meaningful negotiations or meaningful discussions taking place.

The Ontario Hospital Association today has said that the social contract negotiations are at an impasse, and we know that hospitals are left with no sense of how they're going to be able to provide the services that are needed. We know that Bill 29 is proposing to implement unilateral cuts to drug benefits and implementing user fees for seniors' drugs. We know that Bill 50 and your fee regime for new physicians are driving physicians out of this province, and you will not even explain what kind of health care system we are likely to have left after all of these initiatives are put in place.

When will this minister realize that there is no one to blame but herself and her government for the confusion and the confrontation which are threatening our health care system? I use those words advisedly. When will this Minister of Health stop trying to dictate personally how health care service is going to be provided in this province and in fact sit down and work in partnership with the people in the health care field to make sure that needed health care services are provided in every community across the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me express to the Leader of the Opposition my distress at her overriding exaggeration of problems in the health care system. We have one of the finest health care systems in the world and certainly in this country. We have a health care system that has for at least the last decade been very much in need of reform. That need for reform was identified to her government, whether it be mental health reform, long-term care reform, hospital reform or -- dare I say it? -- reform of the way in which physicians are distributed, paid, and part of the system. The health care system is far broader than the issues that relate directly to physicians.

In her questions today, the member has been focusing on physicians but talking more broadly. I acknowledge that we are having difficult discussions with the Ontario Medical Association as we attempt to find ways to constrain our costs and to manage our health human resources in a better way.

But let me not for a moment allow the Leader of the Opposition to confuse that particular problem with the most enormous strides that have been made by hospitals in providing a better quality of care, reducing the level of increase or even reducing their operating costs; at the work that district health councils are doing; at the work in long-term care reform and our mental health reform policy. We are in fact for the first time managing and reforming the system in a way that meets the needs of the people of this province.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Finance, who has also suggested that we are exaggerating the concerns that we hear out in the communities of this province.

As you're aware, we've earlier raised our concerns about the effect that increased stumpage fees would have on independent logging companies, on small sawmills and ultimately on the whole forest industry. We've said that the increased stumpage fees that you brought in in your budget would lead to companies closing down right across northern Ontario.

I was told by you, in response to one of my questions, Minister, that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I met on Friday with a group of these small independent business people, and some have already shut down. The rest cannot survive more than a couple of weeks. My colleagues are hearing exactly the same thing in their communities from Kapuskasing to Hearst.

I ask the Finance minister: How many independent logging companies have already ceased operations? How many people have been laid off? How many more of these businesses are going to close? How many more people are going to be out of work because of this revenue grab?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): It takes a lot of nerve for a Liberal to accuse anybody of a tax grab. However, the ridiculous

preamble aside, there is contained within the question a serious problem. That has to do with the increase in stumpage fees in the province. When the stumpage fee was increased, I acknowledge that prices of lumber were higher than they are now. Since that time, prices have declined.

The Minister of Natural Resources, which would not surprise the member opposite, I'm sure, has had several conversations with me concerning the stumpage fees. He is, almost as we speak -- well, not today -- talking with the industry about the problem and if there is some way to alleviate it.

Mrs McLeod: It would be very encouraging to hear that the Finance minister was prepared to reverse it since it was his budget, or that the Minister of Natural Resources is giving a different response to these people than the response which he has given publicly to date, which is basically to tell them that they're going to have to solve the problem themselves and that indeed they may be whiners.

I would suggest to the minister that I don't consider it to be a ridiculous

preamble when I ask him if he knows how many businesses, in the last week even, have shut their doors because of his budget increase.

When I used figures, prior to the closures actually occurring, to try to suggest the dimensions of the problem, I may in fact have used figures that were the exception. The minister may recall that I suggested people were tending to get $8 profit on a cord of wood and that they were now paying something in the order of $8 to $12 more in stumpage fees. I was told on Friday that it's much more typical for people to be getting $2 profit on a cord of wood and that they're now paying $10 more in fees.

The minister is right when he suggests that things have changed and that these people cannot solve their problem by raising their prices. In fact, they signed contracts on April 1, before the minister brought in his budget, to deliver wood at the going rate. It's been suggested they might defer the fees. They say they will never make enough money to pay the back fees that are owed.

Minister, it is ironical that you are not going to see the increase from your fees either, because you can't get revenue from somebody who's out of business. One operator alone who's already closed his doors showed me that he paid $1 million in taxes last year. With one closure, that's $1 million gone from the $130 million that you hope to gain with this revenue increase.

I ask you, Minister, have you made any calculation at all of how much tax revenue you're going to lose as a result of this particular and misguided revenue grab? How much revenue are you now receiving from companies that are closing their doors? What is that going to do to the bottom line of your 1993-94 budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: I just want to clear the air on the matter of my accusation that she had a ridiculous

preamble. It had nothing to do with the number of jobs lost or the number of closures; it was the ridiculous accusation that anybody but a Liberal could engage in an outrageous tax grab. That was what was ridiculous about the

preamble. Now she has once again referred to a revenue grab, which hardly does justice to the seriousness of the issue.

I agree with the leader of the official opposition that there is a problem here. I acknowledge that, but I'm not sure what engaging in excessive rhetoric is going to do to resolve the problem. The Minister of Natural Resources is meeting with us on a regular basis to see if we can resolve it, because as I said in my initial answer, I agree that there is a problem and we are working at it.

Mrs McLeod: I can only hope, again, that the response these people get very quickly is a different response than they have had from this government, and particularly from this minister and the Minister of Natural Resources, over the last few days. It has become only too apparent that the government is concerned far more about making a show of restraint than about actually making good economic decisions. This was not a good economic decision.

What I can understand even less is that throughout these last weeks as these people have raised their concerns and as we have brought these concerns into the House, even if you don't care about the economic basis of your decision, no one seems to care about the human cost. There are 455 people directly employed by these independent operators solely in the Fort Frances and Kenora area. There are another 450 people employed in the bush and the mill in the Atikokan area. There are literally thousands more who are affected across northern Ontario. These people who are today being laid off are going to be on social assistance because there is simply nothing else for them.

I have a set of petitions which tell the government how people are feeling about this issue. The independent loggers have formed an association. They've done surveys of people who will be indirectly affected, and they tell you how people feel about this.

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

Mrs McLeod: I would like the Treasurer to talk to people who are about to auction off their equipment, which means that their businesses will be completely closed because they have to pay their bank loans.

Mr Speaker, I just want to take one moment to read to the minister -- I will place my question -- a letter from people representing the Atikokan Loggers Association, who say in response to their meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources:

"We want you to know how utterly disappointed we are at your lack of concern, compassion and support. You and your government obviously do not realize the full impact this will have on everyone, especially your own constituency."

The Speaker: Would the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I ask, given this concern expressed by people in these communities in this industry, how can the Minister of Natural Resources say simply that they will just have to work something out? How can that be considered even a half-hearted response to these concerns? Minister, why don't you open your ears and eyes and find out what is happening before it is too late? This is a crisis for northern Ontario and nobody really seems to care in your government.

Hon Mr Laughren: Like the leader of the official opposition, I'm from northern Ontario as well and I have lumber operators and pulp and paper operators in my own constituency, so I think that to engage in her partisan rhetoric about nobody caring simply doesn't serve her purpose well either, not even her political purposes. It is a serious problem. I indicated that and I indicated that the Minister of Natural Resources is trying to work it out between us and the industry to see if there is a solution. We do take it seriously and we are trying to do something about it.

In conclusion, I would say once again that I acknowledge it's a serious problem. What I find really weird, though, is for the leader of the official opposition to say this government is more interested in a show of restraint rather than good economics. I understand why she would not know the difference between a show of restraint and real restraint, given her record of five years in office.

TEMPORARY ABSENCE PROGRAM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Two years ago, I advised your predecessor about the release of a convicted rapist on a provincial temporary absence program just two months after he began serving his two-year sentence. The day after I raised it in the Legislature, he was hauled back into custody.

Last week, the standing committee on government agencies recommended a full review of the temporary absence program. Will you commit to that review?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): We've received the report. It's my intention to review that report, the recommendations, and respond promptly.

Mr Runciman: That sounds like something less than a commitment. When this rapist was released under the temporary absence program, the 12-year-old victim's mother met him on the street, a traumatic experience for the mother, but it could just as easily have been the 12-year-old girl who met him on the street.

The standing committee also recommended that your ministry introduce a policy of informing victims when offenders are released into the community on temporary absence passes, especially in cases of sexual assault. Will you commit today to introducing that policy?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Again, with great respect to the honourable member and the work of the committee, we certainly take all of their recommendations very seriously. We've just received the report.

I think it would be a little bit presumptuous for me to be standing here saying exactly what our position would be until we've had a chance to review those things, except to say to the honourable member that in the criminal justice system in the areas of charging and in corrections, all throughout the system, the emphasis is more and more on violent acts and those that have the potential for violent acts and to deal with less violent offenders in a more efficient, effective manner, thereby giving us a more effective corrections system. I would add that is also the direction of our federal counterparts in Ottawa.

Mr Runciman: In essence, that's another non-answer. We're talking about a situation -- he says he was just made aware of this. I raised an issue of a rapist on the streets two years ago in Brockville with your predecessor and the individual was yanked off the streets. This is not a new problem. Because your government has failed to act upon this, the standing committee made these recommendations, because you have not done a thing. You have members sitting on that committee, so to say you're ignorant of the issue until you receive the report is simply ludicrous.

The TAP program is supposed to let felons out during the day to continue to work and avoid becoming a welfare burden. Right now there's a convicted drug trafficker in Brockville who was sentenced to nine months in jail. After only a month, he's released back into the community to serve his time in the comfort of his own home. The only restriction placed on him is that he has a 6 pm to 6 am curfew and that he report to the jail once a week. During the day, he doesn't even have to go to work, because he doesn't have a steady job, so his sentence amounts to staying at home and watching Oprah.

This criminal is free to do as he pleases, because your staff do not even check to see if he's at home. It's only a matter of time before criminals such as this one commit further crimes.

I think the people of this province have a reasonable expectation that when someone is sent to jail, they will stay in jail, and when released, they will be supervised. This program is a joke. The criminals are laughing all the way home. The police are frustrated, tearing out their hair in frustration, wondering why they're doing their job. When are you going to do something about this program?

Hon Mr Christopherson: It's interesting that the temporary absence program was introduced in 1968, and at that time it had the support of all three parties here in this House. I might add that the use of that program has been expanded to its current level by previous governments that have seen the merit in this program. I would also point out that, since 1987-88, 95% of the people who were on TAPs completed those TAPs without any further incidents.

That's not to say that there are not always areas of improvement. This government, like the opposition and like the federal government and like Canadians across this nation, is very concerned about ensuring that we have a criminal justice system that serves the people, serves those who are in the institutions, serves the people who work in those institutions and, I might add, works very closely with the police community to ensure that we have the kind of system that will provide the service Canadians want and Canadians expect.

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. In the past year, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of video games that capitalize on violence against women. One game in particular is called Night Trap. The Wall Street Journal describes Night Trap as having the sound and feel of a B-grade slasher flick. According to a Toronto Star review of this game, it says: "And these aren't cartoon characters we're talking about. It features real live squealing women who serve no other purpose in this game than to be shrieking designated victims."

Minister, as you know, teen and pre-teen boys are most likely to play these video games. As the minister responsible for women's issues, do you endorse this graphically violent type of game being on the market without any limitations as to who can purchase it?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): No. The answer is very simple: I do not; I know, as a parent and as someone who's very concerned about the effect of the kind of saturation that there appears to be of this kind of material, which is certainly very distressing, I think, to most of us. Our problems obviously are the same problems that the federal government faces and that we face in our own areas of jurisdiction within Ontario as to how we can control this kind of material without censoring other materials and getting ourselves into difficulty with civil liberties. This is a problem in every area of censorship.

Certainly I have received complaints about the particular game you mention; I'm sure some of my colleagues have as well. It is of deep concern to us.

In looking at some of the issues raised by your own colleagues, Mr Harnick and Mr Cousens, on what constitutes hate literature and so on, in both of their bills they include hate material against women. This is certainly one of the issues that we'll be looking at, at what kind of realm this kind of material fits into when we discuss whether this government, in conjunction with the opposition, is prepared to move in this area.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, it's fine to say we need to look, but I say to you that it's time for action. We have stood in this House on many occasions to denounce violence against women. Each year we take the opportunity to remember the horrible Montreal massacre. More recently, we have denounced the cruel and the very violent deaths of young women such as Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French.

I strongly believe that the time for action is now. It is more important than ever before that we do everything we can to combat any and all acts and words that in any way condone violence against women. In my view, allowing our young people to purchase and, as a result, play these games without legal limitations is simply unacceptable and irresponsible. Do you agree?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would say, as I said to the member before, that when we enter into the realm of controlling the freedom of people to read or to purchase materials and so on, we enter into a realm that has always been difficult for legislators. In terms of the choices we must make, these are very, very difficult choices that any Legislative Assembly needs to deal with.

I would say to the member that while I certainly, within my own home as a parent, would be very distressed if my child were purchasing and using such materials and would hope that other parents would exercise their responsibility as parents around this sort of thing, we have always got a very sensitive issue at stake as legislators in terms of how to control.

I will make the commitment to the member that I would be most happy to work with her and with colleagues on all sides of the House to look at what the options are around this kind of material under our current laws and to work in terms of what we need to do with our federal colleagues.

I would say to the member that one of the issues that's been raised in the issue of gender equity under the law is this whole issue of how pornography and the images of women and violence against women affect our equity under the law. We as a province have committed ourselves to that work and have expressed real concerns about the need to look at that whole area of law in terms of equity. I can assure the member that this is an area I'm committed to work on, and hope I can expect the support of her colleagues and herself on as we look at this new area of censorship.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Madam Minister, you say that you hesitate because I think you said we enter the realm of controlling people. We control people every day. We have the Liquor Control Act, we have the Highway Traffic Act, we have municipal bylaws. There is a responsibility on us as legislators. When you say you do not endorse this kind of product on the market and then you start worrying about civil liberties versus censorship, I want to tell you, if you go out and ask the public what it thinks about this kind of material classified as entertainment, accessible to everybody, then you'd find out just how strong the argument on the side of civil liberties stands.

In fairness to the company, which puts out Night Trap, it has instituted a rating system. However, without government leadership, this is not legally binding. Night Trap can be purchased by anyone for just $60 in most video stores. Commendably, however, Toys R Us, one of our largest toy stores, has decided not to carry Night Trap.

Minister, I want to ask you one more time: Are you, as the member of your cabinet responsible for women's issues, prepared to show some leadership by giving legal force to a rating system to ensure that video games, just like films that depict violence against women -- which we haven't been able to get anywhere with, with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- that these kinds of material are not available to our young people?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There is a question of jurisdiction, as the member is well aware, in this area in terms of where the federal jurisdiction begins and ends and where provincial jurisdiction begins and ends. We have indicated before that there are some very, very strong questions that have been raised by me and by several of my other colleagues in terms of federal and provincial areas to look at this. We can't solve this on a province-by-province basis. There's nothing to prevent people from going outside our province, purchasing these things and bringing them in and so on.

What we are wanting to do is to look at the issue of how this fits into the general aspect of this whole area of violence against women, what constitutes an area where we are prepared to enter into some measure of control and to what extent that will be effective, given charter rights. We have to be aware of that.

I want the member to be well aware that this is not a frivolous question that's raised about people's rights around censorship. It is a serious question. I must tell you that I wish all stores were as responsible as Toys R Us and refused to carry this kind of material, and that all of us here should all be putting pressure on retail outlets and on manufacturers to stop the production of this kind of material.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns Ontario Hydro. The minister and the government will know that it has been reported, and now confirmed by Hydro itself, that in 1993 Hydro is expecting to report a loss someplace in the range of $1.6 billion and that Hydro's financial situation is deteriorating as the year progresses.

My first question is to the Minister of Finance and it concerns the social contract. In today's press, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Maurice Strong, is quoted as saying that the $100-million target, the $100-million cut that has been ordered by the Rae cabinet for Ontario Hydro, is "a major problem, a significant hit," and Mr Strong adds that he's very much hopeful that he is going to be able to get out of that cut and that commitment and that he's already met or discussed this hope with Premier Rae and Energy Minister Wildman.

My question to the architect of the social contract: Finance minister, do you and your colleagues in the Rae government intend to relieve Mr Strong and Ontario Hydro of their $100-million saving that is part of your social contract for this year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): There have indeed been a number of meetings with Mr Strong and several members of cabinet dealing with the restructuring of Hydro and the link between the restructuring and the social contract. The target under the agencies, boards and commissions sector of the social contract includes Ontario Hydro, and the target was, as the member for Renfrew North indicated, about $100 million.

The negotiations with Ontario Hydro, as with other agencies, boards and commissions, are going on now, and we have quite assiduously avoided carrying on those negotiations either in the media or on the floor of the Legislature. I would simply say to the member for Renfrew North that I have every reason to believe that the matter will indeed be resolved and that Ontario Hydro will achieve the savings that will be negotiated at the subsector table, the agencies, boards and commissions table of the social contract bargaining.

Mr Conway: I simply will refer the Treasurer to the answer given a week ago today to a question I asked his colleague the Minister of Energy on this very point. Like the stumpage issue, the government policy is shifting, and shifting very quickly. I'm going to be back to this later with the Minister of Energy, but I'm not clear what the government policy is.

My second question has to do with the situation at Hydro. Revenues are down, sales are down, the cost of the restructuring is up, and is expected to be up considerably, by about an additional $200 million. Will the Treasurer, on behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, undertake, through

section 37(4) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, to refer the current financial situation at Ontario Hydro to the energy board for an independent adjudication so that we can all of us, in the Legislature and outside, in the province have an independent evaluation of what we are increasingly led to believe is a serious and financially deteriorating situation at the giant utility?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do think we need to put the numbers, which are very large, in some kind of perspective. It was not unexpected that there would be a substantial write-down because of the restructuring that's going on and the write-down of assets and so forth. That was, I think, anticipated and expected by thoughtful, knowledgeable observers of Ontario Hydro as it engaged in its restructuring process. The sales for the first six months of this year were off, I think, around $460 million, as I recall, which I believe is about an 8% reduction in sales.

So the biggest proportion of the problem to which the member for Renfrew North refers comes from the restructuring of Ontario Hydro, not from a sudden plummeting of sales, although I would certainly be the first to acknowledge that one of the problems at Hydro has been the decline in revenues, largely because of the recession and the rather slow recovery that we're experiencing in the recession.

But Ontario Hydro, through Mr Strong, still believes that it's going to be able to achieve its targets of rate freezes in the next couple of years so that Hydro can be, at the same time, appropriately downsized. I can tell the member for Renfrew North -- and I can recall him in this House standing in his place and asking me questions about how I expected people to be able to cope with double-digit increases in hydro rates in his own valley -- I think that Mr Strong is on the right track and that restructuring must go on.

While that's happening, it's inevitable that because of the write-downs of the assets there's going to be an interim period when Hydro's balance sheet or profit and loss statement doesn't look very healthy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I want to ask the Finance minister as well about Ontario Hydro. I understand about the write-downs that are taking place and the costs associated with those. You suggested that fairminded people would accept that. I think they have. The great concern is this: In a period of a couple of months, this giant utility has gone from hundreds of millions of dollars of profit to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses. That is very concerning to the people out there.

This utility has also committed to no rate increase. At the end of this year, they're going to use up all their reserves, $1.6 billion, and be left with nothing to stabilize rates in the future. There is real concern out there from the major users.

Obviously this is causing some concern across the floor. Clearly, there's some concern with the Minister of Environment and Energy. What plans do you have, besides saying the recession, to stabilize this very serious problem facing not only the utility but yourselves, by underwriting the debt, and the constituents of this province? What are your plans?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do believe that Ontario Hydro is on the right track with its restructuring. I believe that's the number one thing that must occur, because I believe the member for Etobicoke West would be the first to agree that the rate of increases experienced by the users of hydro in this province were unsustainable. From a competitive basis, we simply couldn't continue the way we were going, so something had to be done. I give Mr Strong and the Ontario Hydro board credit for working extremely hard to restructure Ontario Hydro. It simply had to be downsized; it couldn't sustain the compensation levels it had, and I believe they are on the right track.

But if the member for Etobicoke West is implying -- and I'm sure he'll straighten me out in his supplementary if I'm wrong here -- that Ontario Hydro now should engage in a series of rate increases in order to put itself on what might be described as a more solid financial footing, I think that would not be the right direction. But on the other hand, I await to hear further from both the member opposite and from Mr Strong.

Mr Stockwell: I guess what I want to know and what the people of the province would like to know is, what are their plans to right this wrong? Clearly, you're talking about unloading some staff and writing down some capital and so on and so forth. That in itself is not going to generate any more revenue.

Having them send you $100 million as part of the social contract seems to me to be the ultimate in robbing Peter to pay Paul. It makes absolutely no economic sense to have a losing utility send you a cheque for $100 million, write up more debt on its behalf, so you can write down some debt on your behalf. That doesn't seem to me to be a manageable, sensible plan.

All I've heard from the Minister of Energy and Mr Strong is: "We were going to make money this year. We've righted this ship. We're profitable. Yes, it's been painful, but we're profitable." I thought he was doing a fine job up until yesterday, because suddenly we're no longer profitable. In fact, we're losing a lot of money.

The question I put to the Treasurer is this. I'll tell you what I'd like to do, but I think more importantly I'd like to know what your government is going to do. An 8% reduction in revenue, $1.6 billion in write-downs, $100 million from their debt to pay down your debt, and you're suggesting to me that things are going well. I don't think the people of this province think that's a good plan.

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

Mr Stockwell: What I'd like to know is, how are you going to get revenues up? The only way to make it profitable, the only way to retire debt, is to increase revenues. I've not heard a plan yet. Can you enlighten us?

Hon Mr Laughren: There really should be rules in this House about tantalizing the government. The member for Etobicoke West indicated that he had an answer, but then he just dangled it out in front and didn't say what he would do.

I can only assume that when the member for Etobicoke West talks about the only solution being to increase revenues, which surprises me, because I think that controlling the expenditures of Ontario Hydro is also important, nevertheless, if he thinks that the only solution is to increase revenues, I assume, given the fact that we're slowly coming out of the recession and the natural revenue growth is not there, that means jacking up the rates, and we've tried very hard to resist that.

The second point that the member for Etobicoke West makes has to do with the social contract. Ontario Hydro is a public utility in the public sector of this province, and I believe that as such it should be asked and required to make a contribution to public sector compensation. That's why I believe, despite the pleas from the member for Etobicoke West, that Ontario Hydro should not be exempt from the requirements under the social contract.

HOG INDUSTRY

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, as you're aware, Ontario farmers continue to be very supportive of the relatively new national safety net program GRIP, the gross revenue insurance plan, and NISA, the net income stabilization account.

Recently, the government of Saskatchewan stated its intention to terminate its participation in GRIP in three years' time, and now a Canada-US free trade panel has confirmed a US determination that the hog tripartite stabilization plan is countervailable. This could lead to changes to the hog tripartite stabilization plan.

In light of these two events, will the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food continue to support and participate in the GRIP program, and what effect will the trade panel decision have on the Ontario hog producers?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member for the question and just note, for her interest and the interest of farmers in the province, that last week at the federal-provincial ministers of agriculture conference, indeed we confirmed our support for a national safety net, for both GRIP and the NISA programs. We believe very strongly that safety nets are important. During our recent expenditure control exercise we in this ministry have tried to maintain safety nets for farmers.

In reference to the hog industry and the member's question, at the conference last week we looked at the national tripartite stabilization program which is offered for cattle, hogs and sheep and lambs. At that point we decided to terminate the program for cattle at the end of 1993.

With reference to the hog industry, we are going to wait and consult with the hog producers in Ontario and across the country to decide whether or not that program will continue. We think we should consult before we make decisions on the future of that program.

Mrs Mathyssen: In light of this, Minister, and I know that you're deeply concerned about the farmers of Ontario and the effect that the free trade agreement has had on that community, I wonder if you can anticipate for me the effects of the NAFTA plan that the federal Tories are determined to push ahead with.

Hon Mr Buchanan: With regard to NAFTA, I might point out that the hog industry in Ontario, when the FTA came in, were quite optimistic. They felt there were going to be a lot of opportunities for export of hogs to the US. They have experienced a great deal of difficulty with shipping live hogs to the US. We've suffered several countervails. They've won several panels, and it seems, even though we win each time, there's always an appeal and we seem to have another loss. Recently, we had another experience where there's a countervail against Ontario and Canadian hogs.

We believe NAFTA is going to continue with that kind of exercise, and we don't think the opportunities are going to be there that the hog producers felt there were going to be with the FTA. We continue to work with the industry. The hog industry wants to get into the export field. We will continue to work with them, but NAFTA, quite frankly, is probably not the future for several sectors of agriculture. In the production of horticultural products, for example, it's going to make it very difficult for us to compete.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question was to be directed to the Minister of Health, who appears to be absent from the House, but just in case she is coming back, I'd like to tell you that today I'm wearing a button that says, "Bob Rae's NDP government could be hazardous to your health." I believe that the minister's coming --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Halton Centre, with the minister not being present in the House, you could direct your question to the Deputy Premier.

Mrs Sullivan: I'm certainly willing to direct my question to the Deputy Premier. I suggest that the wording on the button I'm wearing should be changed to "Warning: Bob Rae's NDP government is hazardous to your health."

I'd like to know of the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance if he has advised the federal government and the federal Minister of Health that Ontario is withdrawing from medicare.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I don't think so.

Mrs Sullivan: The Treasurer should know the answer to that question, and in fact Mary Collins should have been advised by now of his answer.

Bill 50 is a complete breach of the Canada Health Act and destroys medicare in Ontario. With Bill 50 the basic guarantees of medicare are destroyed. We will no longer have a universal, accessible health care system because Bill 50 takes those aspects away. My party will not allow this to happen, and we will fight alongside every person in Ontario to make sure that you and your party do not destroy medicare.

We demand that this government withdraw Bill 50. I ask the Treasurer today, will you withdraw Bill 50?

Hon Mr Laughren: I shall attempt to give a serious answer to a question which I'm not too sure was terribly serious, because the member from Halton should understand that in the 1990s, if we're going to continue to have universally accessible medicare in this province, we have to reverse the ridiculous trend of the 1980s when the Liberals allowed health care to increase at 11% a year each year over the previous year.

This party has a commitment second to none when it comes to the preservation of medicare. But I can tell the member opposite that if we're going to preserve universal medicare in this province and in this country, we have to control its costs, and that's what we're doing in a thoughtful way. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, the biggest threat to medicare in this province was the Liberal attitude of letting spending go unchecked during the 1980s, because that was unsustainable.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship. The regulations for Bill 79 provide very broad

definitions for each designated group and allow employees to voluntarily self-identify to which group they belong. This is contributing to concerns about the reliability of the data that are to be collected in the workplace survey. It is conceivable that people could decide not to identify themselves as members of the designated groups or be tempted to falsely designate themselves as members of a designated group in order to obtain employment preferences.

Consider the definition of racial minority. In a workplace survey, employees will be told that, "A person is a member of a racial minority if, because of his or her race or skin colour, the person is a visible minority in Ontario." The employees are then asked, "Based on this description, do you consider yourself to be a member of a racial minority?" A choice will then be made which the employer cannot challenge.

The danger that people will not identify or not properly identify themselves in a survey could be eliminated by some form of supervisor identification, which was favoured by employers during the consultation. Could you explain why you did not adopt the recommendation?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): First of all, let me explain very clearly that under the Human Rights Code and other areas we must be very careful that people are given the option for self-identification. That's very clear, and I want to make that point.

But I also want to make the point that we consulted very widely with employers, and we consulted with the labour movement and designated groups.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Why don't you put a label on everybody? Put a little label on everybody.

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

Mr Harnick: As they are born you can stamp them. You can stamp on their foreheads.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: In that very broad consultation across Ontario, we very clearly heard that if we are going to make sure that people have their rights enshrined we must make very sure that people have self-identification.

Mr Harnick: Making you a little uncomfortable, Cooke?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): No, you embarrass everybody.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I must say very clearly that in the consultation we did with employers, and there were over 51 employers involved in testing the regulations, they said very clearly to us that if we were to make this work, education was a primary focus that must happen before we do employment systems review.

In that educational process, employees will be given the information needed to know about self-identification, and I think that's the very important component of employment equity, education, making sure people understand about equality and equity rights --

Mr Harnick: Remember how successful the survey from the Premier's office was. Did you see that survey, Cooke? If you want to see anything racist, go look at the Premier's survey.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- and to make sure that your colleague who sits next to you understands as well that employment equity is about fairness and equality, and it's not about pigeonholing people.

Mrs Witmer: Madam Minister, this is an important issue, the issue of definition, the issue of voluntary self-identification, because, as you know, the data collected in the workforce survey are going to form the basis of the employer's employment equity plan. I think you can educate the workforce. However, there is no compulsion for them to identify themselves.

There's also concern that individuals who have been accommodated by an employer at considerable cost could still refuse to self-identify, notwithstanding their obvious membership in a designated group.

In the case, for example, of a member, of a person with a disability, there may be a very strong incentive against self-identification for fear that honest responses about invisible medical conditions such as epilepsy might jeopardize their career promotions.

Bill 79's definition of a person with disabilities is the same as the definition that is found in the federal act. As you know, this is a definition which has proved to be very problematic. The federal Employment Equity Act has been challenged recently in the court by the Bank of Nova Scotia --

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

Mrs Witmer: -- and the Toronto-Dominion Bank as being too vague in that it cannot be determined with certainty which employees fall within its scope.

Given that the federal definition is being challenged, why was it --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, I am very disappointed that the government is not concerned about the employment equity

definitions.

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mrs Witmer: If we are to really, truly consult with all the people in the province, then we must address these issues. My question is this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Witmer: I know that the member for Durham Centre is not interested in employment equity.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mrs Witmer: Given that the federal definition of "disability" is being challenged in the courts, why was it adopted for Bill 79?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I want to respond about our caucus being very interested in employment equity, to say to you that the people who were heckling when I was answering the question came from the opposition. But to go on to why the definition was adopted consistent with the federal policy is that we heard very clearly from the people with disabilities who identify with this definition that this is a definition they wish to have. I think this is extremely important, that the people who can identify with the definition have an understanding and feel that it works and helps them.

We are also working very closely with the federal government to make sure that our

definitions are compatible, so that when we have employers who are good employers, who have already worked on employment equity, who have made sure that their plans are working --

Mr Harnick: You just see how this is going to promote racial tolerance.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Both the federal government and the provincial government are working very hard to have a compatible definition so that when we have our legislation, we can work very closely with employers who are already following with the contract compliance under the federal jurisdiction.

I want to follow up from what the member opposite has said about employers and about employees who might not self-identify. The employers who have had self-identification and have worked on employment equity plans in the past have told us very clearly that if educated and promoted and done properly, they get a 95% response, that there is not the variance that you have said. In fact, most employees do want to self-identify, because they know it's going to help the whole workplace, and people who understand employment equity realize this is a benefit for all society and not just for the designated groups.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I look forward to your response this afternoon and to working with you, and the Liberal caucus as well, to make sure that this plan works for all Ontarians and that we can have an employment equity plan that is fair and equitable and does the job it's supposed to do.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that it is against the rules of the House to introduce someone who may be in the members' galleries, but if I pointed out that Mary Baxter, a former assistant of mine, is sitting in the east gallery with her grandchild, would that be in order? Mary is up in the east gallery.

The Speaker: No, it's not in order, but of course you'll make sure that Hansard has the correct spelling of the name.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm having a difficult time trying to follow and pay attention, and the member for Willowdale kept interrupting during the minister's comments. I think it's important for disabled people. As a disabled person I like to follow the comments, and I would appreciate if people wouldn't interject like that. I also don't find that kind of behaviour parliamentary. If we could talk one at a time with a little bit of respect for all the members of the House, I'd appreciate that.

The Speaker: To the member for York East, indeed, all interjections are out of order, and I always encourage members to resist the temptation.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for York Mills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West take his seat, please.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for York Mills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education and Training concerning savings through the social contract to be paid to Metropolitan Toronto property taxpayers. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mrs Mathyssen and Mr Morrow exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that Mr Morin and Mr Mahoney exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On the point of order of the member for York East, I would also like to note, although he just mentioned the member for Willowdale, that there were a number of people who were also interrupting and heckling on the other side of the House and I think that should be noted for Hansard.

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, indeed, I indicated that all interjections are out of order.

PETITIONS

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the introduction of Bill 29 makes substantial changes to the Ontario drug benefit program that would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make unilateral and significant changes to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act through regulation and without consultation with seniors nor negotiation with pharmacists;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to adopt the amendments to Bill 29 as proposed by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, which are affixed to this petition."

This petition underlines the destruction of the medicare system, and I affix my signature to it.

CASINO GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was sent to me by parishioners at the Trinity United Church in Beeton, and most particularly I'm grateful to Lee Haughton for sending that to me. It's signed by good people like Rhonda Tilley, Stuart Magloughlen, Ron Beausaert, Brenda Lisk and others, and I too have affixed my name to that petition.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it says,

"From the people of Ontario:

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario.

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48 and, in place of this bill, the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

This petition is signed by 275 residents of my own riding of Peterborough and also of the riding of Hastings-Peterborough.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas logging contractors and companies cannot afford an increase in stumpage fees; and

"Whereas an increase could result in the complete shutdown of all log-related manufacturing firms and logging contractors,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully submit that the increase in stumpage fees announced in the 1993 budget be revoked immediately."

I have the petition signed by several hundred people from northwestern Ontario and I've affixed my own signature.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of

gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very happy to add my support to this petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the sale of rice wine has become a problem of aesthetic and ethical proportions for the residents of Cabbagetown;

"Whereas the coroner's report of November 13, 1985, recommends that, like stomach bitters, rice wine be treated as an alcoholic beverage with suitable controls;

"Whereas LCB control of rice wine is important,

"The undersigned -- "a number of members of the fine riding of St George-St David -- "have petitioned the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Would the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations look into the need to make rice cooking wine a controlled substance available only through the LCBO and, as recommended by the aforementioned coroner's report, establish an upper limit for alcohol content of alcoholic products sold outside the LCBO."

It's signed by a number of fine members of my community and I've affixed my signature as well.

COURT REPORTERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas open and public trials require an accurate record prepared by those trained for that purpose; and

"Whereas the proposed model of a clerk-monitor taping the proceedings, non-stop taping of each courtroom, even during recesses, and a typist transcribing proceedings which were not attended is inimical to the proper administration of justice in Ontario,

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

"That the Ontario Court of Justice maintain the use of court reporters to keep the record of all court proceedings."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament in regard to the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, the proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

It states:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38.

"We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually.

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 228 residents of my riding and other parts of Ontario. I affix my signature.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Patients from my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the proposed NDP government's decrease in radiology technical fees for general radiology, ultrasound and nuclear medical examinations; and

"Whereas these cuts will have a severe impact on health care services; and

"Whereas it will result in waiting lists, layoffs of staff, eliminating access to newer and continually improving diagnostic technologies; and

"Whereas these services are necessary to ensure that Ontarians receive high-quality health care that is delivered effectively and efficiently;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to threaten radiology services with cutbacks."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of London and Middlesex who wish to register their opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, wish to affirm the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, and ask that Sunday remain as a legal holiday all year round.

CASINO GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the members of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario in Clifford, are very concerned re the announcement of Floyd Laughren about his expenditure control plan. This plan of his included reductions in health care services by $4 billion.

"This means that the Ontario drug benefit program is in jeopardy. The programs to be reformed are pharmacy services, management of nutritional products and over-the-counter products. There will also be price changes and cost-sharing; in other words, user fees.

"This statement has caused a great deal of shock and anger and frustration among the seniors of this province and in particular our members.

"We, the undersigned, would like very much if you could bring this issue before the Parliament stating our concerns in this matter."

It's signed by approximately 20 senior citizens from the senior citizens' club in Clifford.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament regarding the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide- open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This was signed by over 400 people in my area.

HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by numerous patients and doctors in my riding of Eglinton:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

I concur with this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents in my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom; and

"Whereas the elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families; and

"Whereas the amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to defeat Bill 38."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that is put together by the Kent County Medical Society which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As the proposals made under the government's cost-cutting measures regarding health care in Ontario will have a devastating impact on the availability and quality of health care services in Kent county;

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

On behalf of those constituents, I wish to put forward this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79,

An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The last time, we had not done questions and comments on the remarks of the member for Scarborough North.

Interjection: He's not here.

The Deputy Speaker: He's not here. Therefore, we'll proceed with Mrs Witmer.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm pleased to have the opportunity, as the member responsible for the PC caucus, to deal with Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, which received first reading on June 25, 1992.

I want you to know that our party is very, very supportive of equal employment opportunities for everyone. However, we do have some very serious reservations about the principle of legislated quotas as a means of ensuring that women, visible minorities, native Canadians and individuals with disabilities are given equal access to the job market. We would prefer an approach which deals directly with the very specific employment access problems which women, visible minorities, native Canadians and individuals with disabilities face.

Perhaps one of the greatest barriers that the designated groups face is the lack of appropriate education and training, as well as physical barriers and, certainly in the case of immigrants, language skills. I know that from my own personal experience, being the daughter of immigrants who had to learn the language, and I know how it prevented their access to employment opportunities.

Our party also believes that the government should be doing much more to encourage and assist employers to establish voluntary employment equity programs. As the legislation is presently structured, the burden, the responsibility, for employment equity in this province now rests solely on the shoulders of the employers. We believe that arbitrary government intervention is never a substitute for merit and fairness in the workplace.

The objective of Bill 79 is to ensure that every employer's workforce, in all occupational categories and at all levels of employment, reflects the designated groups' representation by the population in the community. Employers are going to be required to review their current hiring practices and develop employment equity plans that will conform with the prescribed regulations and then set specific goals and timetables for achieving their implementation.

This bill does represent the most far-reaching employment equity legislation in North America and perhaps, as the minister has proudly stated, in the world. Unfortunately, the bill is based on the premise that all employers engage in deliberate and systemic discriminatory practices and blames all inequalities which presently exist in the workforce on employer conduct. I'm going to speak more to that issue later.

A policy of employment equity which seeks to ensure fairness and non-discrimination in employment practices is very positive and it certainly is beneficial for all organizations. Hiring and promoting the best people from all segments of our society does make very good sense for Ontario employers and certainly for the employees in this province as well. But the question has to be asked, will the benefits of mandatory employment equity legislation for both the public and the private sector outweigh the compliance costs?

Most employers, I would like to state, do support employment equity, but they are fearful at the prospect of the government mandating the collection and the reporting of reams of material. We also should recognize that by the year 2003 --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is an important issue, and there should be a quorum here to hear it.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer: I'd like to deal with the historical overview of Bill 79. As we know, employment equity has always been a stated goal of the NDP government. It was an element of the 1985 accord with the Liberals.

In May 1990, the now Premier, Mr Rae, introduced a private member's bill, Bill 172, that would have required all companies with annual payrolls of more than $300,000 to develop and post detailed employment equity plans within one year. Penalties for failing to comply included fines of up to $100,000 for a first offence and $200,000 on any subsequent offence, with the legal onus on firms to prove innocence once a complaint from an employee had been lodged.

In November 1990 in their first throne speech, and in each subsequent throne speech, the government has identified employment equity as a government priority. In March 1991, the government appointed an Employment Equity Commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré. On November 5, 1991, the discussion paper Working Towards Equality was released by the Ministry of Citizenship office of the Employment Equity Commissioner. Between January and March 1992, a consultation process involving public hearings took place in nine Ontario cities. During that time, the Employment Equity Commission did receive approximately 400 briefs which they indicate they have used as a basis for Bill 79.

Although the commission asked for public input and did receive these briefs, the government's bottom line has always been that employment equity will be legislated and it will be mandatory for both public and private sector workplaces in Ontario.

On June 25, 1992, Bill 79 was introduced and a second discussion paper, Opening Doors, based on the public consultations, was released. Then, of course, on June 16 of this year, the draft regulations for Bill 79 were released, and the government is going to be accepting submissions on the regulations until October 29, 1993.

Let's take a look at the substance. On June 25, 1992, the Minister of Citizenship introduced mandatory employment equity legislation. The legislation targets four designated groups: aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, racial minorities and women.

The public, the broader public and the private sectors will be required to comply in varying degrees with the legislation. The draft regulations for Bill 79 provide detail on the definition of the designated groups, the reporting procedures and employee participation in both organized and unorganized workplaces. Regulations on how the act applies to aboriginal workplaces and the construction industry are presently being developed separately.

Let's take a look at the Ontario public service, the broader public sector employers such as our hospitals, our municipalities and our school boards who have 50 or more employees and the private sector employers with 100 or more employees, because these individuals are going to be subject to full requirements. What does that mean? That means that a workplace analysis will take place to determine the present status of their employees. That's where the self-identification takes place.

There will be a review of formal and informal hiring employment practices to identify any that may be discriminatory, and there will be the development and implementation of an employment equity plan which will include numerical goals and timetables.

There will be streamlined requirements, as opposed to full requirements, that will be developed by regulation for the broader public sector employers with 10 to 49 employees and the private sector employers with 50 to 99 employees. Small businesses with 50 or fewer employees will be exempt as will broader public sector employers with 10 workers or less.

What's been told to us is that the legislation is going to be phased in, the time is going to depend on the size and the sector and after the proclamation of the legislation, compliance will be required as follows: 12 months for the public sector, 18 months for the broader public and private sector employer with 500 employees or more, 24 months for employers with 100 to 499 employees and 36 months for employers with 50 to 99 employees.

The Employment Equity Commission is going to be established to implement, administer and monitor compliance. They are going to be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the measures being taken by employers. They are going to have considerable power to interpret the act.

Let's take a look at what's happening at the present time at the federal level. In 1986 the federal government proclaimed its Employment Equity Act, and it requires 33 crown corporations and 397 federally regulated companies to file annual reports on the employment status of designated groups within their establishment.

The law has been criticized because it does not set penalties for failure to meet goals, and there has also been some criticism of the

definitions. Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier today, we are using the same definition of "disabled" as is presently being challenged in the courts under the federal regulation.

I want to point out again that no other province has such far-reaching employment equity laws for the private sector, although Quebec does have a law for companies that do business with the provincial government.

I want to now take a look at the actual bill itself, starting with the

preamble. The form and the content of the

preamble are without precedent in Ontario. No other statute contains as lengthy and accusatory a

preamble, setting out why the legislation is required. The accepted form of a

preamble in this province is a short, concise statement which establishes the purpose and the objects of the legislation. It is totally inappropriate for a

preamble to state as a conclusive finding that the underrepresentation of members of designated groups in most areas of employment is the result of "intentional and systemic discrimination."

Discrimination is partially responsible for a percentage of the problem, but it cannot be denied that other factors have also contributed to the underrepresentation of designated group members in the workforce, and this is what the government should acknowledge. This bill fails totally to acknowledge that underrepresentation of the designated groups in the workplace results from many historical, social and demographic factors. I'd like to speak to four of them.

First of all, we need to remember that the individuals who make up an employer's present workforce may have been hired at a time when the composition of the community from which the workforce was hired was different than the present day.

Further, this bill totally ignores the educational and the training barriers which do prevent members of the designated groups from acquiring the skills that are necessary to enter various positions. When I met with women from the women's directorate, they indicated to me that they recognized that one of the greatest barriers for women in moving up the employment ladder was the lack of education and the lack of training. Those opportunities needed to be provided for women, and that's been totally overlooked by this government. They fail to acknowledge that's been a factor in the underrepresentation of women in the workplace.

Thirdly, social conditions such as the availability of child care or transportation for the disabled have been a reason for the underrepresentation of the designated groups in the workplace. For any mother, and I acknowledge that myself, the lack of availability of child care does present a very formidable obstacle.

Finally, the bill fails to acknowledge that the operation of seniority principles and collective agreements is part of the reason that the designated groups are underrepresented in the workplace.

The failure to recognize, or take steps to recognize and rectify these factors, and at the same time to then require employers to achieve employment equity in spite of these factors is somewhat unreasonable. I ask, what measures has the government introduced to ensure that members of the designated groups do have access to training and educational programs? The government has chosen to require the private sector to assume responsibility for employment equity rather than address the education equity issues that are primarily the responsibilities of the province.

I'd like to take a look now at "entitlement,"

section 1. Bill 79 refers to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the right of every person to equal treatment in employment, but in fact overrides the code's requirements with respect to the designated groups because distinctions, which employers have been prohibited from making under the Ontario Human Rights Code, such as distinction based on race, will now become required to achieve employment equity goals.

The bill indicates that the Human Rights Commission is to refer complaints against employers to the Employment Equity Commission. However, the reference to the Ontario Human Rights Code in the act creates the very real potential for both the Employment Equity Commission and the Human Rights Commission to assert that they have authority to investigate a complaint arising out of the act. This may result in the development of inconsistent decisions and it's certainly going to create confusion for employers in this province. An employer could even be faced with double jeopardy if both commissions decided to proceed with a complaint.

The reference to the Ontario Human Rights Code is inappropriate because, although Bill 79 and the code may be related pieces of legislation, they are directed at two very different issues. Employment equity is concerned with the composition of an employer's workforce without regard to the identity of specific individuals. Human rights legislation, in contrast, does not deal with collective employer statistics but rather is directed at the treatment of individuals by employers. I hope the government will take a look at that

section

Section 2, "employment equity principles": Principle 2 requires employers to "reflect the representation of aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women in the community" in their workforce.

Employers will be required to ensure that workplaces in all occupational categories reflect the number of individuals from the four designated groups in the same proportions as these individuals exist in the community at large. This proportionality requirement defines the labour pool in a far broader manner than a true labour pool because it fails to recognize that not all members of the designated groups are both available or qualified to do the work.

We know that since education and training have been a barrier, there are, unfortunately, many who are not qualified to do the work, and that's where we need to be concentrating our energy and our attention: on making sure they have the educational and training qualifications to compete.

The bill should be amended to make it clear that employers will only be required to ensure that their workforce reflects the representation of qualified members of the designated groups in the community.

Proportionality may also be an unattainable standard for many employers. It would be extremely unlikely that an employer with fewer than 500 employees would have a chance of having proportional representation of all designated groups in all occupational levels.

"Definitions,"

section 3:

Definitions for the terms "members of racial minorities," "aboriginal people" and "people with disabilities" are not defined in the act. The

definitions included in the regulations are vague, and I've pointed that out earlier today. It can certainly lead to employee confusion when they fill out their employment equity surveys, no matter how much education you provide for individuals.

The definition in the regulations for "member of a racial minority" states, "means a person who, because of his or her race or colour, is in a visible minority in Ontario." It is conceivable that because of the vagueness of this definition, an individual from Eastern Europe could identify himself or herself as a visible minority. Conversely, a person may self-identify as a Canadian only and object to being identified as a racial minority.

Recently, we have certainly read in the newspaper about the types of individuals who refuse to be identified as racial minorities because they perceive themselves to be Canadian only. I also want to mention to you that I received a letter from an individual not too long ago who indicated that he was a white male who couldn't find a job and he now is going to identify himself, because he was from Eastern Europe, as a member of a visible minority. These are the problems we're going to run into with the

definitions: people identifying themselves perhaps inappropriately.

Statistics Canada census figures do not include racial group information. Statistics Canada only estimates racial population groups from information as to ethnic origin, language and religion. General population data tell us nothing about the availability for employment and include persons not even in the workforce. As a result, you can see that there are going to be some real problems.

The definition in the regulations for "persons with a disability" states, "means a person who has a persistent physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning impairment and,

"(

a) who considers himself or herself to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment, or

"(

b) who believes that an employer or potential employer is likely to consider him or her to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment."

This is the definition I spoke about earlier today. It is the same definition as found in the federal Employment Equity Act regulations, it is a definition which has proved very problematic and it's being challenged in the courts. I really question why this government chose to use that problematic definition, because the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto-Dominion Bank have indicated that it's too vague and that it cannot be determined with certainty which employees fall within its scope.

The banks, both of them, have complained that the law did not allow employers to quantify accurately the number of disabled persons in their workforce because many people with disabilities did not believe they were handicapped in the context of employment.

Recently I heard from a student at one of the universities in Ontario who indicated to me that he was not going to be accepted into graduate school at this particular university because he did not identify himself as one of the four designated groups. However, he could have designated himself as a person with disabilities. He indicated he wished to be accepted because of his ability and not his disability.

These are the types of choices that individuals across this province are going to face.

Recently, in talking to a group of students who were graduating from high school and applying to university, they were also concerned because they had been asked to self-identify and check off.

One of the girls said to me, "I know the reason that I was accepted,'' and again it was the same university, and she said, "Because I checked off female, I checked off visible minority, I checked off disabled because I have a lisp." She said, "Mrs Witmer, I don't want to be accepted at that university because I'm designated in three groups; I want to be there because of my ability." I want you to know that young people in this province today feel very strongly and feel they can compete on a very equal basis, and they do have some concerns about the need to self-identify.

I also know there are employees within the union workplaces who are being encouraged not to self-identify. There are going to be some very, very serious problems with the self-identification, and there is a great reluctance, I want to tell you, on the part of many individuals to identify themselves as being a member of the designated groups.

Back to the Bank of Nova Scotia and the TD Bank: The ba