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

June 11, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BILINGUISME EN ONTARIO

M. Poirier : La communauté franco-ontarienne a tenu, au cours de la dernière fin de semaine, à Toronto, son premier Sommet de la francophonie ontarienne. Le but de cette assemblée était d'élaborer un plan de développement global de la communauté franco-ontarienne.

J'ai noté avec intérêt la présence vendredi soir du ministre fédéral des Affaires constitutionnelles, le très honorable Joe Clark. Dans son discours, M. Clark a exprimé, entre autres, le souhait de voir d'autres provinces suivre l'exemple du Nouveau-Brunswick et se déclarer officiellement bilingues. Évidemment, l'invitation était surtout lancée à l'Ontario, vu les circonstances. Et quelle fut la réaction du gouvernement néo-démocrate de l'Ontario en guise de réplique au souhait de M. Clark et à celui de la communauté franco-ontarienne ?

Le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, de passage au Sommet le lendemain de la visite de M. Clark, réaffirmait la position des néo-démocrates que l'Ontario ne serait pas déclaré officiellement bilingue, mais que l'accent serait plutôt mis sur le développement des services à la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Voici donc le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones qui vient nous dire encore une fois le maintien du statu quo, en utilisant les mêmes paroles répétées ad nauseam par les anciens chefs des gouvernements conservateurs de l'Ontario. Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. Quel retrait des belles paroles et de l'engagement du premier ministre, au cours de la dernière campagne électorale, à faire de l'Ontario une province officiellement bilingue.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD ANIMALS

Mr Villeneuve: I rise to report a growing health and environmental problem which is threatening all of rural Ontario.

The farm financial situation is causing many farmers to abandon the use of deadstock dealers in disposing of dead cattle, calves and hogs. They are simply unable to afford the fees being charged. Deadstock dealers have been forced to make up for 80% declines in rendering revenue and approximately 70% declines in the revenue from hide sales alone.

Under the Dead Animal Disposal Act the farmer must either bury a dead animal under at least two feet of earth within 48 hours of the loss or have it removed by a licensed deadstock dealer. As fees have gone up the number of animals removed by dealers has in some cases dropped by up to 60%. An increasing number of dead animals are being disposed of by farmers, sometimes in violation of the act. During winter, for example, we know that animals are not being buried in the frozen ground and they are often just dumped.

The health and environmental implications are rather obvious. This government simply cannot allow deadstock dealers to disappear. We need them to protect our health and our waterways. So far this government is reviewing the act. It wants to research alternative disposal methods and to launch a communications campaign.

That is not good enough. Without dealers, the problem will escalate. This government has its own study of the industry which indicates major operating losses for the foreseeable future. We need action, not ads.

ANNIVERSARY OF CHIN RADIO-TV INTERNATIONAL

Mr Perruzza: Today I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate CHIN Radio-TV International for its 25th anniversary, which it celebrated on Thursday 6 June. Mr Lombardi, the founder and president of CHIN, has spent more than 40 years promoting multiculturalism and multilingualism because he believed there was a need to serve new Canadians in their own language so they could participate in their communities and eventually become citizens.

CHIN Radio is one of the most extensive multicultural-multilingual broadcasting radio stations in the world. Today CHIN broadcasts in 30 languages and more than 30 cultural communities in the greater Metropolitan Toronto and southern Ontario areas and has weekend service on Global TV and CITY TV. CHIN is always reaching out to the communities it serves in an effort to bring people of all ages and cultural backgrounds together. One example of this is the annual picnic, which brings together 250,000 people each year.

Again, I would like to congratulate CHIN for its 25 very successful years and wish it many more.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and particularly to the Minister of Health the recent

article in the Mississauga News with the headline "Ambulance Cutbacks Put Lives in Jeopardy."

It goes on to say, "Recent cutbacks within the Halton-Mississauga Ambulance Service may have cost a life," according to a medical attendant. This attendant, who requested anonymity to avert reprisals at work, which is scary in itself, said he and many fellow ambulance officers feel their safety and patients' health are at risk because of recent Ministry of Health changes that have stripped down emergency services.

He illustrated the point with a story of an ambulance worker who said a crew stationed in the Cawthra Road-Queensway area had to respond recently to a call at Dixie Road and Eglinton Avenue to an elderly person who had been found without vital signs. The response time was over 10 minutes, a very lengthy time, I am sure the minister would agree. This man felt that had the station at Dixie and Britannia roads been staffed that shift, the response time could have been cut to five minutes.

I would ask the Minister of Health to ask her staff to look at this situation and to review the level of ambulance service in our community. I would also ask her to look at the Shapiro report, which recommends regional ambulance service in our community. In fact, it was a resolution by Frank Bean and his council that supported that exact situation occurring. I recognize the smirks are because we did not do it, but we certainly supported it. I supported it as a local member and I would ask for her help in this very important issue.

VICTOR LING

Mr Eves: It is with great pleasure that I stand today in order to pay tribute to Dr Victor Ling for his outstanding achievement in having won one of the world's most prestigious international awards in cancer research, the General Motors Kettering medal.

Dr Ling will be honoured today for the most important recent discovery in diagnosis or treatment of cancer. This acknowledgement is extremely important because it is the first time a Canadian scientist has won this award, considered second only to the Nobel Prize for cancer research.

Dr Ling is the head of the molecular and structural biology division at Princess Margaret Hospital-Ontario Cancer Institute and is also a professor of medical biophysics at the University of Toronto. I would like other members of the Legislature to join with me today in congratulating Dr Ling for having made all Canadians and the people of Ontario extremely proud.

RECYCLING

Mr Drainville: Exciting developments are happening in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton around the development of recycling projects. Specifically, I am proud of the efforts of the Victoria Recycling Association to effectively reduce the amount of material ending up in our landfill sites. Our efforts, as I mentioned in an earlier statement, are recognized as being among the most effective in the province today.

Our community is also actively working to use recycled material in manufacturing. Using the resources of the ministries of the Environment and Industry, Trade and Technology, I am working side by side with our municipal governments and local businesses to make Victoria-Haliburton a leading community in the fight to have a safe and economically sustainable environment. We are developing plans to make significant inroads into streaming what was once considered waste towards the production of useful commodities.

It is the efforts of the residents, businesses and local government of Victoria-Haliburton which will stop the destruction of our environment. It is the job of politicians and government to help them create a vision of what a green world can be, and then to support their efforts. In other words, we must all think globally and act locally.

I ask the members of this House to join me in thanking the members of the Victoria Recycling Association for their efforts to make our world just a little bit better to live in.

NEWMARKET VETERANS

Mr Beer: Communities across the country are currently welcoming home armed forces personnel who served in the Persian Gulf. It is my pleasure to rise today in the House and tell you of a group of veterans who have continued their service long after their battle years were over.

This week, the Newmarket Veterans' Association celebrates its 75th anniversary of public service in the Aurora-Newmarket area. This association was started in 1916 by four First World War veterans who were determined to give as much in peacetime as they had in war. It has grown into a community of over 300 caring men and women who quietly go about the job of making ours a better place to live.

Fellow veterans and their families who need moral or financial support can turn to the members of the NVA. Local branches of organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, St John Ambulance and the Salvation Army can depend on the vets to help in their annual campaigns. As well as caring for the living, the NVA takes great pride in the care and keeping of our local war monuments and the cemetery plots of fallen comrades.

This is an organization dedicated to remembering those who fell in battle and those who have passed on since. They live the words that most of us consider only on Remembrance Day, "Lest we forget." Please join me in congratulating the members of the Newmarket Veterans' Association on the occasion of their 75th anniversary and thank them for their past, present and future service to community and country.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mrs Cunningham: This afternoon in the Legislature I will be introducing my private member's bill,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, 1991. This bill will make the wearing of helmets mandatory by bicyclists on our roads.

Each year in Canada over 60 children will die in bike accidents, most from head injuries. Over 5,000 children will be seriously injured. The statistics are overwhelming.

Bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. In fact, it has been determined that wearing a helmet can decrease the risk of bicycle-related head injury by up to 85%. A bicycle helmet is the most important single piece of equipment for reducing the incidence of serious head injuries. Rehabilitation following a head injury is long, and in many cases the consequences are permanent.

Wearing an approved bicycle helmet is a preventive measure, yet in a study at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in 1988 it was found that even after an accident fewer children wear them. Legislation is vital to reducing cycling injuries and deaths.

This bill is scheduled for debate on 27 June during private members' hour. I look forward to support from all parties for referring this non-partisan legislation to a standing committee for further debate. It is necessary to protect citizens from head injury tragedies and the ongoing disabilities that change their lives for ever.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Christopherson: It is with pride that I rise to inform members of this House of an innovative and creative initiative that is taking place in my community.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Child Poverty Forum is a project intended to mobilize the community to develop a comprehensive, community-based strategic plan for the elimination of the effects of poverty on children by the year 2000. Since it is necessary that solutions involve the many sectors that make up our community, groups representing labour, business, education, health and recreation will meet with people living the day-to-day reality of poverty to develop a concrete plan of action.

Hamilton-Wentworth is the first community in Canada that is taking this approach in looking at the root causes of child poverty. According to Mike Pennock, director of the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton and District, "Solving the monumental and serious problem of child poverty has never been attempted by a community in Canada." Mr Pennock has already received numerous calls and requests for information from across the country, including from the government of Saskatchewan.

Once again, the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are displaying leadership in joining together, setting community priorities and doing something about it. They have my wholehearted support, and I am sure the members of this House will join me in commending their efforts and wishing them every success.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would like to invite members to welcome this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Evan Walker, member of the Victorian Legislative Council for Melbourne province, Australia.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

The Speaker: Yesterday, the honourable member for Ottawa Centre rose on a point of order concerning the appropriateness of certain words used during question period by the honourable leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing. At the time, I undertook to review Hansard and report back to the House.

My examination of Hansard has confirmed my first impression. The use of the words complained about do not constitute a valid point of order because the leader of the third party did not accuse another member of this House of lying. However, his words could be taken to imply that the minister had accused a member of the public of lying. While this is not contrary to our rules, I do agree with the honourable member for Ottawa Centre that it is a breach of parliamentary etiquette, and I would encourage members to be very responsible in their use of language in our chamber.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, in view of your comments today and the ruling that the comments I used were not unparliamentary, I appreciate your confirmation of that. I also appreciate the advice you are giving to the members of the House.

Mr Nixon: Are you debating the ruling?

Mr Harris: No, I am not. I am taking the advice of yourself, Mr Speaker. I regret very much the statements that were made by the minister. I also suggest to you that the allegations and the implications the minister referred to offended me, and I pointed that out. But the language has offended some member of the House, and I will withdraw it.

The Speaker: Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

In my meeting with Mr Clark, he informed me that the federal government plans to release a constitutional discussion paper at the end of the summer, which it will refer to a new constitutional committee consisting of 15 members of Parliament and 10 senators. It is proposed that this committee will hold public hearings and will meet with legislative committees in many provinces as well as with others in the autumn and winter months leading to a report in February 1992.

As members know, the government of Quebec plans to establish two committees of the Quebec assembly, one to discuss the impact of sovereignty, the other to deal with any proposals from the rest of Canada. Legislation on a referendum on sovereignty for Quebec to be held in either June or October 1992 is currently before the National Assembly. Other provinces have either begun, or are now establishing, public discussions on the Constitution.

In my recent meetings, I made clear the following points: Ontario wants to respond to the clear and compelling need to make the government of Quebec a full and willing partner in the Canadian Constitution. It is not in the statement, but I might add parenthetically that this sentiment which I expressed on behalf of the government was fully shared by Premier Ghiz, by Premier McKenna and by Premier Cameron. I think it is important that opinion take note of the fact that I found a great deal of willingness on the part of those three provinces to make the inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution a matter of priority for them.

I also stressed that the government of Ontario wants to ensure that the first nations of Canada, the aboriginal people, are recognized as having an inherent right of self-government entrenched in the Constitution. Indeed, I am proud that we have reached agreement on a statement of relationship with the Chiefs of Ontario, a document that I believe is one of the most important in the history of our relationship with the first nations.

Ontario also wants to strengthen the economic union, and we see a strong need to guarantee Canada-wide standards for social and economic programs whose funding and integrity are now being challenged.

J'ai abordé, en outre, la question du processus constitutionnel, en soulignant le grand intérêt que cette ronde de discussions constitutionnelles accordera à la compréhension et au soutien de la population canadienne. J'ai également fait part de toute l'importance que revêtirait, après le mois de février, un groupe chargé de représenter les Canadiens et d'étudier tout ensemble de propositions à soumettre à l'assemblée législative du pays. Quoique tous les premiers ministres ne s'entendent pas encore sur la forme

précise que pourrait prendre le processus de consultation publique, tous conviennent que cette réforme constitutionnelle se doit d'être différente de celle qui l'a précédée. Cette question a fait l'unanimité.

While many governments share our concerns and objectives, they have others as well. In my visits with maritime premiers, I heard little support for the current Senate and a number of proposals as to how to give provinces and regions access to decision-making at the federal level. There is real concern about the need for more efficiency and less duplication in the delivery of government programs at all levels. Premiers Ghiz, McKenna and Cameron underlined in our discussions that regional inequality is an important issue for their provinces.

Premier Bourassa has made it clear to me that Quebec feels it has been excluded by other Canadians twice in the past 10 years during the process of constitutional renewal. Both the Bélanger-Campeau report and the Allaire report now point to a dramatic reduction in the role of the federal government and an equally significant increase in powers for the government of Quebec. The message was clear: There is no simply going back to Meech.

Par ailleurs, le gouvernement du Québec s'est montré peu disposé à débattre les questions constitutionnelles qui ne figuraient pas à l'ordre du jour qu'il avait établi, car il estime avoir le droit d'exiger que la priorité soit accordée aux questions qui le concernent. Mais comme je l'ai vivement fait remarquer à M. Bourassa, les Canadiens dans l'ensemble souhaitent que cette ronde de discussions englobe un plus grand nombre de points.

This summer there will be further meetings and discussions between and among premiers, parliamentary committees and Canadians generally. I have invited Mr Bourassa to Ontario. He has accepted and we are still discussing the date. I shall be travelling west and to the Yukon this summer. The premiers' conference will be held at the end of August and will centre on constitutional questions.

I know that our own select committee is planning to continue its work. I believe that committee, representative of all the parties in the Legislature, will continue to play a vital role in reaching out, not only to Ontarians but also to other legislatures, assemblies and people across Canada.

It is vital that all of us, in our work here in Ontario and across the country, work towards the widest possible consensus around both process and substance issues as the constitutional issue takes hold. I carry no magic answer around in my back pocket to this most crucial set of issues. I wish I could report to this Legislature that I found one on my trip, but we all know it is not that easy. This will be difficult, but if we understand the costs of failure and the advantages of success, it is possible.

SKILLS TRAINING

Hon Mr Allen: I am deeply concerned, as many members of this House are, about the recession that has caused so many plant closures and layoffs. These have resulted in hardship and suffering for workers, families and communities throughout Ontario. Our government has recognized this and has introduced special programs to help workers deal with the traumatic dislocation by layoffs.

Recently in Hamilton, for example, I announced a $2-million fund for colleges to enable them to help Ontario workers who are laid off because of major plant closures. At the same time, I announced another $1.5-million multi-skilling training program for workers at Stelco in Hamilton. Both are examples of co-operation and partnership in action.

I want to announce today another such agreement, one to retrain workers who have been laid off at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie. Those workers will need counselling and training. Together with Sault College and the Canadian Steel Trades and Employment Congress, or CSTEC, which represents business and labour, we have reached an agreement to retrain these workers. Under the agreement, approximately 330 laid-off Algoma Steel workers will start this September the retraining needed to help them find new employment.

Some 200 of the group of 330 will be enrolled in new classes being created expressly for the laid-off workers at Sault College. Costs for these new classes, which are expected to be about $2.6 million over two years, will be shared equally by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the CSTEC. If required, additional classes may be added in future, but this will depend on the continued financial support of CSTEC by the federal government.

Training will be provided in four engineering technology programs: computer, electrical, environmental and mechanical, as well as in business, correctional worker and carpenter-cabinetmaker programs, and possibly a stationary engineering program.

Roughly 130 of the 330 have already been accepted into a variety of programs at Sault College. CSTEC will pay the $800 tuition fee for the 130 students and the province will pay the normal operating grant to the college to cover the remaining 90% of the cost of training them.

I am very pleased that this partnership of government, labour, business and education has resulted in an agreement that will benefit laid-off workers and the community of Sault Ste Marie. Our government is working with all groups to address the serious consequences of this recession and we will continue to seek new solutions and new partnerships to soften the blow on Ontario's communities and its economy.

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Ms Akande: I am pleased to announce to the House today the government's plans for the redirection of Ontario's long-term care services.

Over the past several months, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Citizenship with responsibility for seniors' issues and disability issues and I have studied the problems associated with Ontario's outdated approach to meeting the long-term support needs of elderly persons and people with physical disabilities. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the important contribution to this review process of the former Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre.

My colleagues and I have reviewed the reforms proposed by the previous government as described in its policy paper Strategies for Change, and I wish to acknowledge its work in this area, in particular the contributions of the then ministers of Health, Community and Social Services, senior citizens' affairs and disabled persons.

In order to establish a long-term care policy framework consistent with the values of this government, we were guided by four basic principles: the primacy of the individual and his or her right to dignity, security and self-determination; promotion of racial equality and respect for cultural diversity; the importance of family and community, and the right to fair and equitable access to appropriate services so that people who use the service can make informed choices.

We have been aided in our deliberations by the thoughtful and constructive ideas in letters, submissions and briefings from those who use and need the services, long-term care providers, their associations and the public at large.

We have reviewed our options, not only in terms of program policies but in light of the enormous economic challenge Ontario faces in this time of recession. We have recognized a great need across the province for services that will help people to live in their own homes and communities.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that the long-term care redirection will proceed. Even in the current fiscal climate, our government will commit the financial resources necessary to chart this new course. To that end, $647 million will be invested on long-term care services by 1996-97. Of this amount, almost $440 million will be for community programs. The remaining one third of the total dollars will be spent on facility care.

Our government will reduce the over-reliance on facility services and will shift emphasis to the development of creative, community-based service options. We will do this in three ways.

First, we will invest heavily in long-term care services provided to people in their own homes. Services such as nursing visits, homemaker visits and attendant care will be increased, new responsive eligibility criteria are under development to ensure these services are delivered in a more flexible fashion and no user fees will be charged for nursing and homemaker visits, respite services, attendant care, personal care and support services, and day programs in recognition of the essential nature of these social and health services.

Second, we will significantly enhance our commitment to community- and neighbourhood-based support programs delivering vital services such as Meals on Wheels and transportation. We also intend to introduce a more flexible funding formula for community support programs that will provide 100% funding of approved costs after deducting charges for service use and local funding.

Third, we will make a substantial investment in supported housing programs for elderly persons and people with physical disabilities. This will afford them the choice to continue to live in their own communities with care and with support. Priority will be given to the development of support programs in co-operation with those planning non-profit housing. We will be consulting with people who use and need services and providers in the development of these programs.

I mentioned earlier that we are investing heavily in community programs to lessen our reliance on institutional services. This is evidenced by our commitment to shift, over the next five years, a minimum of $37.6 million in funding from the provincial hospital budget to long-term care community-based services. While this represents less than 1% of our hospital expenditures, it establishes an important principle.

We will actively pursue more savings from long-term care facility redevelopments. While the overall number of long-term care beds will not be increased, strategies will be developed in partnership with communities to realign resources to those communities in greatest need. Nursing homes, homes for the aged and chronic care hospitals will continue, of course, to have a role to play. They are still needed to care for people with needs that cannot currently be met in the community.

Significant change is required in this sector. Therefore, approximately $200 million will be added to the budgets of existing nursing homes and homes for the aged. This will ensure that the ever-increasing care requirements of residents can be met effectively. These funds will be generated by increasing both the provincial subsidy and the basic fees for accommodation. These increases will be carried out on an income-tested basis with no charges for health and personal care services. Quality care will be affordable to all, regardless of their financial situation.

Funding reforms will be introduced that will match financial support to the actual care requirements of residents. Measures will be taken to ensure that this increased funding is transformed into tangible service improvements.

In order to effectively co-ordinate access to a full range of services, we will consolidate our current home care and placement resources in 40 new agencies. Job security for workers in these programs is a high priority for this government.

These agencies will carefully assess the needs of the individual and purchase the appropriate services in the home, as well as respite and day programs, for them; provide information, advice and referral services to people who might need help to locate support such as meal programs or volunteer transportation; assess the needs of the individual and co-ordinate access to long-term care facilities, and be governed by new boards which will represent the communities they serve and include local members appointed by the provincial government.

We will seek advice from communities as to how these new agencies can be implemented and how productive relationships can be formed with organizations which currently plan, govern and deliver services.

We have much work to do. The most important phase of our redirection will soon begin. A consultation paper will be available in the summer, and a comprehensive people-oriented and community-focused consultation will begin in earnest this fall.

The ministers of Health and Citizenship and I believe that the consultation process is an important part of the product. We believe the principles we used in establishing our policy directions would ring hollow if those directly affected by our decisions were denied the chance to shape the future in a significant and meaningful way. Our consultation will be more broad and far-reaching than any which had previously been considered. We are inviting a group of people representing those who need service and those who provide services to help design the consultation process.

We will consult people who need services and their families; advocates and care givers; native, francophone and multicultural communities; labour and women's groups; health and social service providers and planners; municipalities, and other interested groups. Community by community, we will ensure that our policy directions are subject to scrutiny and that a range of opinions as diverse as our Ontario society is brought to bear on the consultation.

We have outlined what we would describe as preferred options. However, much is still to be decided. For example, we want to consult on the direct funding approaches for people with physical disabilities. We want to consult on innovative ways to support the critical role played by family care givers. We would like to know what kind of training and support homemakers need to provide a high standard of service.

These are only a few examples of the types of questions to be discussed during the consultation. The decisions made must be tailored to the unique requirements of particular communities, both geographic and cultural.

Finally, the process of consultation and decision-making will lead to the introduction of new legislation necessary to support the redirection of our long-term care services. Long-awaited changes in our approach to services to elderly persons and people with physical disabilities are finally becoming a reality.

It is my hope and the hope of my colleagues that a system will be built that is sensitive to the uniqueness of each individual, sensitive to their rights as well as their needs, and reflective of basic values held by all Ontarians.

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Nixon: I viewed the Premier's progress through eastern Canada in the government's Tiger Moth with a great deal of interest, as he went from provincial capital to provincial capital and finally to the NDP convention.

His support for a constituent assembly seems to have faded somewhat, and I appreciate the fact that the Premier himself makes a virtue of his flexibility when he has withdrawn from that particular proposal, since nobody but himself and a couple of others have given it much consideration.

There is something that should be discussed at length, and that is the Premier's commitment, which we all share, for self-government of the first nation community. I hope he has examined that carefully enough to know that a rational conclusion would lead many thoughtful people to support a special provincial administration for the first nation community. That is something that surely he would be giving careful attention to.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs McLeod: I will respond very briefly first to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities and just indicate that we do welcome the training proposals and the fact that they are tripartite training proposals. We would only urge that both he and his government continue to address the need for retraining that is not just based on a crisis situation. I would also look at the fundamental challenges of the restructuring which is taking place in our resource-based industries, and most particularly the very acute need to address the ongoing crisis in Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs McLeod: If I may, I turn to another question of long-term planning, and that is the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services, and ask why it has taken so long to reaffirm the directions and the proposals of the Strategies for Change document that was introduced in this province last May.

After the extensive consultation that was carried out last summer, why is the minister now only talking about more consultation? I have to ask what the minister has been doing for the last eight months while seniors and disabled people across this province have waited and wondered what it was that this government planned to do and why there had been no response. The government has now emerged from what has really been eight months of in-house meetings among ministers and it has said: "Yes, indeed, we do need to respond to the need for enhanced services, in-home support for seniors and the disabled.

Yes, we do need to respond to the crisis in access to extended care beds in our institutions. Yes, indeed, the dollars for long-term care reform that were committed by a Liberal government are appropriate and are needed, in fact, almost to the very dollar."

I think this government knows what is needed, it knows what directions have to be taken. It has known that for a year, and now it is proposing more consultation. There is not a single plan here that leads us to immediate steps towards implementation.

I would ask the government whether it is now possible, after this last eight months, to have in place multilevel care funding for January 1992, which was the proposal of the previous government, and when it is going to be possible for it to actually extend integrated homemaking services and expand the in-home care support available to seniors and the disabled.

I would really have to suggest that we are not yet seeing any evidence that there is going to be an immediate, enhanced and enriched service for seniors and for the disabled who need long-term care across this province.

It has taken a whole year to get back again to the point where we left off last May, and I can only describe this as being a whole year lost.

Mr Phillips: I would like to add my comments to my colleague's and to say I have been pressing for this for at least six months. Frankly, it is very similar to the Strategies for Change. I had fully expected the reason the government was taking so long was that it had some changes in mind. We have now wasted six months and we essentially have very much the same recommendations that we had six months ago.

There are some questions in here of course that we will be asking. One is in terms of no more long-term care beds. I realize we do not want to add significantly to long-term care beds, but I am not sure the long-term care beds currently are necessarily in the right geographic areas in the province.

Certainly I was interested to note that the government is planning to extend, I gather, user fees and nursing homes and homes for the aged, and we were looking for the specifics of that. They are talking about moving money from hospitals. I would just suggest to them that hospitals in this province are changing the way they deliver services and are responding to our changing demographics. I would urge the government to be very careful, as it moves funding from the hospitals, it does not cut into some important programs that are designed to meet the long-term care needs of the people of this province.

Mr Jackson: I too would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services about redirecting long-term care services. As has been stated earlier, we have been waiting over a year for a response to the previous government's excellent working paper on this subject. We welcomed a statement, but when one examines the substance of it, there is cause for considerable concern. Questions such as, "How long will people have to wait?" are legitimate questions, given that the only firm dates being mentioned are 1996 and 1997.

When we look at the acuity rates of many of our geriatric patients in this province, when we look at the near collapse of several of our delivery systems in this province, when we look at the immediate crises being faced by these people, we ask, "At what price will they have to wait?"

It is a policy of the minister's government to continue with the offensive cutback of municipal non-profit homes for seniors in this province, and yet we have no replacement. Her coterminous minister, the Minister of Health, is overseeing the reduction of geriatric beds all across this province. Where are these people going to go?

The minister talks about respite care. In most cases, our most frail elderly live with another person of comparable age, and all we do is accelerate pressures on their good health because we do not have some of these programs co-ordinated in place.

The minister has brought to this House a statement, and I guess the statement that concerns me the most is that the minister might even actually believe what she said, that these long-awaited changes in our approach are finally becoming a reality. The minister is finally making a statement; that is all she has done today.

But if senior citizens in this province and people who require that kind of service are relying on the minister to meet their needs, I only remind them that, as this government runs up a $10-billion deficit, there is precious little attention for seniors in this province. The Treasurer indicates that he is going to get us out of that deficit. How can seniors believe that the minister will take care of their long-term care needs in this province when this government is going to run us into debt that badly?

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities by saying that we are encouraged to see the minister work with business and labour in the retraining of people who have lost their jobs through unfortunate circumstances at Algoma Steel. We certainly encourage this as a model.

As I always have said, what we are looking for is a comprehensive skills training and retraining program in Ontario. My great criticism would be that this is just one small part of what we really need. We all know that the measures taken by Canadian firms in spending private company dollars are minimal compared to what they do in the United States of America and other countries. We are looking for investment by the private sector in skills training and taking responsibility for our young people. What we really need is comprehensive reform.

I have said it before and I will say it again: We have not dealt with the declining enrolment in technology programs; we have not talked about the issue of apprenticeship-journeyman ratios; we have not talked about the program to promote the role of colleges in the provision of customized contract training services for companies; we have not talked about the centres of specialization, of a cost-effective way to get state-of-the-art equipment into our colleges, and we have not talked about encouraging our school systems to develop the articulation agreements and new guidance counsellors with the school systems and the colleges across this province.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We need the minister to work harder and his government to work harder for a comprehensive training program for people, not only who have lost their jobs, but young people who want to be part of the real world in Ontario today.

Mr Harris: I too want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities and say that obviously we support the tripartite initiative to help with the retraining of the laid-off workers in Algoma. But I want to say we are very disappointed that we have to rely on ad hoc programs. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of workers in Ontario losing their jobs, and we have no overall plan for all of them. It really is sad that it takes this kind of concentrated tragedy taking place in various communities to push the government.

Finally, I hope as well that the program is providing, with the new skills, some method for accessing jobs in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, because they are not going to find them with this government's policy in Ontario.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to rise to correct the record of the comments I made yesterday regarding the situation at Deer Lake, which is 190 kilometres north of Red Lake in the riding of the member for Kenora.

This is a community with a population of 600. The forest fire started yesterday at noon immediately north of the village and spread quickly. The fire is now about 150 hectares in size and has burned six buildings. The Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews, aided by CL-215 heavy water bombers, were able to save the town's nursing station.

A total of six buildings, including homes and log cabins, have been destroyed, as well as equipment, including snowmobiles and outboard engines. There have been no injuries, I am thankful to say, but more than 350 residents, including women and children, older persons and those with respiratory problems, have been evacuated from the village. Some residents have been flown to the town of Cochenour, just north of Red Lake, and others have been taken to the town of Red Lake.

Nine Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews and a provincial fire team are at Deer Lake to fight the fire, assisted by native fire crews. As I said, there are four CL-215 water bombers at the scene and an emergency response team has been assigned to the fire.

ANNIVERSARY OF UKRAINIAN SETTLEMENT

Mr Jackson: Could I seek unanimous consent from all members of the House to recognize Ukrainian Pioneer Heritage Centennial?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr Jackson: I would like to thank all members. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the coming of the first Ukrainians to Canada. On 7 September 1891, Ivan Pylipiw and Vasyl Elyniak became the first two officially recorded Ukrainian immigrants in this country and thus began the first wave of Ukrainian settlement.

In 1895, Ukrainian Professor Joseph Oleskiw wrote two publications about Canada that served as information sources for those Ukrainians wishing to move here. He also met with Canadian government officials to negotiate immigration arrangements. In 1899, Cliff Sifton, acting on behalf of the Canadian government, signed a contract for the recruiting of immigrants to Canada.

It was also in 1899 that my maternal great-grandparents, Mr and Mrs Nicholas Kyryliuk, residents of the Ukrainian town of Sapohiv, arrived in Halifax harbour on 5 June. They, along with about 200,000 other Ukrainians who settled mainly in western Canada, began their new lives in this adopted country under some very harsh challenges. In those early years, there were many struggles, but their strong religious faith and their love of their new land saw them through.

The links between Ukrainians in Canada and in their ancestral homeland continued strong and unabated. Many Ukrainian immigrants sought to escape political, cultural and religious repression, which was at its zenith at the coming of the Bolshevik communists to power at the end of the First World War. In the 1930s, Soviet terror claimed the lives of 10 million Ukrainians in Stalin's man-made famine. In the 1940s they saw the development of armed Ukrainian resistance to their colonial oppressors in the national struggle for freedom.

Throughout their 100 years of history in Canada, Ukrainians never forgot their ancestral homeland. Whenever Ukraine suffered, they suffered. Whenever Ukraine rejoiced, they rejoiced with them. We know their work continues to this day and has been recognized in their support for the victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Today we will be joined in the House and we are honoured to have, as a special guest from Ukraine, a leading figure who is on tour, Archbishop Vladimir Sterniuk. Vladimir was sentenced to 10 years in Siberia for refusing to abjure his faith and he returned to western Ukraine to lead his underground church ever since, secretly ordaining priests and bishops and serving his people. The Soviet KGB has arrested him 18 times since his release from Siberia and His Excellency has lived to see the rebirth of his church and his faith in his beloved homeland.

The Ukrainians of Canada know what a precious commodity freedom is. That is why they value their presence and their life in Canada. They were quick to volunteer in each of the world wars, and today Ukrainian culture is an integral part of Canadian life. Canadians of Ukrainian background have made significant contributions to Canada's continuing development as a nation. Ukrainians in Canada have truly gone far in a short time from those early settlers with spades and plows in their hands, to the Governor General's office in Ottawa.

As the chairman of the centennial committee of the provincial council of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to join in the festive celebrations, with traditional songs and dances, to mark today's occasion which will take place at 7 o'clock this evening on the steps of the main lobby in the Legislative Building, beginning with the unveiling of a special plaque to honour the early Ukrainian pioneers, which will be presided over by the Minister of Citizenship for the government, as well as the Minister of Citizenship from the former government, John Yaremko, who presided over the plaque unveiling 25 years ago.

A reception will follow in room 228 and all are welcome to attend.

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to join the distinguished member for Burlington South in recognizing a date of great importance to Ukrainian Canadians, the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian settlers in Canada.

As the member has introduced some people already, I would like to continue this tradition and introduce today in the gallery Yaroslav Sokolyk, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, Toronto branch, and Bohdan Maksymec, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, who are with us in the audience.

The first major wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada occurred between 1890 and 1914. Most of those leaving the Ukraine settled primarily in rural areas. The second major immigration occurred during the two world wars and resulted in settlements throughout the prairie provinces. Then between 1947 and 1954, approximately 34,000 Ukrainians who were displaced by the Second World War arrived in Canada, and many of them made their homes in Ontario. By 1981 -- this will be of great interest to all members of this House -- 25% of Ukrainians lived in this province.

Today we celebrate the Ukrainian Canadian presence in Ontario and their participation in building a strong, united Canada. They helped build the west. They participated in all democratic institutions, including the political parties, all three political parties, even the labour movement, and we find Canadian Ukrainians placed in positions of leadership in every walk of life in our country.

I can remember a number of events where thousands of Ukrainian Canadians participated. I think most members will also remember the black ribbon days which were organized to lift the Iron Curtain and introduce some semblance of freedom into the Ukraine: freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, and freedom to vote for different parties.

Thousands again came to us right here in front of the Legislature to commemorate the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which really indicated to all of us in the west how slipshod the Russian government was in running the nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union.

How about, just in 1988, the 1,000 years of Christianity in the Ukraine? A great tradition that all of us are proud of.

What about the parade that thousands of Ukrainians attended in 1980 in order to keep Canada together? Thousands of them signed a petition in order to keep Quebec within Canada.

Today, we need Ukrainian Canadians again very clearly in order to keep Canada alive and keep Canada together. Ukrainians of Canadian descent are proudly Ukrainian but they are also fiercely Canadian. To quote the Honourable Lester Pearson: "Our Ukrainian settlers, by their industry, tenacity and resourcefulness, carved out of the lonely, unbroken prairie a new life for themselves and new wealth for their adopted country. All Canadians are in debt to those sturdy pioneers. By preserving your own identity, your own language and culture and traditions, you have added something of great value, of strength and colour, to the Canadian character."

Hon Mrs Coppen: On behalf of our party, I rise to speak today on the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian settlers in Canada, because I am a granddaughter of such settlers. I would also like to thank the Minister of Citizenship for giving me this privilege since, as the member for High Park-Swansea, she represents the largest community of Ukrainian Canadians in this province.

Many of those early immigrants who arrived in Ontario at the turn of the century came with the hope of making a new life for themselves and their families, not unlike today's immigrants. Like all new immigrants they had many obstacles to overcome. My own paternal grandparents were one of those families. They settled in Saskatchewan. They farmed all their lives and faced many personal tragedies, such as the loss of two children to diphtheria.

Ukrainian Canadians have made important contributions to this country and to this province. We recognize those contributions whether they be from crane operators, teachers, provincial police officers or authors. In just one generation Ontario's Minister of Citizenship, John Yaremko, was a Ukrainian Canadian and so is His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn.

I am proud of our tradition of hard work and honesty and of our customs. We maintain those customs as a small tribute to our parents and grandparents and we honour them for the sacrifices they had which have made our lives so much more meaningful.

Our government is proud of this province's diversity and we are committed to working to preserve and to benefit from it. We must welcome all immigrants to Canada, as our families were welcomed, and appreciate all that they bring to us.

I would also like to inform members that later today I will accompany the Minister of Citizenship as she has the honour of unveiling a plaque here at the Legislative Building commemorating this very special anniversary.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mr Nixon: I have a question to the Premier which, in a sense, comes out of a statement from the Minister of Colleges and Universities about a tripartite retraining scheme for Algoma Steel, where 3,500 jobs are going to be lost, according to the program put forward by the Premier's task force.

This has to be added to the 1,000 to 2,000 jobs that were lost in Kitchener two weeks ago in the Uniroyal Goodrich closing, the up to 1,700 jobs that will be lost if de Havilland follows the course that is evidently charted by its new foreign owners and the 420 jobs lost at Abitibi-Price. I just list those as an indication of the state of our economy. The Premier will be aware that the Treasurer, always being moderate and speaking the truth, indicated that Ontario was not coming out of the recession and that he did not join his colleagues, the other treasurers, in indicating the recession was over.

On that basis, is the Premier satisfied with the results of his policy, since our loss of employment is continuing at such a destructive rate? If not, what other plans can he present to the Legislature to ameliorate the situation that is devastating so many communities in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: That was such a long

preamble, I just want to state a couple of things in answer to the

preamble.

First, there is no final determination as to the ownership of de Havilland. That matter is now before Investment Canada. There has been no transfer of ownership.

Second, there has been no proposal by my task force with respect to Algoma. There has been one plan that has been prepared by Dofasco, and that is now being discussed by all the partners. The honourable member is leaping from conclusion to conclusion as he tries to arrive at the worst-possible-case scenario.

Finally, with respect to his

preamble the member said the Treasurer said we were still in the recession. I think what the Treasurer said -- I think he is being cautious -- is that we are not out of the recession yet, but it is also fair to say we can already see some signs in the economy that show things are improving. I will not underestimate for a moment the seriousness of the situation and I will not underestimate for a moment that the recession has been enormously serious.

The restructuring that is going on is one that requires a concerted response. I am meeting with the Premier's Council all tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening and into the next day as we begin to look hard at the restructuring taking place, as we begin to look at the policies we need to put in place in terms of training, in terms of new capital investment, in terms of encouraging industry to invest in research and development and in terms of how we can go about encouraging the creation of new, well-paid jobs across the province.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I take this as my central task as Premier. If the Leader of the Opposition is asking me if am I satisfied with how well things are going, I would say to him only that I do not look upon what is going on with any complacency at all. It is the biggest challenge we face as a province, and we are doing everything we can to meet it.

Mr Nixon: I will try not to comment on the length of the Premier's unsatisfactory answer. Since he does not like the numbers I have put together, what does he think about Statistics Canada, which found that there were 31,000 fewer jobless in Canada last month than the month before but 12,000 more jobless in Ontario?

This is in light of the fact that this is the first month following a budget where a deficit of $9.7 billion was justified on the basis of job creation and an additional $700 million was spent by this government ostensibly to create jobs. Yet the record continues to deteriorate. The Premier has indicated that he is not satisfied, but surely, as the leader of a social democratic government, he must be in a position to provide the leadership that is going to turn this around. In spite of his best efforts, it is getting worse. The people are dissatisfied. What is the Premier going to do about this totally unacceptable situation?

Hon Mr Rae: There is a very serious recession. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if his leader had not called an election last September and he were still in office, we would have a very serious recession. The former Treasurer, in his heart of hearts, knows that full well. That may be why they called the election. I do not know.

I will only make this simple point to the Leader of the Opposition: I was interested to see we had the support of John Kenneth Galbraith, the dean of North American economists and someone not unknown. He said we were the only government in North America that was tackling the recession by investing in infrastructure and doing our very best. That is exactly what we are doing, and we are going to continue to do it.

Mr Nixon: I might have a little more confidence in the Premier and my good friend and well-known liberal, John Kenneth Galbraith, if there were some results to their brave efforts. But instead of positive results, we seem to be getting further into the difficulties of mounting unemployment. This great government, with its close connections to the labour movement, with all of the main presidents of the unions being vice-presidents of the NDP, does not know what to do except wait for the capitalist economy to solve its problems for it.

As a matter of fact, the Premier has not given his basic solution which he gave to the Hamilton Spectator in response to a question from Emelia Casella, who asked, "What the devil are you going to do about this?" I paraphrase her words. He said, "The question there really is what more can we do to give a sense of pride and a sense of patriotism to industry."

Once again, he is solving major problems with slogans, because in fact his policy is a policy of heavy debt, heavy tax and heavy-handedness in this regard and really most of the business community believes that his policies are driving business and opportunities out of this province. What is he going to do to reverse this situation? Only he, as leader of this brave democratic socialist government, can act at this time.

[Applause]

Mr Nixon: While a scattering of his support responds with approval in that connection, the people out there are very much concerned indeed about the inadequacies of his policies. What does he plan to do to correct this situation?

Hon Mr Rae: First, let me say to the people of the province that I think everybody in this government shares their concerns and takes them enormously seriously. When I talk to business leaders about taxes, if there is any government they single out for its incompetence, for its heavy-handedness and for what it has done to small business and large business, it is the government for which the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer for five long, hard years. That is the reality and he knows it full well.

If he wants to have an argument about what has happened to Ontario's tax structure, if he wants to have an argument about what has happened to Ontario's competitiveness and if he wants to have an argument about what has happened in terms of business confidence, let me say that the former Treasurer has a heavy burden to carry in terms of his own personal responsibility for the situation which we found when we took office in September. He knows that full well.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The decision that we as a government made this year, to invest, is a decision of which I am proud and a decision which I am confident will contribute far more jobs to the economy than if we had sat on our hands and simply watched the deficit increase the way the Liberals were doing when they were in power.

Mr Nixon: We are still the only government since 1948 that paid down the provincial debt. It is interesting to see what the Tories are going to do about that, what the NDP are going to do about that, spending their way out of recession. What a policy that is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Nixon: While the Premier wipes his chin in satisfaction, I will direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. She, as well as all other sensitive people in the province, will know that the Liberal task force visited Smiths Falls yesterday and was astounded to learn that the Ministry of the Environment has yet to act on the grave situation involving that town and many others in the province. I mention the village of Clifford and the town of Fort Frances, where the lack of sewage disposal facilities has totally suspended any sorts of development or job opportunity development in those communities.

In the case of Smiths Falls, the facility requires $20 million and the town has a total budget of only $9 million. What is the minister doing to assist in solving these problems that are affecting the economy of the province so extensively?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am indeed well aware of the backlog in spending on infrastructure renewal that exists across this province, and in fact across this country, since the evacuation of that responsibility by our federal government some years ago. What this government is doing is looking very seriously at the amount of capital spending that can be put into the rebuilding of those sewage treatment plants, especially in areas where we know that the capacity has been extended.

I think if the honourable Leader of the Opposition will look at the increase in my ministry's budget that was included in the budget and in the deficit which he finds so very hard to accept, he will see that is precisely what we are doing.

Hon Mr Rae: You complain about the deficit, then you get up and ask for more spending.

Mr Nixon: The Premier is just aching to answer this question in his own typical situation, but the minister would be aware that in the 1991-92 conditional grant allocation for municipalities which she is referring to that deals with this, the amount of increase for sewer and water projects was 0.8% in a budget increase of 13.4%. We know where the money went, but it certainly did not go for sewer and water.

How can the minister indicate that the budget of this province is allocated, at least in part, to this important responsibility for cleaning up the sewage and for giving and guaranteeing clean water when in fact the Treasurer did not allocate those dollars? They have done nothing but simply blame other governments -- thank God, not ours, because under the leadership of the member for St Catharines we took great strides to correct this situation.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition wants to be fair, because I know the Leader of the Opposition is inherently a fair individual, and I am sure, in looking at those figures, he would want to add to them the $700 million that was part of the Treasurer's anti-recessionary spending, a major proportion of which went to municipalities for precisely the kind of spending that the Leader of the Opposition is asking about.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister had the good grace, not shared by the leader of her government, not to blame us for inadequate policy. Just as our proposals for long-term care have now been accepted by the government after the former Minister of Health put them through her fine-tooth comb, surely the minister should be aware that our proposal for a water and sewer corporation, which was part of last year's budget -- it would have been in operation 1 January this year -- is a reasonable alternative that would move towards these solutions. Is she going to accept that concept, and if not, what is her alternative?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am well aware of the proposal by the previous government that such a corporation should be established. I am also well aware that under the previous government's view of what that corporation would do, it was seen, frankly, as a pro-development tool to encourage urban sprawl and the development of areas where perhaps that might not be the appropriate solution.

As the member is well aware, our government has asked for a review of that concept and a deputy minister has been appointed, responsible to me and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am sure a response as to the future of that corporation will be available shortly.

Mr Scott: Bob is getting tired of this ideological baloney. Get going. Do something.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Hon Mrs Grier: Regardless of whether the funding comes to an independent corporation or whether the funding comes from my ministry or from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the bottom line is spending. We are very aware of that. We are very aware there has been inadequate spending on sewer and water for five years, and we realize that is a problem that has to be addressed.

Mr Nixon: There is $484 million extra for doctors, 11% extra for civil servants, but no clean water for Smiths Falls.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: If I can get it in over the leader of the Liberal Party, the tax man himself, I wonder if I could have a question to the Premier. Would the Premier tell us what restraint measures, if any, he has put in place in his office and the Cabinet Office to cut costs during this recession?

Hon Mr Rae: With respect to my own estimates, I think the leader of the third party will find that in the Office of the Premier there has been a pretty modest increase, I think of a few per cent, and in the Cabinet Office an increase of 7.4% overall, year over year. With respect to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, there are some changes with respect to the situation because of the seriousness of the constitutional crisis, which members from all sides have been asking us to respond to.

But on the whole, our spending estimates -- I think I am correct in saying this; at least, I sure hope I am -- are certainly well below the overall increases that have taken place in the rest of the government.

Mr Harris: I know the Premier thinks 7.4%, on top of the bloated bureaucracy Premier Peterson had, is somehow or other his idea of restraint. I can tell him that taxpayers do not think a 7.4% increase is.

I would like to point out a specific increase. Not only has the Premier not cut costs and waste in his offices, he has increased his spending by a substantial amount. I would like to ask about one in particular. The Premier is now spending an additional $325,800 of taxpayers' money for, and I quote from his estimates of the Cabinet Office, "Increased work for daily briefings for the Premier for preparation for question period."

How can the Premier justify spending an additional third of a million dollars to prep himself for question period when his Cabinet Office already costs taxpayers some $8 million a year?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I am sure there are many --

Mr Scott: If we don't ask any questions, can we have the money back? I'll give up if I can have the money back.

Hon Mr Rae: If I can just get over the response from the member for St George-St David -- I think his bow-tie is too tight today -- I would only say that, first of all, the member refers to an $8-million budget. That is incorrect. The 1991-92 estimates are $5.8 million. I think we are both reading from the same sheet.

Second, when the member uses his quotation for the explanation, he conveniently leaves out two other aspects of an explanation of why there is a $325,800 increase. I just think it is important for people to know that there has been some very selective reading by the leader of the third party. It says, "Large amount of additional correspondence to deal with; increased work for daily briefings for the Premier for preparation for question period, and managing corporate issues."

I can only tell members that I am told by my staff that, for whatever reason, we have had an extremely enlarged flow of correspondence in comparison with any --

Mr Scott: It's people complaining. Read the letters.

Hon Mr Rae: I do read the letters. I can only tell the leader of the third party that since 6 September, there has been an extraordinary increase in the flow of correspondence. It may have something to do with our being a more open government than our predecessors.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We also have an increased need to deal with freedom-of-information requests and, I might add, other inquiries that were put forward by members of opposition parties and others with respect to the work of government.

Mr Harris: The $325,000 is over and above -- I mean, the Premier already got some 7.4%, as he talks about.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's not over and above.

Mr Harris: No, that is right, he got 7.4%.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes.

Mr Harris: And then he got $325,000 more here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: People have got to spend their way out of a recession in their own way.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I know. This is quite a lively exchange. It would be helpful if the leader of the third party could direct his supplementary question to the Chair and allow but one member on the government side to respond.

Mr Harris: I want to zero in particularly on the $325,000. In an average sessional year, we estimate the Premier answers some 300 questions. That means taxpayers now have to pay, in addition to the $5 million or $6 million or $8 million that is being spent there, an additional $1,000 for every question the Premier answers. Quite frankly, we and the people of Ontario do not think we are getting our money's worth.

The average taxpayer does not make $1,000 a week to support his entire family. I would like to know what the Premier has to say to the people who have to support, through their taxes, an additional $1,000 of their tax dollars that go up in hot air every time he gets up on his feet to answer a question.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the leader of the third party talked about an $8-million expenditure. It is a $5.8-million expenditure. Okay, so there we are.

Then he talks about 7.4%, and then he adds on another $325,000. He should know full well the 7.4% is the full amount. The $325,800 is included in that amount.

The actual expenditure for 1991 last year was $6.6 million, so in fact our estimates for next year show a reduction of some $800,000 overall in comparison to what was spent last year.

Then he makes the allegation, when I have already told him that we are talking about having to deal promptly with public correspondence -- when I became Premier, I was concerned about the length of time it was taking for the public to get responses to the questions they were putting to us and I asked that we speed up the turnaround time and that we make sure we were improving that in terms of service to the public. I think we are being careful with public expenditure in the Cabinet Office and in the Premier's office, and I will compare that expenditure with the leader of the third party's any day of the week.

Mr Harris: I do have a second question for the Premier, but when I clearly said that the Premier's office and his Cabinet Office cost taxpayers more than $8 million, he conveniently left off the Premier's office. I assumed that the Premier's office was support staff for him. Maybe it is for Bob White, maybe it is for somebody else, but I assumed he was the Premier and that money was for him.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier. He will know that I have long called for and been supportive of stronger legislation to protect the rights of workers, not just to have Sunday off as a matter of fact, but for all full-time workers to be able to have a day of the week off that suits their family circumstance.

Yesterday the Solicitor General tried to explain away his earlier comment that the government's legislation to protect employees from working on Sundays is weak and unenforceable. Since he obviously had a hand in this legislation and in drafting this bill, I would like to ask the Premier if he believes that his party's and his government's new legislation will allow workers the right to refuse to work on Sundays.

Hon Mr Rae: I do feel that it provides for that right, and I do feel that, in the circumstances, it makes an important statement about the rights workers have, just as our occupational health and safety legislation, which was produced by the member's party when the Conservatives were in office and supported by all three parties, also provides for a right to refuse unsafe work. It seems to me that it is important for legislation to contain those rights, and that is exactly what the legislation does.

Mr Harris: We agree it makes an important statement, one that we support and have been calling for for a considerable period of time. I accept the Premier's assurances that in fact it is more than an important statement but it actually provides protection. But there are thousands of Ontarians who want the opportunity to work on Sundays: students who need extra money; parents who need two incomes; thousands of struggling retailers all across Ontario, but particularly in tourist communities and in border communities, who want to open on Sundays, who need the additional revenues to stay in business.

If the Premier is convinced his labour legislation is so strong that it protects every single retail worker who does not want to work on Sunday, can he explain why we need his other bill, which is merely a new version of the current Liberal law?

Hon Mr Rae: I will tell members what our legislation is. If they look at the history of this question in the House over the last several years, and the leader of the third party and I have both been here for the time this was being discussed, first of all at the end of the Conservative government through the 1985-87 period his then leader, Larry Grossman, got up and said he was on one side of the issue; then his party reversed itself and said no, it took a different position. One of the members of his caucus, the member for London North, has been a leader on this question.

We support a common pause day, recognizing the validity of the tourism exemption, and that is precisely the direction we have taken. It seems to me that it is a direction that is entirely consistent with the mood of the majority of the members of this House and of this assembly over the last decade, and that is all it is.

Mr Harris: We are losing $2.2 billion and 14,000 jobs to cross-border shopping, part of that as a direct result of Sunday closings. Hudson's Bay estimates it lost 4,800 jobs since its stores were forced to close on Sundays.

Many believe the government's new legislation quite frankly is a sham. It does nothing to help ease the burden of our retailers. All it does is maintain responsibility for Sunday shopping to the municipalities, something the Premier vigorously opposed when he was in opposition, and on top of that it now passes on all the costs. It is provincial legislation against the objections of the municipalities, and now it offloads all the costs on to municipalities.

I ask the Premier, how does he justify this new legislation not being asked for by municipalities? They do not want the responsibility. He knows that well; that was his position. How does he justify bringing in this bill which reinforces that it is their responsibility, something he opposed, and now offloads all the costs of enforcing it on to the municipalities as well?

Hon Mr Rae: During the entire decade of the 1970s when the Progressive Conservatives were in office, the question of designating tourism was in the hands of the municipalities. That was true throughout the 1980s, when the member for Nipissing was a member of the cabinet of Frank Miller. The position we have taken as a government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member for Etobicoke West wishes to make interjections, which of course we know are out of order, he needs to be in his seat in order to be out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the member that the balance we have struck, in terms of the tourism exemption and the fact that the municipalities are responsible for designating that, is not any significant change in the responsibility of municipalities from what was the case prior to the former legislation. Municipalities always had the responsibility with respect to bylaws on tourism.

What would the member rather have? Would he rather have a provincial bureaucracy with an additional cost of $1 million or $2 million? Is that the kind of solution he would like us to have? He should make up his mind in terms of what he wants.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: I will direct my question to the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Yesterday the CBC reported about the Ombudsman conducting an investigation into the operation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In that report, the Ombudsman discloses in part that due to the tremendous backlog choking the commission and the lack of adequate staff to process the investigative claims, many cases have been jeopardized because of that process.

The minister seems to feel that the appointment of five commissioners, who will sit one week every three months, will somehow magically cure the serious problems afflicting the commission. Will the minister please advise the House how she expects the part-time commissioners to perform such miraculous feats?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, the commissioners meet every six weeks and not every three months, and they meet for three days. But what I want to talk about is a new plan for case management. I think that is very important, because that is really what we want to address.

This year we have focused on supporting an effective case management plan and we are going to make sure that all staff working in other areas will be working on case management. There is a task force on older cases. This will be extended another year. These people who work on the task force doing the older cases are experienced staff who have a reliable background and are working very hard to make sure that backlog and the very serious cases are addressed quickly. We are fast-tracking and making a very straightforward process for the straightforward cases that can be addressed easily and quickly.

The very complex cases are being assigned to experienced staff so they can be addressed in a meaningful way. We have also started an early settlement initiative and the early --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her remarks please?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The case management program plan is very long and detailed. I am just saying that we have a definite case planning and are working towards that and we do have a lot more initiatives in place to settle the case management backlog.

Mr Curling: I should put to the minister again that the commissioners do not look after the day-to-day operation and they will not resolve the backlog, as she seems to have indicated. The $12 million the previous government, the Liberal government, put in there will end by October of this year. There is no money there. The minister did not fight for any other money. There was no money there to increase. We need money to employ people and to look after the backlog. Of course the Ombudsman stated in the report, as disclosed by the CBC, that it may be a good, sound management process, but the money is needed to do that.

Will the minister fight to get more money so that the backlog can be addressed? She should not depend on the commissioners to feel that when they meet occasionally, this will eventually clear up all the backlog.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Last year, $3 million of new money was allocated to the OHRC. We felt this year that the new case management program had only been implemented in September and needed some time to be addressed and looked into, and we did not feel we needed more money at this particular time to address that issue.

What we had to do was to look at how to address the case management plan. Obviously, last year the increase of $3 million did not address the backlog; it did not reduce the backlog; it did not make a difference. The $3 million made no difference at all. We just saw an increase in the backlog and that is how it was. We decided this year that we wanted to implement and use our money creatively in a fiscally responsible way and make sure the cases were managed in a very proper way. As I said, we have a very long, extensive process of making sure that we are fast-tracking and that there are new processes in place.

The new commissioners who are going into place will work as a team with the commissioners who are there already and with the staff, to make sure the cases are handled properly.

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship as well. It deals with a problem of 1991 and I hope she does not try to give me an answer, like the Premier, that solves the problem of 20 years ago.

In the report last night that was aired by CBC -- and it is typical of the Liberals; they think the solution to every problem is to spend more money. I want to congratulate the minister for not falling prey to that trap, unlike virtually the rest of her colleagues, including the Premier and the Treasurer. What concerned me about the report was that $3 million of new money was added in 1989 and the backlog is longer. I understand the Liberals think they will spend even more money and that the problem will be even worse.

What does the minister have to say about allegations that the $3 million was misspent and that it went into middle management and not into hiring case workers and into the types of programs that would actually clean up the backlog? Could she give us a report on that?

Interjections.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am having a hard time answering the questions, as my colleagues are saying to me that I am being called Mr Minister when I am really Madam Minister, but that is fine.

We were concerned about the way the money was spent last year and as we saw, the $3 million had been put into a budget. I am pleased to say that with the new process of case management and the fact that new staff has been hired -- a new executive director has been hired since that money has been allocated; she was hired in June of last year and she is working very hard to manage within the system.

I really have to congratulate the staff at the OHRC and also the commissioners because they have been working under a very difficult situation. When there is a big backlog, when the community is upset, there is concern and they have worked under great stress. Their morale has picked up. The turnover in staff has really diminished. In fact, they are at a low in staff turnover compared to other years. The staff is working very hard and trying to work in a team effort. I thank the member for congratulating us for not being fiscally irresponsible.

Mr Harris: The second aspect of the report of last night that concerned me immensely was that instead of spending time solving the backlog, it appeared as though the staff at the Ontario Human Rights Commission were spending more of their time and effort in how they could thwart the investigation of another provincial government agency, that of the Ombudsman, which was in there trying to help and to make recommendations on how we could improve the system.

I wonder if the minister could tell us why one agency of this government is spending time and money thwarting an investigation by another agency of this government, both surely trying to come up with solutions to the problem of this horrendous backlog.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I really think the staff of the OHRC have worked very hard and very closely with the Office of the Ombudsman. I have the confidence of the staff. We have a lot of new staff, and this report was started in 1989. Since then, in those two years that have transpired, the staff has changed dramatically and the co-operation between the Ombudsman's office and the staff has been handled very well.

I have to say they have been working under extreme pressure, they have tried to accomplish miracles, they have now looked at a very good way of case management and they are working very hard to address their problems. I think we really have to support them. Human rights and people with human rights violations are the responsibility of everyone. Every one of us here -- and this is not a political discussion -- has to take responsibility to make sure that people do not have their human rights violated. I wish to have the co-operation of every member of this staff that we can eliminate racism and prejudiced environments.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

Mr Winninger: My question is directed at the Attorney General. At present, family court judges, with the exception of the Unified Family Court in Hamilton, are limited in the rulings they can make regarding the best interest of children. For example, a judge cannot challenge the authority of the children's aid society to place or transfer a ward to or from a particular setting unless there has been a clear abuse of statutory authority, since judges at the provincial level lack the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior judges.

Given that in a Unified Family Court judges would have an overriding authority to assess whether a placement is in the best interest of the child and if necessary, to find alternatives to serve a child in his own family or community, what steps are being taken to establish a Unified Family Court across Ontario, since the report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services recommended in November 1990 the creation of a Unified Family Court at the superior level?

Hon Mr Hampton: The question is indeed a good one and a timely one. We have indicated to the federal government our desire to talk about the concept of a Unified Family Court in Ontario, because we are certainly aware of the problems and concerns with respect to the family court structure as it now exists and are hopeful that we will receive a favourable response from the federal government.

Mr Winninger: When the Unified Family Court is established, will the jurisdiction of these judges extend to all cases concerning the welfare of children, including divorce and division of property?

Hon Mr Hampton: We are interested in talking with the federal Minister of Justice about the whole concept of the Unified Family Court. It would clearly be our goal to put in place a Unified Family Court which allows the court to deal with all issues pertaining to family law and to the best interests of the child.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: It is always a pleasure to welcome the Premier back. When he has been out lecturing in lands where he has no responsibility, he comes back rejuvenated, behaving just like the old opposition member he still inherently is.

I would like to ask him about conflict of interest under his government. He supplemented the Members' Conflict of Interest Act with the much-vaunted Premier's guidelines, which were to put all matters to rest but which have -- what shall I say? -- not exactly been a roaring success on the ground.

After six months, we have seen the secret modification that went to his caucus. We have hired a Bay Street lawyer to figure out who divested and who did not and why and why not. We have seen ministers and parliamentary assistants obliged to answer about a wide variety of things.

One of the simplest things in the conflict-of-interest act is the rule respecting gifts, which provides, under subsection 6(1), that a member is not allowed to receive any gift in excess of a certain amount or any gift that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties.

An hon member: Question, question.

Mr Scott: We are coming to the question and I think he will be interested to hear it.

An hon member: Not getting paid by the hour here.

Mr Scott: I know he is not paid by the hour here. What I want to ask the Premier is what he would think if it came to his attention that the parliamentary assistant to the Chairman of Management Board received a very handsome cheque made out in his own name some six weeks ago for addressing a public meeting or a convention meeting on the subjects that are inherent in his ministry.

Hon Mr Rae: I think any such cheque should be promptly returned.

Mr Scott: What would the Premier make of the fact that the commissioner said it should be returned and that he wanted confirmation from the secretary to the Premier that it had been returned? What would he make of the fact that the request was made some three weeks ago, 23 May, and that there has been no response? There is no indication that the cheque has been returned. There is no letter in the commissioner's office from Mr Agnew that the cheque has been returned. Is this the way badly paid parliamentary assistants are going to be allowed to supplement their incomes under the Premier's guidelines?

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure that, in the interest of fairness, the member for St George-St David would want to give me a chance to ask the member about this. But let me make it very clear to the member for St George-St David that I am sure any such cheque should be returned. I have made that very clear and, as far as I am concerned, that is basic.

Mr Scott: So is it going back?

Hon Mr Rae: Absolutely, and I answer that in terms of my first question.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I was amazed and actually very disappointed that this minister announced the formation of an advisory committee on the new heritage legislation. The previous government launched a heritage policy review four years ago. Last May we finally received its new heritage policy and draft legislation. Fifty-four groups submitted feedback on the proposals. Now the minister's advisory committee will not report to him until November. In the meantime, our history is being torn down.

My question is, given the urgent need to protect our historical buildings, why is this minister delaying the introduction of new heritage legislation?

Hon Mr Marchese: This minister is not delaying the legislation I hopefully will be able to bring it once we have been able to bring all of the heritage activists together, and many of them are in this advisory group. Many of these members have been consulted about what the draft had put together, based on the consultations that had happened, and many of them have told us that their views were not reflected in that draft.

To be able to bring a comprehensive report together, I have put together an advisory group of heritage activists so that they can respond to the new draft, the new discussion paper we have put together. We are meeting in July, and in early September as well, to review all of this so we can have a comprehensive legislation or comprehensive policy that will protect our heritage buildings and our non-tangible heritage as well.

Mrs Marland: This minister is stalling. We have had four years of review and consultation. There is no reason the government cannot introduce the legislation now, then have it go out to committee for consultation and public input.

As a matter of fact, his parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands, said on 20 December, "I am sure that we realize they need support from the Ministry of Culture and Communications...in a strengthened heritage bill which will be introduced in the near future." That is six months ago that his own parliamentary assistant made that statement. In the meantime, London, Markham and Toronto have had to pass private bills to protect their heritage buildings.

Is that what this government advocates, a private bill for every municipality in the province in order to save our heritage buildings and with them our precious Ontario heritage? Is that really what this government is all about?

Hon Mr Marchese: I appreciate the member's concern and welcome the questions she raises. I want to assure her that this ministry wants to play a leadership role in making sure that we do not destroy our heritage, both our property and non-tangible heritage.

I want to point out to the member again that if we had put out the draft that was ready a few months ago, we would have delayed the legislation even longer, because those very people we would have consulted would have told us: "This does not reflect this. Go back and do it again." We would then have had to go back and consult again to make sure we had reflected their views accurately. What we are doing is making sure that all the questions are answered in the beginning so as to ensure the process is not delayed in the end.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Hansen: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I question the minister's statement regarding the retraining agreement for the laid-off steelworkers of Sault Ste Marie. Why was it necessary for this agreement to be made? Is the operating grant that the Minister of Colleges and Universities provided to the Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology not supposed to cover the cost of this type of training?

Hon Mr Allen: Certainly the colleges are provided with funds to accommodate this type of training, but not the unusual and irregular numbers of enrolments that occur under these specific circumstances, which the formula is not designed to accommodate. In point of fact, the enrolment at Sault College is entirely full in terms of the grant allocations that have been transferred for this year. In a discussion this morning with the president of the college, Ron Doyle, he told me they had had a 67% increase in applicants for the first year over last year's numbers.

We were faced with a very simple situation. Were we going to simply displace community members in courses to which they wanted access in order to give preference to the Canadian Steel Trades and Employment Congress and the laid-off workers in the Algoma community, or were we going to provide additional funds in order to make that happen? We decided to take the latter course, to help the college accommodate that unusual enrolment in order to provide training for those laid-off workers in the Sault.

Mr Hansen: How long will this agreement last?

Hon Mr Allen: In the first instance, the program will last two years, but it is open-ended in the sense that if the federal government is prepared to put further funding into the CSTEC part of the agreement and extend it over a longer period of time, this government will match that funding and prolong the program.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD ANIMALS

Mr Poirier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As the minister is quite aware, operators of companies that retrieve dead animals from Ontario farms are going through some extremely difficult times, to the point that at least one of the major operators has ceased operations as of 31 May. His own ministry's recent audit of the finances of six typical deadstock dealers has shown that for 1991 the predicted average loss per operator will be about $125,000, and for some about $500,000.

Licensed deadstock recuperators used to pick up deadstock free of charge to farmers because they used to make some profit from the sales of animal hides, meat, bones and byproducts. Unfortunately, prices paid to deadstock dealers for these products have now fallen through the floor, to the point that some companies now want to charge the deadstock dealers for taking these products. How is the minister going to resolve soon this incredible predicament that farmers and deadstock operators are caught in?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to assure the member that this is not a new problem for this minister. This is a problem that we encountered immediately on 1 October, when we started dealing with it from my ministry's perspective. There were meetings with the operators. We met with the deadstock dealer-operator association. We have had several meetings with the various commodity groups. The member makes a good point when he states that the commodities they have to sell in order to cover their expenses and make a reasonable profit have been in serious decline, and projections are not good for the industry.

The meetings we had with the various farm commodity groups were an attempt to have these groups look at a checkoff or some way of providing money for the industry, rather than having a direct grant from the government. We were unable to resolve that issue with a checkoff; however, the commodity groups, producers, have supported the concept of user pay. The government has endorsed that concept. Not all the operators are happy with it, but they have been trying to cope with that system in order to continue to provide service.

It is a difficult situation for farmers when they are asked to pay for a pickup, especially when they have lost an animal, but it is a situation we are working with. We are going to advertise the seriousness of the problem and continue to monitor the situation.

Mr Poirier: The minister and his colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment will be especially interested in the following: We all know that the law says it is the responsibility of farmers to dispose of their dead animals by opting for one of two options -- either burying the animal under at least two feet of earth within 24 hours of its death or having it removed by a licensed deadstock dealer.

As the minister knows, some deadstock dealers caught in the sudden financial vise have tried to implement a direct user fee to the farmers for recuperating their dead animals. This has proved to be a fiasco as they have since noted a substantial reduction of deadstock picked up at farms. I wonder what is happening to the missing carcasses. Evidence seems to indicate that direct user fees result in the fact that carcasses may be disposed of in manners contrary to the law, with possible grave consequences to the environment and the public's health, especially in the winter months.

The best way to ensure that all farmers will call licensed deadstock dealers each time a dead animal needs to be picked up is for the minister to implement a commodity checkoff per animal or product unit sold by farmers. Would the minister please confirm that he will not implement a direct user fee for farmers, but instead will put in place soon a checkoff system?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We continue to explore that. We would need to work in co-operation with the various commodity groups if we were going to look at a checkoff. In fact, I personally support that. I think it is a much more uniform system and probably would provide better service to the farmers in rural Ontario. However, it is not up to me to impose that. We continue to have negotiations with the various commodity groups. Some of the groups do support the concept of a checkoff and others do not.

With the closure of the one large operator in eastern Ontario to which the member referred, I think this will bring the problem more to a head and perhaps all of the livestock groups can come together and agree on a checkoff.

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Sterling: I also have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I advised his staff earlier today that I would be asking this question because I would like a real answer. How much is the minister spending to oppose the building of the Palladium for the Ottawa Senators in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton? How much is his ministry spending in opposing this application for rezoning of this land?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I cannot answer the question at this time; the Ontario Municipal Board hearing is taking place. This is a question of considerable note that is before the hearing and I do not feel it is appropriate for me to give out the answer to that question at this time.

Mr Sterling: If the Palladium is not built on its present site, everyone should realize there will not be Ottawa Senators in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

These hearings are going on for eight weeks. The ministry has hired top legal outside counsel; it has hired at least five, six or seven expert witnesses. The hearings are to go on for some eight weeks. I have heard estimates that it is going to cost the proponent, Bruce Firestone, who is appearing in front of the OMB today, probably in the neighbourhood of $1 million to go through this process. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the chief opponent to this application.

The people in eastern Ontario are asking why the minister is spending all of his resources to fight this particular application for 98 acres of perhaps class 2 agricultural land, when there are thousands and thousands of acres of class 1 agricultural land in southwestern Ontario going into urbanization with little but a nod from his ministry. What does he have against the Ottawa Senators? What does his government have against eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to assure the member for Carleton that this government has nothing against the Ottawa Senators. What the ministry is doing is upholding the Food Land Guidelines which suggest that if there are alternative sites that are suitable, the farm land should be preserved. That is what we are doing, upholding the Food Land Guidelines which say if there are alternative sites, then that land should be preserved for farm land.

I would remind the member this is a new government that believes in preserving farm land, class 1 and class 2. These are not the old days. I remember back in the heyday of his party's government when we had 21 acres per hour going out of production. This government believes in preserving agricultural farm land.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We will continue to fight to preserve agricultural land through the OMB and through other processes, because we believe it is very important to preserve the farm land and the farmers. We also believe it is important to have this hockey team in Ottawa. We think there are alternative sites and we will do what --

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please.

FRENCHMAN'S BAY

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I attended a meeting last night with a number of residents who live around Frenchman's Bay in my riding. There is a considerable amount of concern developing over what is happening in Frenchman's Bay with potential silting up and development around the edges. I would like to ask the minister whether she has had a chance to review the situation with Frenchman's Bay, and what is happening with her ministry.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to respond to that question because I know the area and the ecosystem of Frenchman's Bay have been considerably stressed over recent years and there is enormous pressure for development in that area. I am glad to be able to share with the House the fact that we have had a consultant look at all the reports -- and I think there are 20 of them -- that have been done over the years and prepare a comprehensive overview of the state of the bay.

My understanding is that the report is almost completed, at which point it will be released. I hope the local municipality and the groups in the area will have some public discussion and a public debate as to what we can do to protect that very special area.

PETITIONS

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Jackson: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislature of Ontario:

"We demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social worker act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

This petition is signed by several hundred social workers and health care professionals and has my signature of support as well.

Mr Miclash: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Yes, I demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

This petition is signed by 74 people and I attach my signature to it.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: I have a petition here, signed by 39 people in Kapuskasing. They are concerned about the accomodation mamagement information system plan they are talking about putting into effect which would involve a direct layoff of 1,200 people, and in the whole community it would involve 6,000 people. It is signed by 39 people, and it is my pleasure to present this in the House today.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Ramsay: I have a petition here that I am pleased to present on behalf of my constituents, although I do not agree with the contents of the petition:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayers are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board,

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We request the government to act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

This petition is signed by 114 people from the southwest Ontario area including London, Brantford, Windsor and Stratford, and I have signed my name to this petition.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Callahan: I have a petition here signed by numerous people. It reads:

"Do you disagree with tripling the deficit? Have you had enough of tax increases? If yes, voice your dissatisfaction. Sign below. We will send this form to Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren."

I submit the petition and I have signed it myself.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MULTIMOBILE CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1991

Mr Offer moved first reading of Pr65,

An Act to revive Multimobile Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC ACT, 1991

Mr Mahoney moved first reading of Bill Pr42,

An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA -CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

M. Cooke propose la première lecture du projet de loi 123, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT, 1991

Mr Hope moved first reading of Bill Pr75,

An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mme Cunningham propose la première lecture du projet de loi 124, Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mrs Cunningham: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Highway Traffic Act to require that bicyclists wear helmets. The reason we are introducing this bill is that statistics in Ontario and Canada speak for themselves: 60 children will die in bike accidents in Canada this year, most from head injuries, and over 5,000 children will be seriously injured. Bicyclists with helmets have an 85% reduction in the risk of a head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of a brain injury. The purpose of this bill is to prevent such tragedies, and we will be doing this bill two weeks from now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming consideration of Bill 81,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 81, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

The Speaker: Yesterday, pursuant to standing order 27(g), the division requested on the motion for second reading of Bill 81 was deferred until immediately following routine proceedings today.

The House divided on Mr Laughren's motion for second reading of Bill 81, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Laughren pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 81, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour -- 63

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre -- 28

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cordiano, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Marland, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

OPPOSITION DAY: ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Kwinter moved opposition day motion 4:

That in the opinion of this House, this government has failed to recognize and address the massive deindustrialization and restructuring under way in the Ontario economy which has led to the loss of 248,000 jobs since the New Democratic Party assumed power, the erosion of Ontario's quality of life and the destruction of the fabric of manufacturing and resource communities.

Therefore, this House calls upon the Premier and the Treasurer to provide leadership in establishing true working partnerships with business and labour to reorient the province's fiscal priorities, attract new investment and new jobs, improve competitiveness and train and retrain Ontario workers in order to enable Ontario industry and workers to compete in an increasingly global market.

Mr Kwinter: I rise to speak on a topic that is causing me some great concern. If members will look at the motion, it does not really blame the government for creating this problem. I do not think anyone would be as naïve as to think that on 6 September suddenly everything in Ontario went, as the expression goes, to hell in a handbasket.

There is no question there are cyclical things that happen in the economy and this government had the misfortune of getting into government at the time when the economy was down in the same way we had the good fortune of being in power during five years of unprecedented growth in Ontario. Again, I do not want to mislead anybody to think we would assume to take credit for those five years of unprecedented growth, growth that in fact was so unprecedented it was the leading economy in the industrialized world during much of that time.

What I do feel is that this government has failed to recognize and address the massive problems that are taking place, and what is even worse, it has exacerbated the problem.

I was at committee the other day and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology appeared to talk about cross-border shopping, and one of the causes was free trade, according to him. When I pointed out to him, "Could you tell me one single item that has either gone up or gone down as a result of free trade?" he said: "Technically, you're right. There's no question that that hasn't happened, but there is a climate, and free trade has created this negative climate." So what I would like to do is talk about some of the climate conditions that we have in Ontario and how this government has failed to address them.

Members will remember that on 30 November an ad appeared in the Wall Street Journal and it said, "Investors beware." It went on to talk about the problems under a New Democratic government in Ontario and it finished by saying, "If you once thought Ontario was a safe place to invest, think again." I want to hasten to say that I think this ad was irresponsible. I do not in any way condone the people who put the ad in the Wall Street Journal. Having said that, the fact is that this ad was in the Wall Street Journal; it reached a million decision-makers in the United States who were in a position to possibly affect a decision to invest in Ontario, and they saw this ad.

On 17 December Barron's, which is the official organ of Dow Jones, the bible of the investment industry in the United States and for that matter the investment world, had an editorial, and the editorial is headed, "Ontario Hydra" -- not Hydro but Hydra -- "In Canada a New Socialist Threat Raises Its Ugly Head."

What is significant about that article, other than the fact that it is very derogatory about the government, is that during that week Margaret Thatcher was literally holding on by a thread in the United Kingdom, the Persian Gulf war was just getting under way, Mexico and the United States announced that they were going to be pursuing a North American free trade agreement, and there was significant news out of Europe 1992 and significant news out of GATT, but Barron's, an American publication, the official spokesorgan of Dow Jones, used its editorial page to deride what was happening in Ontario, saying, in its final words, "Let foreign buyers beware."

You add to that the budget that came out on 29 April. We already know what has happened there. The bond rating services have downgraded Ontario's credit worthiness. I admit that other than the money and maybe some embarrassment -- I do not know whether there is any embarrassment or not -- it is not that significant in itself, but it is really just one more thing to add to the picture of Ontario.

When the Treasurer went down to New York not too long ago, there were comments in the media by American counsellors for people investing in Ontario saying, "I'm telling my people to pull out."

Add to that Bill 70. Without question, the government has obviously seen the error of its ways and has retracted the most objectionable parts of Bill 70. But the major concern about Bill 70 is not so much its draconian provisions, but the fact that about 30 people in this government, the cabinet, sat down, must have heard all of the provisions of Bill 70, must have been told what it meant and what it was, and they thought it was fine.

Obviously they thought it was fine because it was introduced, which meant that the Premier of Ontario thought it was fine, and that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology thought it was great. He must have thought it was great, or he has no voice in cabinet. The Treasurer obviously thought it was fine, and everybody else in that cabinet thought that Bill 70, with all its provisions, was just fine.

What happened, as we all know, is that the bill was introduced. I can say as a member of the previous government for nearly six years that we had some controversial bills. We had our share of them. But as to the angst and the negative impact on the business community of that act, I have not heard of anyone having that same feeling about any other bill that we brought in, and I have to tell members we brought in some beauties. I say "beauties" in the sense that they really alienated some people.

Obviously the message got through, but what has happened is that the feeling is there that here is a government that does not seem to really care about its ability to attract investment. Is that important? Should we worry about it?

I should tell members that Ontario is one of the most trade-dependent jurisdictions in the world and one of the most investment-sensitive jurisdictions in the world. When you take a look at the major plant closings, almost without exception they are all controlled by offshore companies.

The sad part of this tale is that if a Canadian company goes bust or shuts down, that is normally because it has gone bankrupt or the owner has died, or for some reason the company goes down. When you have these multinationals going down, the main reason is that either the plant they have is no longer competitive, is not productive, or there has been a corporate decision to rationalize, to downsize, or as some would call it to rightsize, and they take a look at all their options. They have lots of options and that is one of the benefits and one of the problems of having foreign investment in your jurisdiction.

I have used this line before, but Tennessee Williams wrote A Streetcar Named Desire, and Blanche Du Bois, in one of her final lines, says, "I have always been dependent on the kindness of strangers." That is really what Canada is. Canada has always been dependent on the kindness of strangers. When we wanted our resources developed, we had to go to the United Kingdom, to the United States and to other European countries, and more recently we have gone to the Far East, to Hong Kong, to Korea and to Japan, and we are very active. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will tell members that we have a network around the world trying to attract industry and investment to Ontario.

It is competitive, I can tell members. I have sat down and negotiated with companies like Ford, where we are competing intracompany. I remember a situation where there was a decision whether the plant should go to St Louis, Missouri, or whether it should go to Oakville. The decision is made at the boardroom table and the people at Ford in St Louis are as anxious an