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

March 22, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LANDFILL

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TRANSIT SERVICES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HOSPITAL BEDS

LANDFILL

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

LORING DEER YARD

PETERBOROUGH GREEN-UP

VISITOR

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

FAMILY FARMS

STUDENT SUSPENSION

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SPENDING

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

TUITION FEES

ROLE OF MINISTER

DE LA SALLE COLLEGE

JOB CREATION

APOLOGY

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PAY EQUITY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PAY EQUITY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

HAEMODIALYSIS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

GUN CONTROL

PAY EQUITY

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

LANDFILL

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

TOWN OF BOTHWELL ACT, 1994

TOWNSHIP OF HURON AND VILLAGE OF RIPLEY ACT, 1994

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

CAPITOL THEATRE AND ARTS CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1994

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1994

FINANCIAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 PORTANT RÉFORME DE DIVERSES LOIS RELATIVES AUX SERVICES FINANCIERS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The people of Vaughan, and indeed of all York region, have been fighting for the past three years to convince the government of Ontario that their proposal to put a massive new waste fill -- landfill -- site in the city of Vaughan is both misguided and must be defeated.

The organization Vaughan CARES has been working diligently on behalf of the people of my community in order to ensure that this message about the disastrous effects of Bill 143 and the government's determination to arbitrarily select Vaughan as the site for a new 20-year dump site has been carried certainly throughout my riding and all of York region.

In addition, recently the people of Vaughan CARES took that message to the riding of York South, the riding represented by Bob Rae, the Premier of Ontario. They canvassed some 500 or more homes, doing a survey determining how many people supported the government's position on waste management and Bill 143. Amazingly, almost 90% of the people said they did not support the government's position. They rejected virtually every aspect of it, and they signed cards indicating that if the government does not change its mind, they will vote against the Premier in the next provincial election.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Last week Team Harris toured eastern Ontario to enable people to come forth with their thoughts and ideas about how we can ensure growth and prosperity in rural Ontario. The name of our group is the Team Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development. Our mission is to obtain public input as to how a government can provide the right environment so that people of rural Ontario can obtain their own economic prosperity.

In every town we visited, the message was clear: Government has become too big, unresponsive and unaccountable, and we as politicians had better learn to listen.

In my riding of Lanark-Renfrew, we held a town-hall-style public forum in the county town, Perth, which drew over 100 people from every corner of the riding. The meeting in Perth attracted a wide-ranging audience, including the wardens of both Lanark and Renfrew counties, the reeves, representatives of agriculture, tourism, housing, small business and many members of the general public.

The attendants at the Perth meeting gave us solid, commonsense proposals for development in eastern Ontario. These proposals will form the policies that will put rural Ontario back on the right track when Mike Harris forms the next government.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'd like to draw the attention of the House to a new accessible transit service in the community of Whitchurch-Stouffville, of course in my riding of Durham-York.

In April 1990 a dedicated group of citizens in Whitchurch-Stouffville recognized the need for an accessible transit system in their community to help the disabled residents move about. I am pleased to announce to this House that in February of this year, the group, the Whitchurch-Stouffville Mobility Transit Committee, launched its service with the help of City-Peel Taxi company and the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. That's a mouthful.

With the two accessible taxis, about 90 eligible users use the service. These taxis are making an average of four trips a day to help these citizens who would otherwise have a great deal of difficulty in getting about their community.

However, despite this service's great success, there is a serious problem that has developed, particularly travelling between the regional municipalities, and particularly between York region and Metro Toronto. Under the current Municipal Act regulations and the Metro Toronto taxi bylaw prohibiting cross-boundary accessible taxis, cross-boundary mobility for disabled taxis becomes very difficult. While it is possible to go from York region down to Metro and to go from Metro back, they have got to use different services, and of course the pickup to get these people home is very difficult. So we have a one-way service only.

This is a very small jurisdictional problem that obviously creates some significant mobility problems for the people concerned. I want to take this opportunity in this House to recognize the tremendous effort by the committee. I will be approaching Municipal Affairs and Metro council about this.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): This government has recently been calling for greater safety on our highways, yet it appears that rather than coming up with real solutions that address the physical aspects of busy thoroughfares, it proposes actions that best suit its needs, such as a blatant revenue grab with the introduction of photo-radar; or, on the other hand, they act in a manner that best suits them politically. To illustrate this latter point, I would like to give you an example of how this government has obviously compromised the safety of its citizens in the name of sheer political expediency.

The Highway 3 bypass is a stretch of two-lane highway running from Ruthven, near Leamington, to Windsor. On Monday morning, March 14, a young man in his 20s died as a result of an accident on this stretch of highway, and there have been a number of accidents and deaths in the near past. Two other recent deaths, as a matter of fact, were the result of an accident between a school bus and an auto.

In a Windsor Star article, a senior project manager for MTO's southwestern region said he has heard tales of woe from numerous concerned commuters on this stretch of highway.

The NDP candidate in the by-election said, "The funding is available to repair and widen this road, but will not be successful without an elected representative inside the government."

As a member of this Legislature and as a frequent commuter on this dangerous stretch of highway, I find it deplorable that these funds that are apparently available have not been used to make this a four-lane highway.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today in support of a Collingwood area petition campaign which is being driven by members of the community who are concerned about the rash of bed closures at the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital.

I'm proud to say that I drafted this petition so that concerned citizens and labour groups could send a message to the NDP government that bed closures are killing jobs and they are threatening the provision of quality health care services in the Collingwood area.

Earlier this month the General and Marine Hospital board announced that eight beds would be closed because of budget pressures and social contract obligations. As a result, 20 more hospital-based jobs could be affected and more jobs and beds could also be hacked if the government acts on its threat to rip an additional $214 million out of the budgets of Ontario hospitals. Just a few years ago we had 133 beds at Collingwood General and Marine Hospital. Today, and after last week's announcement, we have 74 beds left.

At the same time the government is forcing the General and Marine Hospital to cut beds at a stunning pace, the NDP refused to release the funds to redevelop the Collingwood hospital. Area residents have watched helplessly while the previous Liberal government announced this redevelopment funding twice and the NDP has followed with two reannouncements of its own. Seven years, two governments and four separate announcements later, Collingwood still has a hospital wing that was built in the 1880s.

If the NDP still cares about health care, it must give Collingwood a green light to rebuild its hospital and it must give all hospitals in this province some breathing space so that we can accurately assess the impact on the people of this province of these bed closures.

LANDFILL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to share some good news about, of all things, a dump. After more than 10 years of planning and studies, the municipalities of Grimsby, Lincoln, Pelham and West Lincoln will get their much-needed new landfill site. It was approved this week without an environmental assessment hearing, thanks to the hard work of local politicians who make up the joint board of waste management, also known as the dump board.

Reaching this agreement took a great deal of time and effort from both the dump board and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, but it was well worth it. Avoiding a hearing means huge savings for the province and the four municipalities, which is very good news for the taxpayers.

The new landfill site, to be located in West Lincoln, is the second all-new landfill site approved without a hearing under the province's new, streamlined environmental assessment review process.

While planning for their new dump, the four municipalities implemented one of Ontario's most effective waste diversion programs. In 1985 they were one of the first jurisdictions in Ontario to introduce the blue box program, and they have since banned compostable and yard waste from their existing landfill site in Grimsby.

Also, they have provided backyard composters for all households and established Niagara region's first permanent household hazardous waste depot, and they've launched a highly effective promotion and advertising program.

I offer sincere congratulations to my local politicians and the staff who worked so hard on this project. I fully believe that the people of Lincoln riding are the most efficient recyclers in all of Canada.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is for the Minister of Health. I rise today on behalf of the residents of Red Lake, Ear Falls, Golden and the remote first nation communities to the north of these three. These folks are totally frustrated with the Minister of Health's refusal to address the legitimate concerns of physicians who staff the emergency department at the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital.

For over 18 months the physicians in Red Lake have been in discussions with ministry officials and staff regarding the issue of fee-for-service compensation for doctors covering emergency services in the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital.

As a result of this government's inaction, the five doctors who work at the Red Lake hospital's emergency department informed the minister, hospital board and communities many months ago that they will not provide emergency coverage past March 31, 1994.

The hospital board and residents have requested the minister's attendance at a public meeting in Red Lake this Thursday, March 24. As I stated, the residents of these communities are facing the imminent closure of their emergency department and possibly the hospital.

The minister has an obligation to assure my constituents that there will be no interruption of health services at Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital. I will be attending the March 24 meeting in Red Lake, and should the minister not be in attendance, I would like to know what information this government will provide me to alleviate the concerns of my constituents. Does this minister really have a plan?

LORING DEER YARD

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise in the House today to call upon the Minister of Natural Resources to personally review the investigation conducted by his ministry relating to some 15 deer which were killed at the Loring deer yard recently. As the minister will be aware, the MNR officials who led this investigation have decided not to lay charges against the alleged perpetrators.

This winter and others, MNR officials and local fish and game clubs have been providing food for deer at the Loring deer yard. The 12,000 deer at this yard are estimated to be the largest concentration of deer in the entire province of Ontario. The Loring deer yard has become a very popular viewing spot for old and young people alike.

My main concern is that of public safety. Both my office and that of Mike Harris, whose constituency borders on mine, have received numerous telephone calls from concerned residents and constituents. We have heard stories that shots may have actually been fired towards the raised viewing platform and may have even been fired from the viewing platform.

Conservation is the other issue at the heart of this matter. In late winter and early spring deer are quite vulnerable. They are starving, and a good number of female deer are pregnant. The fact that a feeding station is a baited area cannot be overlooked.

I must express my disappointment with the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by MNR officials. The MNR officials have now removed the deer feeders and posted signs warning visitors that the public may be in danger because of hunting at the feeding and viewing stations. I am not confident that the MNR has acted in the interests of either public safety or conservation.

PETERBOROUGH GREEN-UP

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to congratulate Peterborough Green-Up on having passed their 1,000th green home visit. The green communities initiative which the Ministry of Environment and Energy is funding in several communities is a win-win project and a fine example of sustainable, community-based economic development. It creates jobs where we need them: in the community where people live. It is good value, because it lessens our need for costly infrastructure by reducing the use of energy and water and the generation of waste.

I am very proud that the Ontario government is supporting this initiative. Green-Up exemplifies the positive message that environmental, economic and social goals can be pursued in a mutually supportive fashion.

The green home visit program has generated more than $1 million in expenditures to local firms doing renovations or providing insulation, new furnaces, windows etc. This impact will rise to $2 million next year, when Green-Up plans to visit 2,000 homes. Green-Up has many other projects, including a major toilet retrofit program to reduce the flow of waste water.

David McLeod and all his staff are a wonderful group of people, rooted in the community to which they are giving so much. Thank you, all of you.

VISITOR

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to the Speaker's and other members' attention that the member-elect for Victoria-Haliburton, Chris Hodgson, is in the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for his point of order.

It is now time for oral questions.

Interjections.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As my colleagues are pointing out, it is a little bit difficult to pose questions when there are so few members of the cabinet present to respond. I did understand that the Minister of Labour was to be present. May I ask of the government House leader whether in fact the Minister of Labour is expected?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Can the government House leader assist?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): To the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Labour is expected, yes.

The Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to stand down her first question?

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will place my first question to the Minister of Education and Training, and wait for the arrival of the Minister of Labour.

I am concerned about a statement which was made in a letter some months ago, a letter that was written by Mr Jim Turk, who is a government appointee to the Council of Regents for the community colleges. Mr Turk's letter is addressing the matter of appointments to college boards of governors and raises the issue of whether or not boards are sufficiently representative of the population.

The statement in the letter which causes me concern is this: "In other words, although there are more women and more visible minorities, they are remarkably like the white men that they have replaced."

Minister, we have already seen that your government has pursued an approach to employment equity in a way which excludes white men. Mr Turk's comments push this kind of exclusionary approach to seemingly new limits. I ask you today, how far does this go? What criteria do you have to meet in order to be appointed to a board in Bob Rae's Ontario?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): When I became aware of the comments that Mr Turk had made, I very much expressed my upset at those comments. They do not reflect this government's point of view and they do not reflect the Ministry of Education and Training's point of view.

I also want to indicate to the member that I felt strongly enough about it that I wrote to the chair of the Council of Regents and indicated in writing that our ministry and our government did not agree with Mr Turk's comments, that he was not speaking for the government, and that's where it stands.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sure you are aware that individuals who now sit on college boards were very offended by Mr Turk's comments as well. One of the people who was offended was a Conestoga College board member, Jacqueline Mitchell, who happens to be female and happens to be black. Her reported comments are: "First of all, he's stereotyping me as a visible minority, then he's stereotyping me as a white man, so he's insulting me. I'm not here as a token." Minister, I trust you would agree that tokenism is not employment equity.

I appreciate the fact that you have taken some offence at Mr Turk's comments yourself and that you have written to the Council of Regents. I ask whether or not you would share that letter with us and whether your letter makes it abundantly clear to the Council of Regents and to people across this province that the policy for appointments on the part of this government is that they are open to all who are qualified and are willing to serve. Will you make it absolutely clear that there is no hidden ideological agenda and there is not to be any hidden ideological agenda applied, a hidden test of how people think before they are considered to be eligible to serve?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would be glad to share the letter I've written to the chair of the Council of Regents with the member where it specifically refers to Mr Turk's comments. Mr Turk was appointed by the Liberal government to the Council of Regents.

I would also like to make it absolutely clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the policy of the Council of Regents and the policy of our government is one of inclusion for boards of governors. We want boards of governors for colleges to reflect the communities in which they reside.

There is currently a consultation going on that flows out of the Stephen Lewis report and there will be recommendations that come forward from the Council of Regents in terms of policy for appointments to boards of governors. Ultimately that policy will be decided by myself as minister, and I would be glad to have your involvement or the involvement of your critic in the development or review of that proposed policy from the Council of Regents.

Mrs McLeod: To pick up on your comment that the appointments to boards of governors of colleges should be reflective of the communities in which they reside, I would then like to ask you to respond to a concern that has arisen about what appears to be an exclusionary practice on the part of the Council of Regents.

Conestoga College recommended that Mr Larry Zepf be appointed to its board. Mr Zepf is a graduate of Conestoga College. He has established a successful high-tech business in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. He employs graduates and students of the college. He is clearly a leading citizen of the Kitchener-Waterloo community and is eager to give back to the college. Mr Zepf's appointment, we understand, was vetoed in favour of the appointment of a teachers' union employee who works in Toronto.

Minister, would you not clearly agree that Mr Zepf was a qualified appointee, can you explain why his appointment would have been vetoed for any reason other than the exercise of an exclusionary policy, and will you then ensure that this kind of exclusionary practice stops?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, as a former Minister of Colleges and Universities, understands that the Council of Regents appoints members of the board. There will be a policy and there should be a policy in place in terms of the criteria and the objectives of the process for appointing members to the board. That policy will have to be approved by the government, so that's where our responsibility is, up front.

If the member is inquiring about a specific appointment, which I can tell you I know nothing about, if she wants information on that she should go, as she would understand, to the chair of the Council of Regents and ask that specific question.

I can tell the member that 90% of the names that come forward from boards of governors from colleges are approved by the council for appointment -- 90%. So there's no plot; there's no hidden agenda here. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the names for boards of governors comes from the boards of governors themselves and the Council of Regents accepts that.

Mrs McLeod: I will then await the clarification, with the minister's written response, on exactly the kinds of policies that his government will pursue, and we will expect to see those reflected in the policies adopted by the Council of Regents.

FAMILY FARMS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The Minister of Labour has returned, and I would place my second question to him. I am concerned about the plans you have in place to unionize family farms under Bill 91. I raised this issue with the minister last fall and the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: If the members opposite are not aware that this is a concern for people in rural communities, they have not been listening --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): If you were so concerned, you wouldn't mislead the public.

The Speaker: The member for Sarnia knows better. I ask the member to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

Mr Huget: Withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Mrs McLeod: I can appreciate the fact that perhaps the member for Sarnia has not been speaking to people who are farming outside the Sarnia community, but I can assure him that the members of my caucus and I have been talking to people who are extremely concerned about this government's legislation intended to unionize the family farm.

This is not the first time we have raised the issue with the Minister of Labour. When we raised this issue in the fall, the minister insisted that the legislation he was presenting to this House met the concerns of the farm community that were set out in the Agriculture-Labour task force report.

We would agree that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was willing to accept the task report framework, but this federation, in a report on February 9 to cabinet, said very clearly that Bill 91 in its present form cannot provide that framework. The OFA goes on to list five specific examples of the way in which this minister's bill betrays the recommendations of the task force report.

Minister, will you now admit that Bill 91 is fundamentally flawed? Will you make a commitment today to the farm groups to talk to them, to fix the legislation, to keep the promises that you made to the farmers of this province?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I reject the contention of the leader of the official opposition. There has been extensive consultation with the farm community and there is agreement with the bill and the amendments we've agreed to make to it at this point in time. I can't understand where she's getting her information from.

Mrs McLeod: I would be more than happy to give the minister the opportunity to tell us exactly what his amendments are and whether his amendments respond to the broken promises which the Ontario Federation of Agriculture identified in its February 9 brief to cabinet. Let me just remind the minister of just three of those areas where the OFA believed that this minister had betrayed his commitments so that he can assure that his amendments address those areas.

Firstly, under the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force, there was a promise of new and separate labour legislation. Bill 91, as we have seen it, only makes amendments to the existing Labour Relations Act. The task force minister recommended that no family member be forced to join a union, but under Bill 91, as we have seen it, uncles, aunts, nephews, part of the larger family, could be forced to join a union. Perhaps most importantly, the task force said that any new legislation must prevent strikes. Bill 91 is silent on that issue.

Will you explain why your original legislation betrayed these recommendations and will you assure us specifically that any recommendations will address the OFA's concerns?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I know of few pieces of legislation where we have had as much consultation as we have had on this bill. I certainly got a clear message when I spoke to the OFA last year on proceeding with the piece of legislation. We did set up a committee again, after the bill was in the House last fall. They have gone through it once again and have suggested some additional amendments. Most of them are minor. We've agreed to them and we'll be before the House with that bill very shortly. I can't understand where some of the false information you're picking up is coming from.

Mrs McLeod: I made it abundantly clear to the minister where the concerns were coming from. The concerns were coming from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They were very specifically stated in a February 9 brief to cabinet. They have been echoed in the concerns that we have heard from farmers across this province. These are not minor amendments. These are fundamental issues of the family farm being able to continue, they are fundamental issues of the need for agriculture to have separate legislation and they are fundamental issues about the impossibility of farm organizations continuing if there is not a guarantee against strike action.

I say to the minister that this is a very important issue to people in agriculture, an industry that is struggling to survive. The only response of this government to this group of people has been to change the name of the Ministry of Agriculture. I ask the minister today, if he does not understand how important these changes to Bill 91 are to make sure that the family farm can continue and that agricultural jobs can be protected, will he assure us that he will present amendments that deal with each of those five concerns of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The only difficulty I have is that I don't think it would matter what I told the member across the way. I don't think she's read the bill carefully. She certainly will be satisfied, I'm sure, when she sees the amendments. If not, nothing will satisfy her.

STUDENT SUSPENSION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My first question is to the Minister of Education. One of the most crucial issues in our schools today is the issue of violence, the issue of ensuring that our children can, in the classrooms, attend school free from fear of violence, that they can feel secure. Last spring, you amended the Education Act with a series of amendments that were called "housekeeping."

One of those amendments, and I'd like to quote from your own explanatory note to that bill, said, "The suspension of a pupil will not be able to exceed 20 school days." The Scarborough Board of Education believes that if it had the discretion to suspend some students for violent behaviour beyond 20 days, it would be able to consider fewer expulsions. If school boards believe that they can more effectively combat violence in our schools with longer suspensions, why are you preventing them from doing just that?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I don't believe that there can be any credible accusation that the Ministry of Education is doing anything but developing the most comprehensive policy to fight violence in our school system that has ever been developed in the history of this province, and the member knows that.

If the leader of the third party is actually saying that an additional tool that should be available to the schools is to have what amounts to expulsion by the use of a suspension, then I disagree. The law now says that a student can be expelled or suspended for up to a month without it going to the trustees.

There's got to be accountability in our education system and the accountability means that there has to be some accountability to the board, and that means that if a board feels or the principal feels that there should be a longer suspension, that can be done under the act by the board, or if there is an expulsion, then that can be done by the board. That's accountability and that will fight violence in our system more than leaving it up in the air, as was the case under the Education Act for many years.

Mr Harris: Your amendment specifically stated, and the explanatory note of what the legalese was, that the suspension will not be able to exceed 20 days. That was passed in the bill in spite of the fact that the Ontario public school boards were opposed. The boards themselves, which you say you want to have control -- it was so they could have control -- were opposed to this amendment.

Our critic, if you will recall, attempted to amend your legislation to give boards the option of longer suspensions, but you voted us down. You voted the critic down. We spent a couple of days, I think, if you'll recall, talking about what was supposed to be at that time a housekeeping piece of legislation.

Clearly the goal that each of us would share, whether educators or legislators or parents or students, is to ensure a safe school environment for our children. And in the absence, and it has been an absence, of leadership from you -- you've been falling behind on this from day one -- school boards are now asking that they be given the option of suspending a violent student for more than 20 days. Will you amend the bill so that they can suspend, or clarify that they can suspend, beyond 20 days?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not going to argue about whose lawyers are correct. The legal opinion from the Ministry of Education is that the boards already have that power. We've explained that to the Metro representatives from the school boards, but I don't think that is the basis of the argument.

If a board wants a student to be removed from the school system for a longer period of time, it has that power under the Education Act and it's called an expulsion. Under that

section of the act, a student has the right to apply to the board to be re-entered into the school system, so the board should set some expectations and conditions for that student to get back into the system.

I really believe that we're arguing about nothing. The board has that power and the board has a lot of tools in order to deal with this, but if you believe that a student should be expelled by the use of longer suspensions, I don't agree with that. That in fact means that there's no accountability and gives power to principals that I think goes beyond what should be allowed for in the Education Act.

Mr Harris: You are trying to represent that expulsions and suspensions are the same things. Expulsions are a very serious matter -- that's it, tout fini, you're expelled, you're out. Then you're into the legal system, then you're into the cost, then you're into the rest of it.

What school boards are telling you is that there was a tool that they had between the suspension -- maximum 20 days -- and expulsion and they are asking for that tool. They believe it's an important tool and it is you who has taken it away from them and they are asking to get it back.

Secondly, it is still concerning many of the boards and certainly concerning us, that in the absence of any provincial leadership on expulsions, where children are supposed to go to school once they've been expelled -- the fact of the matter is, you've sat back. In the absence of any provincial program to ensure a spot for children who have been expelled, school boards really are left in a vacuum. It's either a pilot project or try to get them into another board, and they're asking for leadership from you as well on this. No student should fall through a crack in our education system because you can't get your act together.

I would ask you two things: Will you make it easier and give them the tool of longer suspensions so they don't have to go the expulsion route, and in those rare cases where the expulsion route is taken will you ensure that there will be a place, a program, a school, for every student in this province following expulsion? Will you ensure that takes place on a province-wide basis as quickly as possible?

Hon Mr Cooke: I really don't understand the logic of the leader of the third party, because what he is basically saying is that he would like to have the Education Act changed so that kids can be expelled by using the route of suspensions. I don't agree with that.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): No, he's not.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's exactly what he's saying. He's saying that he would use suspensions and have longer suspensions. That is nonsense. It's politically popular, but it's nonsense.

In terms of programs for students who are expelled, I think the member should also realize that expulsions are not new to Ontario's system. They've existed for many, many years. What we are trying to do, in cooperation with the boards, is to put those alternative programs in place. We've said that we'll do it under a pilot project, and that's all we can afford to do at this point in time. We'd like to have programs right across the province. There's not the amount of money available that we need to do that, so we'll do a pilot project. If the member is suggesting that we should find money someplace else and increase the deficit in order to fund it, let him say that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: I don't think the solution is to tell school boards that what they want is nonsense. I don't think that is helping --

Hon Mr Cooke: I said what you said.

Mr Harris: What I said is what the school boards are asking for.

The Speaker: And your second question?

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier and the Attorney General, who I understand are off to open the new Bill Davis courthouse, I would like to direct my next question to the Deputy Premier.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): The deputy Deputy Premier?

Mr Harris: No, I'll go right to the Deputy Premier today.

This morning the Toronto Sun reported that your government is firing 90 senior citizens from their part-time contracts -- half of these are Second World War veterans -- in order to meet some employment equity targets. The Globe and Mail estimates that number, by the way, at 200. Whether it is 200 or whether it is 90 or whether it is one, I couldn't believe this type of insensitivity, this type of inhumanity would be carried out by a government in Ontario.

Is it true that you've given the pink slip, you're actually firing 90 elderly Ontarians who work for the Ministry of the Attorney General from their part-time contract work for the sake of somebody's definition of political correctness?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): It has nothing to do with political correctness, to which the leader of the third party refers. It's my understanding that the Attorney General is applying the same kind of rules for unclassified courtroom staff as apply for the public sector in general. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that she's doing it in a very, very humane way, in a phased-in way, to people who are 65, 70, 75 years old.

I'm not sure that the leader of the third party has his facts correct, but is he suggesting that there should not be a program in which people who are well over the age of 65, in some cases, should be treated equally with the way other people in the public sector are treated? Is that what he's saying?

Mr Harris: Judge Campbell said, "It's one thing to have affirmative action in hiring; it's another thing to fire people for affirmative action purposes." These are not employees; they're not on the civil service payroll. They are contract positions. They are part-time positions. Some call them commissionaire-type positions. They are positions, the courts have told you, where the jobs they have done have been carried out in an exemplary fashion.

They are elderly workers who after you have fired them from these part-time contract positions, will no longer have the dignity of providing a public service, will no longer have that extra little bit of income, because you are tossing them aside and you are replacing them with people for the purposes you have deemed are politically correct. I would ask you again, if this is what's happening, will you put a stop to this nonsense today?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's my understanding that all that's happening is that people who are over the age of 65, in some cases 70 and 75, are being asked to take retirement, as are other people in the public sector. I don't think there's anything unusual about asking people who are over the age of 65 to take retirement. It's being done in a very humane and staged way and those people are being replaced, it's my understanding, by people who are on the surplus list who are certainly under the age of 65. So I'm not sure why the leader of the third party is objecting.

Is the leader of the third party saying that there should be no limits whatsoever on people in this particular category of employment, nobody else in the public sector but in this particular category of employment there should be absolutely no rules on retirement whatsoever? Is that what the leader of the third party is saying?

Mr Harris: Mr Deputy Premier, your government has gone too far. You stand in this House day in and day out and preach to the rest of the public about fairness and equity. Some of these people were hired on their contracts when they were already 65. In many cases it was because they were 65 that they were given the part-time contracts. I suggest to you that if you will look into this -- I don't know where you're getting your information from -- I believe that you, on behalf of your government, will feel ashamed.

In half the cases we're talking about Second World War veterans who fought for each and every one of us in this House. In many cases we're talking about a part-time supplementary income, in many cases people who have been brought on after they reached the age of 65. You are not asking them to leave; you're firing them. Will you change this policy today and allow these people the dignity, as long as they're capable of doing the contract, of carrying on and doing the job for which they were retained in the first place?

Hon Mr Laughren: The fact that these people are over the age of 65 and are being asked to take retirement does not mean they have not served their country extremely well. Of course they have. I hope you won't try and paint a picture in which people who have served their country well are not being treated fairly. That's simply not the case. If the Tory party in this province is now on the record as saying it is opposed to mandatory retirement in the public sector, then let them stand in their place and say so. I'll tell you these --

Mr Eves: That's not what we said at all. They're not public servants. They're hired because they are 65. They are part-time employees and you're firing them, not retiring them. I know it's difficult to grasp, but put it in your head and keep it there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Had the minister completed his response?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try and --

Mr Harris: The only job creation you've got is to fire somebody else to create a job.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Quit playing politics.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I shall try, but as soon as I raise the issue that the Tory party now is opposed to mandatory retirement in the public sector, they go strange over there. They start yelling and shouting and screaming at me. I don't understand what they're talking about.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the Deputy Premier please show us, or could you show us, an Instant Hansard where the leader of the third party said that he's in favour of mandatory retirement? I'd like to see it.

The Speaker: The member will know that he does not have a point of order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I shall try very hard to refrain from teasing the bears.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Come on, Floyd, get to the point.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will get to the point; I'm trying to get to the point. The fact is that the people to whom the leader of the third party is referring are in the public sector and are paid for by the taxpayers of this province. All I'm suggesting to the leader of the third party is that if we were to change the policy and say that there is no requirement that these people take retirement over the age of 65, is he then saying by extension that all the public sector now has no mandatory requirement? Is that what he's saying? That's a strange way to deal with the creation of jobs in the province of Ontario.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SPENDING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, are you aware that at approximately 10 o'clock this morning 196 of the senior management people in your ministry boarded a bus bound for the Nottawasaga Inn for two days of meetings to discuss their relationship with the staff in the ministry?

If so, sir, were you aware that there are costs associated with this two-day junket of $31,000 for rooms, food and booze for these people, $5,000 for travel that actually includes flying people into Pearson and then busing them up to the Nottawasaga Inn for this retreat, $10,000 in staff costs specifically paid to try to organize this particular two-day junket for your senior staff, and $6,000 in consultant costs to come in to tell your senior management staff how they can better get along with the junior management staff in your ministry?

Minister, are you aware of this almost $52,000 junket being expended by your senior staff, 196 bureaucrats enjoying two days at the Nottawasaga Inn at the expense of the taxpayer?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the interest and the inquiry vis-à-vis those women and men who are providing essential services by way of the Ministry of Transportation to the province of Ontario. Let's keep things in the right context, please. Given the decentralized nature of Transportation Ontario, we're talking about 9,700 employees from all over the province, 22,000 kilometres of road, 3,000 bridges and on and on. We're decentralized indeed.

So 196 managers right outside here using a chartered bus, two people to a room, a semiannual meeting is nothing, peanuts, has no relevance compared to what you people spent when you were on this side of the House. This is no Taj Mahal. This is managers, those are leaders, meeting twice a year to make the system even better. I thank the member opposite for his interest.

Mr Mahoney: Well, Minister, not only do I have some interest, but a lot of the staff in your department have some interest and are pretty upset at what they see as a very blatant waste of the taxpayers' money. At a time in this economy when you're asking them to take Rae days off without pay, you don't mind sending these -- why didn't you bring them to Queen's Park? Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't get together and talk about the future of the ministry. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't get together and talk about their relationship with their junior members of staff.

Why would you have to send them to a posh resort north of this city, at a cost in excess of $50,000 for two days, to discuss issues of concern to everybody in this province, when you have meeting rooms sitting empty right here at Queen's Park, right in your own ministry, where these people could have got together and talked?

Listen to this: This sounds like a wonderful time. Maybe you're the dinner speaker tonight; I'm not sure. It says, "Tuesday's dinner banquet will be served in a private ballroom at the Nottawasaga Inn." It sounds very nice.

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

Mr Mahoney: They have a happy-hour session here. They have cocktails. Minister, you just don't get it. The taxpayers are fed up with this kind of irresponsible spending.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Mahoney: Will you assure this House, Minister, that you will stop authorizing this kind of expenditure and be a responsible minister and satisfy the concerns of all the staff at the MTO?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right. We should spend a moment or two in looking at cost comparison. What we're looking at here is $95 per person. A few short years back -- the official opposition was the government then -- 14 people went to Italy and it cost $1,000 for the room alone per person, $14,000 per night for elected officials. Those are public servants, putting their best foot forward at $95 per day, including meals. This is 1994. He is still in the age of horse-and-buggy. When is he going to wake up and smell the roses? Get a grip on. Get a life.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, earlier this month the Premier demanded that Metropolitan Toronto council find municipal tax dollars to fund four subway lines, and if they didn't, the infrastructure funding for the new trade centre in Metropolitan Toronto would be in jeopardy.

Minister, you're aware that the Metropolitan Toronto capital program for TTC improvements is completely separate and distinct from the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. The two are not linked. You're also aware that the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto have said no to additional property taxes and the Metropolitan Toronto council has said no to additional property taxes.

The question, Minister, is, will you give us your commitment today, yes or no, that you will not use the infrastructure program as a form of blackmail to impose your will on the democratically elected Metropolitan Toronto council?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It's not my style nor the style of this government to use blackmail to impose our will on anybody, on any municipality. That's not the intent of the discussions that we've entered into with Metro.

I will be very straight with the member and say that we have an interest, a very strong interest, in seeing all four subway projects proceed. We believe it is possible without imposing tax increases on the residents of Metro. We think there are ways in which the financing can be accomplished and we're working with Metro to try and pursue those ways and to try and put forward a proposal which would see all four subway lines under way and which would see 60,000-odd people back to work in Toronto, as opposed to the 30,000.

I've said all along that the 30,000 to 35,000 jobs that would be created by getting two lines started are good. We welcome that decision by Metro. We're there, we're supportive of seeing two lines go forward, but we think more can be done.

Metro council's resolution and decision did not close the door on the other two lines. They've set up a committee to explore financing. We're working on it with them and we're in a period of negotiations. My very, very strong belief and hope is that all four subway lines and the Metro trade centre can be commenced before the end of the year.

Mr David Johnson: The question about the infrastructure program is not a complicated one. The answer is either, "Yes, I respect the rights of the municipal councils to make a democratic decision and represent their people," or the answer is no and that you feel it necessary to threaten the municipalities to get your way. Which one is it? Is it yes or no?

With respect to other forms of financing, we all support the private sector being involved in the subway projects, but nobody seriously believes there is enough private sector funding to pay for two additional subway lines.

I'm asking you, will you give an undertaking not to force Metro to increase taxes and not to get involved in some funding formula, an unreasonable and unworkable funding formula, that can't possibly work except to result in additional tax increases?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think in all of the statements that I've made on this subject, it would be obvious that my answer to both those questions is no. No, we're not threatening anyone, and no, we wouldn't force a funding formula that would force an increase in taxes.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I don't understand the member properly from Don Mills. I know you make a reference twice to all the "blackmails." I'm just wondering if there are any "whitemails" around here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of privilege.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last year the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario produced a report called A Blueprint for Success, and their proposals could save $100 million a year. The authorities continue to claim that there is $100 million to be saved by reducing duplication in resource management and giving them more responsibility.

I'm also aware that many people have criticized the report as lacking substance and simply being an attempt to gain increased funding at a time when other government agencies are having to reduce spending. I'm also aware that the report gives no details on where the money can be found.

What I and my conservation authorities want to know is, has the minister done any analysis of the claims made in the blueprint document on the potential for cost savings from reducing duplication?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for a very relevant question. In fact we've had some time to review the report of the association of conservation authorities called A Blueprint for Success.

I should say to the member that the assertion that somehow $100 million can be produced out of thin air is indeed an absurd assertion in this day and age. The reality is that the association of conservation authorities, while every other public body in the province is constraining and working hard to constrain their budgets, insists that it should have more money. We have given the conservation authorities some suggestions as to how they could produce more efficiency and how they could work more effectively.

The Provincial Auditor in his report last year made the following comments. He said that over 15 of the 38 conservation authorities spend over 33% of their budget on administration. Imagine that: in this day and age of tough economic times, spending over 33% of your budget on administration.

The auditor also suggested that some of the smaller conservation authorities should amalgamate to save money and some should look at --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- copayment for services to save money.

We expect the same sort of dedicated effort in these tough economic times from conservation authorities as we expect from everyone else.

Mr Duignan: I appreciate the answer by the minister. However, when I read stories like this in the newspaper and when I listen to concerns from my conservation authorities and I also listen to concerns from my constituents, and that is the threat by some conservation authorities to sell significant natural areas if the province does not provide additional funding, I wonder, can the minister tell me, tell the constituents and tell the conservation authorities what progress has been made in developing a longer-term solution to ensuring taxes can be paid on significant lands owned by the conservation authorities and that these lands will not be sold to the private sector?

Hon Mr Hampton: First of all, last year we within the Ministry of Natural Resources reallocated $2.3 million in funding to cover the taxes on some of the lands owned by conservation authorities. We indicated at that time that we were willing to work with conservation authorities to find longer-term solutions to this problem. However, simply asking for more money in these tough economic times is not an answer and it is not a reasonable request either.

I should say to the member that one of the things that is unfortunately left out in some of the statements that conservation authorities make is that they cannot sell conservation lands without the permission of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. So to threaten that conservation authorities will sell lands is simply a threat that has no reality. Those lands can't be sold without the permission and without an order in council from cabinet.

Secondly, the reality is that if there are some lands that conservation authorities want to sell and they're not strictly conservation lands, they can't sell or lease those. The Ministry of Natural Resources can use a number of legislative mechanisms, including the federal Fisheries Act and the federal fisheries regulations to ensure that the sensitive parts of those non-conservation lands continue to be protected.

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton J. P. McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. In December past, my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie asked you if you were planning to accept the 14% increase in tuition fees over two years which had been recommended to you by your officials. You said you rejected that recommendation, and the one million or so people in this province who were enrolled in our colleges and universities were grateful for that. But that was then.

We are now hearing that you will be announcing shortly a 20% increase over two years in tuition fees. This would mean that the legacy of your party, the party that promised to freeze and even eliminate tuition fees, would be to have raised tuition fees by 42%. Mr Minister, can you assure Ontario's college and university students that you have not changed your mind since December 3 and that you still feel that a 7% annual increase or anything higher is unacceptable?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that the member should just hang in there and wait until the announcement is made. I would just ask him also not to really rewrite what I said last year. I said I rejected the recommendation. I did not indicate anything about a view of that rate, anything lower or anything higher. I said the policy was being reviewed.

Mr McGuinty: Let me address something then that I'm sure the minister would agree that he has been saying. He's been saying that we're going to be seeing a substantial tuition fee increase and that this is the fault of the federal government. Let me share three important facts on this matter.

First fact: The federal transfer payments for colleges' and universities' funding remain the same this year as in years past. No cuts have been made to this funding.

Point number 2: Every province in Canada receives the same per capita funding when it comes to colleges and universities. Ontario is not the subject of any discrimination when it comes to funding of our colleges and universities.

Point number 3, and this is very important: The numbers show that between 1990 and 1994, in terms of actual dollars paid to Ontario, transfers from the feds for health and post-secondary education have increased by 25%, but this minister has only passed on 18% to colleges and universities. He's actually held back money given by the feds for colleges and universities, and this government has decided to use it elsewhere.

I ask the minister to inform this House now how it is that he can blame the federal government for tuition fee increases when no cuts are being made to this funding and when he hasn't even been passing along all of the funding he's already getting from the feds.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think that's a rather silly way to take a look at the numbers that a provincial government must deal with. We have to take a look at the bottom line, and the bottom line is that the previous federal government had been ripping off the province of Ontario for a number of years, and the current Liberal government did nothing to correct that problem.

As a result, we have to do something to inject more money into the college and university system and we still have to pay our other bills. That's the reality. No matter how Liberals try to defend Martin's budget, the fact of the matter is that Ontario is being discriminated against by the current federal government, just as we were before. If he wants to do something about it, he should go talk to Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.

ROLE OF MINISTER

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, it's great to see you back following this serious car accident. We hope that you're able to shed the crutches very soon.

Now to the question: While you were convalescing, the Premier recognized there were areas outside of Toronto called food-producing areas in rural Ontario and decided to change the name of your ministry to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Mr Minister, how much more power and money do you now have?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I didn't hear the announcement about having any additional money, but I understand that I will have additional influence. This is not about power, but it's about influence in terms of rural Ontario and recognizing the interests of rural communities in our efforts to create jobs and maintain the population of rural Ontario and economic growth in rural Ontario where it belongs instead of all moving to the cities where it's not necessarily needed today.

Mr Villeneuve: I think the minister said, between the lines, that political correctness is more important than power and influence.

Interjections.

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

Mr Villeneuve: The minister realizes and knows full well that the Ministry of Labour will be operating Bill 91, which involves and affects agriculture very directly. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with the Sewell commission, will be very much overpowering your ministry. The Ministry of Environment and Energy does it all the time. The Ministry of Natural Resources does it all the time with the designation of wetlands etc.

Mr Minister, we are with you, we want you to have more power. Would you convey to your friends at the cabinet table that you are the lead minister in rural affairs and food production? Please, could you convey this to the Premier now that he knows there is a food-producing area out there?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Some of my friends at the cabinet table think I already have too much to say when it comes to representing rural Ontario, but I want to say a couple of things in response to the question.

What the Premier was doing was recognizing the role we have been playing unofficially over the last year or so. In fact, within my ministry we have now designated 51 people, I believe it is, across the province in our field offices who are involved in looking at community economic development in rural Ontario. We have been a spokesperson and we have worked with other ministries, and the member mentioned a few, that are from time to time a concern for rural Ontarians.

I want to give the member an example of the kind of thing we've been doing. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations just handed me a letter as I came to the House today. The member didn't mention this particular program but it was one that was announced over the wintertime by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. In the rural newspapers across this province, that particular agency, which is a crown agency, I believe, or --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- an appointed body from that ministry, had decided that septic tanks in rural Ontario would have to have a civil engineer's drawing before they could be put in place. Immediately upon hearing that, I went to the minister and we lobbied very hard for her to talk to that agency to have that reversed.

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: I have in my hand a letter that the ministry has looked at that; it's going to suspend that and it will no longer be necessary in the interim. People in rural Ontario are very pleased with that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could table a detailed reply.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Does this now mean Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs and Septic Tanks?

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

DE LA SALLE COLLEGE

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I would like to ask a question on behalf of parents and students who attend De La Salle College. As you are aware, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, owners of the school property, entered negotiations with the Metropolitan Separate School Board last October with the intention of converting De La Salle school back to a privately run institution. In February of this year negotiations broke down when the Brothers of the Christian Schools withdrew. To date, no further negotiations have taken place, and parents are naturally worried about their children's future.

Mr Minister, these parents are now faced with two possibilities, either having to pay exorbitant tuition fees so their children remain enrolled at De La Salle or having to transfer them to another school. This is not fair, and I wish to ask the minister, what action does the ministry plan to take to ensure that the students' education is not jeopardized?

Unfortunately, the school is owned privately and therefore the ministry has its hands tied and can't do a lot about this. We are involved with the Metropolitan Separate School Board and are trying to facilitate negotiations. There have been some offers back and forth. We'll continue to try to work on this.

Mr Rizzo: Will the minister guarantee that the children currently enrolled in this institution will not be forced to transfer to another school because they now find themselves in a school that is no longer publicly funded?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact is that if this school goes entirely private and there is no arrangement with the Metropolitan Separate School Board, then public funds cannot flow into a private school to pay a private tuition. That is a reality. There was an offer made by the Metropolitan Separate School Board to continue an arrangement for the current students to completion of their high school that was rejected by the brothers. There is an effort being made by the separate school board, and neighbouring schools will attempt, to the best of their ability, to keep those --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Sit down. He just looked at the clock.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not going to take a lecture from Jim Bradley about the length of answers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JOB CREATION

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): Mr Speaker, I know question period has gone on for quite a while today, but I have a very important question -- at least I feel it is a very important question -- dealing with eastern Ontario and job creation. I would like to address it to the Treasurer.

Minister, yesterday in the Legislature our leader, Lyn McLeod, raised the issue of job losses with the Premier. Specifically she mentioned the Trenton-Belleville area, which has been very hard-hit with the loss of approximately 2,600 jobs, consisting of over 100 layoffs or closures during the past three years.

Some of the largest losses were Corby Distilleries, 180 people; Stewart-Warner, 60 people; Stouffers, 130 people; Murata Erie, from a high of 1,000 to a plant that is now empty; Freightmasters, 60 people; Paperboard Industries, 180 people; and the closing of the General Electric plant, affecting 160 workers.

Treasurer, I want to send these 16 pages of layoffs and closures that were provided to me by the UIC offices in Belleville and Trenton over to you and also to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

I want to add to that, which is part of my second question, that yesterday again the Premier mentioned action your government has taken for other areas hard-hit by high unemployment. Those were Kapuskasing, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay. Also, yesterday the Minister of Economic Development and Trade announced a new $24-million Windsor assistance package to create or maintain 1,495 jobs. You have mentioned other job creation areas you've created in the north and in the south.

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

Mr O'Neil: What I'm asking is that none of these were in eastern Ontario. Where do the Quinte area especially, and eastern Ontario, stand in your jobs strategy for some type of special employment assistance? We are only asking for our fair share of job creation in eastern Ontario.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I wonder if I could refer that very important question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): First, I want to address the point the member raised with respect to the assistance package to Windsor and the announcement that was made this week. It's very important that he recall that our government made a decision, and announced it in the last budget, to cancel a number of relocations of government offices to communities across the province: Windsor, Chatham, Brantford, Kingston, the Haileybury/Tri-Town area and Elliot Lake.

We also announced at that time that we were setting aside a pool of money, $100 million, to work with those affected communities to try to replace at least the same number of public sector jobs that weren't moving there with private sector jobs, and we've worked very hard to do that. We have had successful completion of packages in a number of communities.

Kingston was one of those communities. You referenced that there was no eastern Ontario involvement. There was also a portion of money that went to Renfrew as a result of the cancellation and the change in relocation there. With respect to that particular announcement and the treatment of Windsor, in fact all communities affected in the same way have been treated in the same way, so the member should put his question in the proper context.

He raises the serious question of job loss. It is a very serious issue right across the province. We've been working through the Ontario Development Corp with companies like Perth Soaps and others that have been brought to our attention, and we're working in eastern Ontario and in all parts of the province.

I'd be pleased to sit down and look at the list you're providing and particular issues of assistance on which we can work with you, but I assure the member that our efforts have been, if not as intense, even more intense in parts of eastern Ontario, if you look down through Cornwall and other areas that have been tragically affected by the recession and the job loss that has affected not just this province but this whole country.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

APOLOGY

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Yesterday during a vote, I made a comment with respect to the newly elected member for the third party that was intemperate, and for that comment, I withdraw it and apologize.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

The standing committee on the administration of justice: Mr Bisson for Mr Duignan, and Ms Haeck for Mr Mills.

The standing committee on estimates: Mr Fletcher for Ms Haeck, and Mr Duignan for Mr Bisson.

The standing committee on general government: Mr Mills for Mr Fletcher.

The standing committee on government agencies: Mr Malkowski for Mr Marchese.

The standing committee on public accounts: Mr Marchese for Mr Duignan.

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

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I would like to stand on a point of order and ask you if you could investigate whether the issues about the shortfall this year in the financing, some $2 billion -- there have been many reports in the newspapers with respect to a $2-billion shortfall in revenues and the expenditures having to be cut.

The Speaker: What is the member's point of order?

Mr Stockwell: I would ask, through you, Mr Speaker, to the Treasurer, on a point of order, that I think this Legislature has a right to know exactly where we stand in our fiscal forecasts and financial positions.

The Speaker: The member has been here long enough to know that points of order are directed to the Speaker. The member has what sounds like very good subject material for question period, and we will have another question period tomorrow.

PETITIONS

PAY EQUITY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario undertook to provide a down payment to female-dominated employees of community agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in anticipation of required increases in salary rates because of the proxy comparison method under the pay equity legislation; and

"Whereas there were a number of female-dominated agencies which had been approved for the proxy comparison method by the Pay Equity Commission but whose employees were not provided with the down payment in the original government process because of the criteria used; and

"Whereas approximately 90% of similar agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario have received the down payment, we as a female-dominated organization, along with a few other community agencies in the province, have not to date received the promissory down payment that was initiated in the summer of 1992; and

"Whereas we applaud this initiative in its attempt to assist women in low-paying jobs to bring their wages to a proportionate level of their male counterparts, and furthermore

"We request" -- and this

part is underlined -- "that the government of Ontario fulfil its commitment to the female-dominated workforce in the province and equity by agreeing to provide the same down payment to the employees of those community agencies who have been approved for proxy comparison and who were not provided with that funding to date."

This was signed by several employees and supporters of the York South Association for Community Living who have been denied the same benefits that hundreds of others have been given. That has to be corrected and that's the purpose of the petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition. I've signed it.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the government of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario undertook to provide a down payment to the female-dominated employees of community agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in anticipation of the required increases in salary rates because of the proxy comparison method under the pay equity legislation; and

"Whereas there were a large number of female-dominated agencies which have been approved for the proxy comparison method by the Pay Equity Commission but whose employees were not provided with the down payment in the original government process because of the criteria used; and

"Whereas 90% of similar agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario have received the down payment, we as a female-dominated organization, along with a few other community agencies in the province, have not to date received the promissory down payment that was initiated in the summer of 1992; and

"Whereas we applaud this initiative and its attempt to assist women in lower-paying jobs to bring their wages to a proportionate level of their male counterparts; and furthermore,

"We request that the government of Ontario fulfil its commitment to the female-dominated workforce in the province and equity by agreeing to provide the same down payment to the employees in these community agencies who have been approved for proxy comparison and who have not been provided with that funding to date."

"I, the undersigned," and there are many employees who have signed this, "am an employee of the York South Association for Community Living, 475 Edward Avenue, Richmond Hill, and feel a strong sense of injustice due to the fact that I was unfairly denied the pay equity down payment awarded by the government of Ontario to similar community agencies."

It's been signed by many employees. In fact, even those few male employees have signed this petition. They're here at a meeting with folks from the ministry to present their concerns directly, and some of the members of the opposition were there as well to deal with this inequity. I hope it gets dealt with in due course.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. Your point has been made.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I also have several petitions which I'd like to present. These petitions come from the riding of Quinte, as an example, from the Salvation Army, from many people in the Belleville, Sydney, Trenton and Frankford areas, and they concern Bills 45, 55, and 56. I submit these bills and add my signature in support of the petitions.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the New Tecumseth area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas the current dialysis system is discriminatory because some patients have dialysis machines and are treated in home while others have to travel long distances to receive care, and one local patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

That petition is signed by myself and a number of people who join a list of thousands of petitions I have received from both the amalgamated town of New Tecumseth, which contains the previous town of Alliston, and the Collingwood area.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition that was sent to the Lieutenant Governor. It's from Claire Marriott, and it's against Bill 45 because of its changing the meaning of the words "spouse" and "marital status." It's from residents of Hamilton Mountain.

GUN CONTROL

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

"That the Solicitor General allow a provincial exemption as provided for in federal law to possess and use high-capacity firearm magazines for the purpose of competitive shooting in Ontario."

I have signed my name to that as well.

PAY EQUITY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario undertook to provide a down payment to female-dominated employees of community agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in anticipation of required increases in the salary rates because of the proxy comparison method under the pay equity legislation; and

"Whereas there were a number of female-dominated agencies which have been approved for the proxy comparison method by the Pay Equity Commission but whose employees were not provided with the down payment in the original government process because of the criteria used; and

"Whereas approximately 90% of similar agencies funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario have received the down payment, we, as a female-dominated organization, along with a few other community agencies in the province, have not to date received the promissory down payment that was initiated in the summer of 1992; and

"Whereas we applaud this initiative in its attempt to assist women in low-paying jobs to bring their wages to a proportionate level of their male counterparts; and furthermore,

"We request that the government of Ontario fulfil its commitment to the female-dominated workforce in the province and equity by agreeing to provide the same down payment to the employees in those community agencies who have been approved for proxy comparison and who were not provided with that funding to date.

"We, the undersigned employees of the York South Association for Community Living, feel a strong sense of injustice due to the fact that we were unfairly denied the pay equity down payment awarded by the government of Ontario to other similar community agency staff."

I affix my signature to this petition and submit it in the same way as Mr Sorbara and my friend Mr O'Connor have done.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario that reads:

"Whereas every year in North America animals are used in cruel, outdated tests for cosmetics and household products; and

"Whereas these tests are not required by provincial or federal law; and

"Whereas many non-animal alternatives tests are available and are already in use by many companies,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill which prohibits the use of animals in cosmetic and household product testing."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition signed by 109 constituents sent to me by Pastor John Bergman. It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

In agreement, I affix my signature to this.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition which is sent to me by Pastor John Foster of the Evangel Temple in my riding and it reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

This has been signed by some 212 signatories, and to which I too attach my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have two petitions, one on behalf of the member for Scarborough West and of course one for Yorkview. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterparts and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student based on 1993 estimates,

"We, the undersigned" -- and there's a few of them -- "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

I support this 100%.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I was afraid I wasn't going to get this very important petition on the record. It is from 200 people from the Trenton trailer park and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario take action on the matter of Bill 21 to protect people living in mobile homes and living on leased land from being removed from their homes."

I've signed the petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 48 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps may have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all of the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand that the NDP government of Ontario repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I have signed this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 13th through 16th reports, inclusive.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, thank you. I do not have any comment.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF BOTHWELL ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Hope, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr89,

An Act respecting the Town of Bothwell.

TOWNSHIP OF HURON AND VILLAGE OF RIPLEY ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Elston, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr78,

An Act respecting the Township of Huron and the Village of Ripley.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Jim Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 142, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a few statements?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Yes. The intention of the bill is to exempt new short-line railway line operators from the new provisions of the NDP's Bill 40 labour laws, which require that with federally incorporated companies selling to provincially incorporated companies, those new provincial companies would have to respect the successor rights of the employees of the former federal company.

The problem is acute in the Collingwood and Simcoe county areas, where 1,900 jobs are at stake if the government doesn't move to rectify the problem that it has created with its labour laws. I hope the government will eventually support this piece of legislation, which attempts, as I said, to rectify a very serious matter.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to remind the members that the statement must be brief.

The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I move second reading of the Financial Services Statute Law Reform Amendment Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that introduction of bills?

The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

CAPITOL THEATRE AND ARTS CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Dadamo, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr71,

An Act respecting the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor).

On motion by Mr Philip, the following bill was given first reading:

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the minister clarify? Does this now supersede Bill 77? Does he withdraw Bill 77? Is this the new bill here, or what are we dealing with?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): That's not a point of order.

Minister, do you wish to make a brief statement?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I wish to reintroduce for first reading a bill that will reform local government in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

As members may recall, I introduced a similar bill last session which was designed to give a greater regional focus to the area's governance arrangements. It proposed that regional council be directly elected, that mayors of local municipalities not be on regional council, that the region be given responsibility for policing services and that it be given a new and stronger role in economic development. The changes in the electoral process were to be in effect for 1994 municipal elections.

The bill I'm introducing today retains all of these provisions and incorporates several new provisions as well. Some of these are necessary because of the delay in passing this bill. The Ontario Municipal Board will be given authority to make changes in the electoral areas of wards of school boards as a result of changes to local, municipal and regional wards.

The bill includes several police-related measures: the establishment of a regional police planning committee and a regional police services board, clarification of the region's authority to phase in any changes in costs for policing, and the extension of the date for amalgamation of the three existing police forces until January 1, 1997.

As well, street vending provisions have been corrected and provisions have been added which will ensure that the 1994 municipal and school board elections run smoothly.

Finally, the bill is being changed to deal with the operation of Ottawa-Carleton's French-language school board. There has been extensive consultation in the Ottawa-Carleton area, including three studies in the past five years. The time for action has come, and I urge all honourable members to support fast passage of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your statement has been made.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In relation to whether or not this bill can be introduced, I think we would have a better understanding of whether or not it complies with the standing orders by not mirroring another existing bill if the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have told us that this also was

an act of administration which would withdraw the existing bill, which does virtually the same thing with the exception of the addition of some items around school boards.

It is very well known here that the standing orders do not allow the introduction of two bills to the same purpose at the same time in this Legislative Assembly. I think the minister must now tell us if he is going to withdraw Bill 77. In fact, if Bill 77 is not immediately withdrawn, this bill must be refused acceptance on the floor of this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry to say, but this is not a point of order.

Mr Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have not asked for a vote on this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: I just mentioned that it was not a point of order.

Mr Daigeler: That's correct, but you have not asked for a vote on this first reading of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I did.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Abel, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Gary Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr91,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 PORTANT RÉFORME DE DIVERSES LOIS RELATIVES AUX SERVICES FINANCIERS

Mr Owens, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services / Projet de loi 134, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm very pleased today to move that Bill 134, the Financial Services Statute Law Reform Amendment Act, be given second reading, as you can tell by my exuberance earlier in standing up to move this particular bill.

As members of this House will know, this financial services reform bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance in December 1993. It sets out important and forward-looking reforms for the credit unions and caisses populaires in the Insurance Act and the Securities Act.

The reforms in Bill 134 reflect this government's commitment to modernize the regulation of financial services in Ontario.

Our clear direction is to remove outdated and unnecessary barriers to capital for Ontario businesses and Ontario entrepreneurs; to provide the lending and investment tools needed to support economic development in communities across the province; to strengthen the ability of Ontario's financial institutions to compete in the marketplace so Ontario businesses and Ontario residents can have a strong alternative to the banks when they need sources of financing; and finally, to ensure that in all we do, Ontario consumers are well protected in an increasingly complex and dynamic financial services environment.

We made clear, when the minister introduced Bill 134, that it was the first step in this modernization process, and what a significant step it is.

The first and largest part of Bill 134 is the package with respect to comprehensive reforms to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act. These reforms are the result of more than two years of consultation and close collaboration with the credit union and caisse populaire movement and with the financial services sector as a whole.

Beginning in 1991, the credit unions and caisses populaires formed the legislative reform committee to make recommendations to the government. The consultation continues today and the different parts of the movement have come together to form a new coalition and a dynamic working group to work through some of the issues that have arisen. This industry consistently demonstrated its ability to rise above its internal differences to identify common goals and objectives and worked with the government in a professional, businesslike way to make reform a reality.

The credit union and caisse populaire movement is the smallest of the "pillars" which make up the financial services sector in Ontario. It has operated for nearly 20 years with legislation that limited its business powers, limited its lending powers, limited its ability to attract capital for growth and development and imposed a regulatory regime where government approval was required for many day-to-day operations.

But the environment in which credit unions and caisses populaires operate has changed dramatically and the statutory limitations which they face have now become serious obstacles to progress. The marketplace has become more complex and more competitive. Many other financial institutions with whom credit unions must compete on a daily basis have been given modern business powers and a much broader scope in offering financial services and are moving ahead rapidly.

In the economy as a whole, the recession has taken a serious toll on Ontario businesses and the lives of Ontario residents. Now, as never before, we need to ensure that local job creation initiatives have a ready and adequate source of financing and that communities have the tools to help themselves.

Through Bill 134, the government has responded to these challenges in a number of ways. First, we are providing specific tools to strengthen the movement's traditional role of supporting economic development in their communities. Second, we are providing credit unions and caisses populaires with the business powers they need to remain profitable and competitive and to provide Ontarians with a real choice in the financial services marketplace. Third, we are ensuring that our rules are made more effective and are more carefully targeted to areas of risk within the system. Finally, we are establishing a modern consumer protection measures process within the credit union system.

After a wait of nearly two decades, the credit union and caisse populaire movement will have an array of modern financial services, powers and tools at their disposal. Unlike the current system, which limits credit unions to the specific activities listed in the statute, Bill 134 provides credit unions with broad-based, general powers to conduct the business of the financial services.

Where the current statute imposes restrictive caps on commercial lending and then limits these caps even further by lumping together agricultural lending with commercial lending, Bill 134 provides an expanded and more flexible framework for business lending. Caps will be raised on both agricultural and commercial lending, and, through a new lending licence system, credit unions will be able to expand their lending activity as their operations expand. Credit unions and caisses populaires will be able to syndicate loans; that is, band together to support larger-scale commercial lending.

Nearly $1.5 billion is now in the system but is restrained by existing rules. This $1.5 billion will be made available for new loans and investments. Credit unions and caisses populaires will be given a much broader ability to own subsidiaries. This will enable them to offer a wide range of specialty services to their members, to enter profitable lines of financial services and to undertake specialized forms of community development activities.

The movement has made clear to the government that access to capital is of critical importance. Without capital, credit unions cannot grow, innovate, fully utilize technology or support community development. Bill 134 provides the movement with new options for raising capital, including tapping into the public equity markets in addition to the traditional sources. At the same time, however, we have taken care to ensure that the cooperative, "one member, one vote" character of the movement is preserved.

Innovative and flexible marketing arrangements are increasingly common among financial institutions. These are becoming more important sources of revenue. Bill 134 allows credit unions and caisses populaires to sell the products of other financial institutions and so be able to increase the range of profitable services they can offer to their membership.

I would like to note here that the government has taken particular care in crafting the sections of Bill 134 relating to insurance retailing. It's important that we do not disrupt the marketplace standards that have been established under federal legislation. I'm pleased to state that we have worked very, very closely and, most importantly, successfully with the credit union movement and the insurance industry on this matter.

As members of the House will know, each credit union and caisse populaire is formed around the bond of association, individuals sharing a common bond joined together on a cooperative basis to help each other address their financial needs. Because the population and the industrial bases are changing in Ontario, credit unions need greater flexibility in expanding or adjusting their bonds of association. Our reforms will allow for a percentage of the total membership to include business corporations and governmental bodies. These bodies currently fall outside the bond.

As we modernize the range of powers available to credit unions, we must also take care to ensure that the regulatory system keeps pace. A modern regulatory system must be effective but must not impose unnecessary burdens on the industry. A modern regulatory system must clearly allocate responsibility between the government and the industry. A modern regulatory system must be able to spot problems and move to correct them before they grow to serious proportions.

In Bill 134, we have established a regulatory system which satisfies all these criteria:

-- We have strengthened the movement's responsibilities for managing its own affairs, and we have established the requirement for audit committees and new eligibility requirements for boards of directors.

-- We have strengthened disclosure requirements for potential conflicts of interest.

-- We have established a system-wide monitoring program to enable the deposit insurer and the credit unions and caisses populaires themselves to identify and correct emerging problems.

-- We have made the regulator's powers more focused and more directed towards potential problem areas in the system, rather than waiting until a problem has blown up.

Finally, as I noted, in all we do and in all of our reforms, we must never forget the need to ensure that the consumer of financial services in Ontario is protected. We have taken important steps directly with Bill 134, and we have provided the legislative framework to take further steps as marketplace conditions continue to evolve.

When the Minister of Finance introduced Bill 134 last December, he said, "These reforms will begin a new era for Ontario's credit unions and caisses populaires and their communities." The minister was speaking of the specific provisions of Bill 134. I would add that the process of reform and the strong and growing spirit of cooperation within the movement itself also mark a new and exciting era for the credit unions and caisses populaires in Ontario.

On the issue of life agent reform, in the second part of this bill we are updating the Insurance Act. We want to modernize how Ontario regulates life insurance agents. This will make the financial services sector more competitive and better protect those who buy life insurance.

This framework will allow us to introduce higher educational standards and two levels of licences, and to establish a strict code of ethics and set out serious penalties for violating it.

It will also broaden agents' ability to offer the products of other insurance companies to better provide for the diverse needs of consumers. Let me provide some details on this.

The amendments will provide a regulation-making power to permit the introduction of a two-step examination and licensing system. All applicants for licensing would be required to pass an entry-level examination to be followed two years later by a more comprehensive examination.

It will broaden the ability of experienced life insurance agents to better sell the products of more than one life insurer, so consumers have a choice of products at the point of purchase. It will provide increased protection for consumers through the power to make regulations prescribing an agents' code of ethics.

It will introduce regulation-making power to govern networking arrangements between insurance companies, agents, brokers and other businesses or financial institutions.

It will provide for authority for an organization, a life insurance council composed of people from the life insurance industry and representatives of the public, to license and regulate life insurance agents.

It will require that licences of life insurance agents be renewed once every two years on their birthday rather than the current requirement of annually on a single day.

Most of the new proposals will be put into place by amending regulations. We will consult with interested parties on how to change these regulations.

The life agent reforms in Bill 134 are necessary to keep the sector vital and able to contribute to the province's economic renewal.

On the issue of securities, the third part of the bill, again we are in the process of strengthening protection for investors in securities. These measures will further enhance confidence in Ontario's markets as a safe place to invest.

Bill 134 amends the Securities Act to update the Ontario Securities Commission's powers to investigate alleged misconduct and to deal with misconduct when it's found.

To make monitoring the conduct of participants more efficient and effective, we will also extend the OSC's authority to recognize and oversee self-regulatory organizations.

The financial services sector plays an important

part in Ontario's economy. It is a major employer that provides thousands of jobs. It also provides services to individuals and families, and supports businesses.

Modernizing the rules for the financial services in Bill 134 reflects this government's commitment to a strong and competitive financial services sector needed to contribute to Ontario's economic growth.

With that, I'd like to thank the members of the credit union and caisse populaire movement, the members of the securities community and also the members of the life agent community for their hard work and their continued support of the government in its move to keep Ontario's economy strong and to promote the strong financial services sector that we have in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was very interested to listen to the remarks. Basically, they reflect in a little broader terms what was said by the minister when he introduced this on December 9.

It would be interesting to have the parliamentary assistant tell us about the omissions from the bill. It would be interesting, when he talks about an all-encompassing financial services reform, if he would tell us why they have chosen as a government not to include other players like mutual insurance companies and trust companies that are also interested in playing on the same level playing field that they seem to be creating under the auspices of this bill.

I am also interested in whether they are willing to entertain amendments to this bill that would allow that level playing field to be established. Perhaps he can explain to us why he has omitted to address those particular areas, and that might give us some insight about why the bill takes its current form.

Finally, it would be interesting to have the parliamentary assistant explain to us why there could not be three separate pieces of legislation so that this Legislative Assembly can keep each particular element of the financial services package separate and so that we can study in some detail and with some specifics each particular area without having to run from one item into another.

We do run into the prospect of causing some confusion around the legislation, as we have caused in relation to the passage of Bills 108, 109 and 110 in a previous sitting in this House. Those bills, having been dealt with together under an agreement by this House, ultimately ended up causing widespread public confusion around what was intended by the government with respect to the Powers of Attorney Act. It seems to me that we should be very wary indeed of establishing any legislative agenda that causes that sort of public confusion.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I share in the comments presented by the member of the Liberal Party, but I would like to go further. His points are all valid.

One thing that concerns me is that the Ministry of Financial Institutions on October 29, 1992, issued a news release, which I have a copy of here, that announced, "Sweeping review of Ontario financial services regulation announced," and then went on to talk about the importance of the financial sector, with which we would all agree, I'm sure. But then it says:

"While the review will concentrate on much-needed reforms to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, the Insurance Act and the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, Mr Charlton stressed that all interested parties are encouraged to identify other areas and issues for consideration."

Well, what you've brought forward is the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, and you're making changes to the Insurance Act through this, but there's been nothing on the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

That was back on October 29, 1992, that your government indicated you were beginning the study. I have to admit with some pleasure that there is a sense in which your government has communicated with different groups with regard to issues in the credit unions and the life insurance industry and the insurance industry. And there are major issues, because when you're dealing with a bill that's 185 pages long, this is no simple act; there's an awful lot to it.

I really would like to ask you why the government has not dealt with the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, and in your response, if you'd indicate what your timetable is in dealing with that. The expectation was that it would be covered, but certainly it has not been, either in your remarks or in the bill. If you could deal with that, I would be very grateful.

Mr Owens: I'd like to thank the members for Bruce and Markham for their comments in terms of the issues with respect to -- I imagine the member for Bruce is addressing the issue with respect to farm mutuals and the issue with respect to the loan and trust act.

The government is clearly dedicated to the proposition that these pieces of legislation will be brought forward. I take it, and I hope by your generous comments and questions with respect to these two issues in particular that I'm hearing, that this particular bill and the others would proceed with very little opposition.

In terms of the timetable the member for Markham has asked for, we are still working out some issues with respect to the loan and trust industry. It's our view, as I indicated in my remarks, that the financial services industry is very important to this province, and we want to make sure that things are done right, done cooperatively and done with a sense of building on a strong foundation. I certainly hope we can finish up the work quickly, and as I say, the generous remarks by both members indicate that there will be warm support in the House for these pieces of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: To the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, my interest in the issues of loan and trust and interest in the Insurance Act and in the mutual insurance businesses is real and genuine, but the support for any draft legislation or legislation at all will depend on what he and his minister friend and others intend to put in that legislation.

I think that, interestingly enough, this is not a bad bill to start a new session with. This perhaps will set a tone that will allow us to be fairly cooperative in dealing with some of the legislative agenda of the New Democratic Party because we see this as a step forward; not a step that is taken without some problems, in our view. It is not, however, a piece of legislation where problems in it are serious enough in nature for us to cause any delay in any way, shape or form, and when the vote is taken in principle, our caucus will be supporting this particular legislation.

Having said that, I do want to repeat in the context of my own remarks, as opposed to replying or at least asking questions on the remarks of the member for Scarborough Centre, that we are concerned about the government's propensity now to include in one large bill several pieces of legislative initiative in the manner that this one is constructed. I don't think it is fair to the credit unions, I don't think it's fair to the life people nor do I think it's fair to the securities industry that they all be wrapped together, because in each of these very special and specialized segments, there are very interesting issues of principle around each of those items.

The principles involved in the securities legislative amendments and those principles involved with the credit unions are considerably different in many ways because they deal with functions which are separate in very many ways. If you cast your eyes on this piece of legislation, on this omnibus legislation, it is very difficult to get a single principle out of it that binds it all together with the exception that it all deals with some aspect of financial services.

That should mean, by the way, that in the context of committee deliberations, which have been agreed to by the member for Hamilton Mountain at the request of both myself and the member for Markham, there should be a very wide leeway and latitude given to us when we introduce amendments to this bill that deal with financial services in the province, because the only principle I can see running straight through this particular bill is that it deals with some financial services in the province of Ontario.

So if we move amendments which deal with others, those should be just as acceptable to the government as any other or, at least, they should be acceptable to the Chair so the debate can be had around making sure that the even playing field with respect to provision of financial services is indeed established throughout the financial services market.

I am interested in looking at the run-up to the legislation and its deployment here in the form of Bill 134. There's no question that these initiatives didn't start just two years ago. In fact, when I was Minister of Financial Institutions there were discussions about the revision of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act because, of course, that was important to the caisses populaires and the credit unions and has been for some time.

One of the difficulties that was with us in those days was the fact that there were significant difficulties from a financial stability point of view with some of the credit unions and some of the caisses populaires. I think we should stop for a moment right here and indicate that the very difficult circumstances around the early 1980s situations with some of the credit unions and caisses populaires have to a large extent been dealt with.

There are some, I think, that have to be acknowledged that exist even now with respect to some of the caisses populaires and some of the credit unions, although I must say here as well that I think the reservoir of difficulties probably is more associated with some of the credit union members as opposed to the caisses populaires.

Alliance and Fédération, it seems to me, have probably got all of their members on board. At least, that was the report I have received in the sense that they are all fairly stable. If I'm in error, the member for Scarborough Centre can correct me or some of the people who are off in the wings can send me a note via the mails at some other time and say, "X, Y and Z caisse populaire or the credit union here or there is not stable," but generally speaking, there has been a marvellous advance with respect to stabilizing some of those financial circumstances.

I would like to see, by the way, when the member for Scarborough Centre has a chance to respond to my remarks, that he would undertake to table with us as critics the current status of the caisses populaires and the credit unions so that we can be absolutely sure that the plans to renovate their financial circumstances have all been carried out to the satisfaction of the ministry of financial institutions and to the satisfaction of the Minister of Finance, so that we are absolutely certain that these new initiatives which they are going to be allowed to undertake with respect to lending and other things -- and raising money, as far as that goes -- will be done on a very steady and stable financial basis indeed.

I think that probably is one of the very necessary first pieces of business when we go to the committee. It's actually a credit to the member for Hamilton Mountain, who has agreed with us that we should go to committee briefly during this session, that he has recognized that we need to have that information right up front, right at the beginning; the status of the movement, the status of the credit unions, the status of the caisses populaires, made very plain so that there will be no harm rendered to any of the members of the current movement with regard to putting in place new financial services.

I'm pleased to see that there has been apparently an endorsement of the current circumstances of the credit unions and caisses populaires in the province of Ontario by the minister and by the parliamentary assistant. It seems to me that this legislation indicates a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. To me, it looks like there has been a reward for the renovation of any difficult financial circumstances in the credit union movement.

I will take that as a given with respect to the balance of my remarks, because it is in my view necessary for us to allow an even playing field for these people to carry out their business, just as it is necessary for all other institutions to be able to compete on that same level playing field in the Ontario market.

I agree with the member for Scarborough Centre that it is important to have that level playing field. I agree with him that these are initiatives that will allow that to occur. I do have to differ with him just a wee bit though with regard to whether or not the ability for the credit unions to sell insurance is mirrored on that which is given to the banks under the federal legislation. It seems to me that they have reversed the legislative provisions. I think in the federal provisions, the banks cannot sell insurance unless there are some circumstances met, the regulations allow it.

Here the legislation reads, "Credit unions and caisses populaires can sell insurance except...." So the two sections, it seems to me, indicate a very real difference of opinion as to how best to regulate the expansion of the sale of insurance.

Perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre can tell us about the differences of opinion between his ministry and those in the federal jurisdiction and the reasons why the provision is different. In fact, if that is discussed for us with some degree of detail, perhaps that will allow some of the people who remain concerned about these particular amendments as being proposed to understand their background and perhaps it