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

April 19, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LONG-TERM CARE

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

ORGAN DONORS

RACE RELATIONS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

WINE INDUSTRY

FERRY SERVICE FEES

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

VISITEURS

BUDGET

TAXATION

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

TAXATION

TENDERING PROCESS

VISITOR

TOURISM INDUSTRY

LANDFILL

FOOD LABELLING

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

BUDGET

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIREARMS SAFETY

EDUCATION FINANCING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

JUDGE'S COMMENTS

HAEMODIALYSIS

FIREARMS SAFETY

CHILD CARE

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

FIREARMS SAFETY

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

EMERGENCY SERVICES

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

FIREARMS SAFETY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I was pleased to read in the April 13 edition of the Dryden Local Express that the Minister of Natural Resources has assured the residents of Dryden that they "should be optimistic about provincial funding for the local hospital project and the extended care home." The minister went on even further by saying, "The Minister of Health should be about to make an announcement soon."

The Dryden District General Hospital board and I have been pressing the Minister of Health to move ahead with the approval process for the next stage of planning in order to upgrade the hospital facilities and for the new long-term care building the residents of the Dryden area have been waiting for for so long. We are naturally very pleased and excited about the Minister of Natural Resources' comments and we await the government's funding announcement soon after the budget.

I would also like to take this opportunity to compliment the residents of Dryden and the Dryden area, the Dryden hospital board, the Dryden Extended Care Organization and the administration of both the hospital and Patricia Gardens Minimal Care Home, along with my municipal colleagues, for the work that has gone into these two projects. Many hours have been spent by all concerned in preparing for the projects, and I look forward to a very positive announcement that will be made by this Minister of Health in the upcoming weeks.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns a threatened reduction to municipal road grants and base road funding. This 20% cut will mean a reduction of about $145 million from last year's road grants of $724 million. This represents a $73-million reduction in construction dollars and will result in at least 1,100 fewer jobs.

Municipalities normally match the $73-million provincial funds with local funds. If hard-pressed municipalities decide not to spend those matching funds, the negative employment impact will most certainly double. Road grants have traditionally been announced in January, but this year's allocation will not be disclosed until late April or early May.

For the second time in as many years, this government will announce major transfer cuts to municipalities after they have already set their budgets and their taxation levels. You are requiring municipalities to commit new money for projects under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. I suspect you are merely transferring funds from road grants to meet your commitment under that program.

Minister, on March 23, you affirmed your government's transfer payment commitments and you said you wanted to avoid "downloading our fiscal problems on to our transfer partners, as the federal government has so unfairly done to us. That carries too high a price in lost jobs and cuts to services."

Can the situation have changed that much in three weeks?

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): In many communities across Ontario, there are people whose lives depend on the kindness and understanding of strangers. These are the people who are waiting for a desperately needed organ or tissue transplant. Their only hope for a new life is agreement by a family to organ donation.

This is Organ Donor Awareness Week. In Ontario alone, there are close to 1,000 people waiting for an organ transplant and some will die because there is a critical shortage of donated organs. There are many reasons for this shortage, ranging from a decrease in brain deaths in Ontario to misunderstanding about the organ donation process.

In Ontario, about 100 out of every million people need a transplant but only about 20 out of every million people will ever be a potential donor. Last year in Ontario, there were 568 transplants, an increase over 1992, but there is still a critical shortage of donated organs in Ontario and people will die because of this.

Transplants not only save lives but can reduce health care costs. People waiting for a kidney can be treated by dialysis at a cost of anywhere from $40,000 to $75,000 for every year that patient is on dialysis. A kidney transplant costs about $40,000 and the costs for the years after that for anti-rejection drugs average $3,000 a year. A study has estimated that if organ donation could increase by only 10%, the health care system would save more than $12 million.

Ontario residents can show their support of organ donation by discussing it with family members and signing a donor card. When you sign a donor card, you sign for life.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to add my thoughts to the debate that's raging as a result of what's now called the Just Desserts incident. It has touched a nerve and, in our anger, all of us have to respond. We do run the risk of making things worse rather than better. My plea for all of us is to be sensitive.

Some thoughts: This isn't a crime committed by "the black community." The black community is no different than any other community. They are law-abiding, caring, compassionate, hardworking. It was a crime that was committed by four young criminals, apparently black, but to brand the entire black community obviously is clearly wrong.

My second thought is, this is really a time more than ever before when we need to reach out to our young people, not reject them. It is a fact, and I think an indisputable fact, that in the last few weeks our young black community has probably never felt as rejected as it has in the past few days. This is a time for us all to reach out to our young people, particularly, I must say, to our young black community, and ensure that they don't in any way feel neglected. I think all of us can do that in our own way every single day.

My last point is to urge caution in publicly reporting crime by race. The question is, what do we plan to do with that? If we are simply going to use it as a tool to somehow or other paint an entire community because of the actions of perhaps one out of 1,000 of that community, that's counterproductive.

So if we all want to do something, I'm just urging that we cautiously move forward as we try and deal with this very sensitive issue.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I stood before you a week ago to discuss the inflexibility and anti-development practices of the Niagara Escarpment Commission in my riding. It is certainly no secret how I feel about the commission and its uselessness. In keeping with this, I would like to relate yet another example of why this undemocratic body should be disbanded.

In November 1990 John Deboer, a resident of Sydenham township, applied for a development permit to establish the use of a stair manufacturing operation in an existing building on Niagara Escarpment land. The permit was issued.

Over the next few years business more than tripled, warranting a move to a larger location. In October 1992 Mr Deboer moved his business into a building located only 350 feet from its original location. Since it was the exact same commercial operation taking place in the same rural area of the escarpment, Mr Deboer reasoned that it should continue to be regarded as an existing use as previously determined by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr Deboer was mistaken. A second development permit was rejected by the NEC despite its former approval. Even after receiving development approval from the Ministry of Transportation, the Bruce-Grey health unit and the township, the commission continued to deny Deboer's application and appeal on the ground that the proposed use did not comply with the permitted uses in the Niagara Escarpment plan.

I can only share in Deboer's extreme dissatisfaction with the treatment he received from the commission. How can a body of supposedly educated and logical individuals issue a permit for a specific use and then turn around and deny a permit for the exact same development less than 350 feet away? It is unanswerable questions such as this one that plague Grey county and will continue to do so until this undemocratic body is abolished.

WINE INDUSTRY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is with a great deal of pride I'm pleased to report that Ontario wines are once again making headlines around the world. This time it's their gold medal showing in the international wine competition in Verona, Italy, last week, where Niagara's Cave Spring Cellars 1991 Chardonnay Reserve and Stonechurch's 1991 Icewine took grand gold, the highest honour possible.

Gold medals also went to Inniskillin winery of Niagara-on-the-Lake for its 1992 Icewine. Chateau des Charmes, also of Niagara-on-the-Lake, was awarded a silver medal for its 1992 Paul Bosc Estate Chardonnay. Meanwhile, St Catharines' own Henry of Pelham winery won a bronze for its 1991 Chardonnay Barrel Fermented, as did Pelee Island's 1991 Pinot Noir.

Competing against 900 wines from 16 different countries, Ontario wines took three of the top four spots in the Chardonnay category, winning grand gold, silver and bronze medals. Our icewines took two of the top four spots, grand gold and gold in the sweet wine category.

In addition to six medals, Ontario wines received 10 honourable mentions. Ontario placed second in overall medal totals, with Italy placing first.

Our vintners have once again shown the world that we make some of the finest quality wines anywhere in the world. As someone who supports wine -- and I hope everyone in this House does -- coming from Ontario, I hope we will all lift a glass to congratulate each and every vintner in Ontario for their good work.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have just become aware of yet another blatant example of Tory doublespeak that I would like to share with this House.

On December 16 Mike Harris wrote to the organizers of the anti-ferry-fee coalition in eastern Ontario. Here's what he said:

"Thank you for faxing me a copy of your November 26th letter to Premier Rae expressing your outrage with the NDP government's plans to impose tolls on transportation.

"My caucus and I have continually urged the Premier and the Treasurer to neither increase existing nor introduce any new taxes, which is exactly what such a toll would be."

Yet, Mr Speaker, guess what I read in a recent edition of the Kingston Whig Standard. Again I quote:

"A two- or three-tiered system for ferry fees at Wolfe Island and Glenora is a possibility under a Tory government, says Mike Harris."

That's a quote. These comments were made at a Conservative fund-raiser at the Ambassador Hotel in Kingston. I find it amazing that the Conservative leader can change his tune so dramatically within a short few months.

This issue is of great importance to the people in Kingston, Picton and surrounding areas. For sure, they will remember at election time the obvious Tory inconsistency and they won't be much impressed with a party leader who changes his position every month.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise again in this Legislature to urge the government to give final approval for the redevelopment of the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital.

In the last month approximately 8,250 Collingwood area residents have signed petitions that support my call for a redeveloped hospital in Collingwood. These citizens are both frustrated and concerned that the promised redevelopment has been studied to death and stalled for the past seven years. These citizens have had their faith in their hospital shaken because government funding cutbacks have forced the General and Marine Hospital to close beds and reduce staff.

They have also had their trust in government damaged by unkept promises made by successive Liberal and NDP governments. Since 1987 five Liberal and NDP Health ministers have announced and reannounced their intentions to approve the redevelopment of Collingwood hospital. To date, no sod has been turned and over $4 million in donations and pledges made by residents to help finance the redevelopment project sit idle in a local bank.

It is vital that the redevelopment of the Collingwood hospital be approved immediately. This green light will create construction jobs that are badly needed in the area. It may also restore the trust that has been lost between governments that have made promises and not kept them, promises that were made to the people of Ontario. They're sick and tired of politicians saying one thing and not taking action on what they've said.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I rise today to introduce a victim, a victim who is also a constituent and a victim of the workers' compensation system.

Mr Claudio Aiello, who is a constituent of mine, got hurt a number of years ago at General Electric. He hurt his hand, his shoulder and his back. He was productive, he was working a few years ago, he was ready to get married, he had a fiancée, the plans for the marriage were almost there ready to go, and then he got hurt. That's when his nightmare started.

It started when he made his initial phone calls to the adjudicator of the Workers' Compensation Board. That same adjudicator, a few years later, still giving him runarounds, still doesn't necessarily understand what he's going through as a human being.

The decision review board hasn't helped either in terms of responding to his letters dealing with his concerns, and of course trying to understand Mr Aiello's concerns. It's very difficult for me as a member to stand up here and not be compassionate when he talks about the decision review board and the lack of understanding they have shown as well over the last few years. The office of the worker adviser hasn't helped him at all.

I would ask this House, and of course the Premier, when the reforms come about, to look at these particular problems and help people, the future Aiellos.

VISITEURS

Le Vice-Président (Gilles E. Morin) : J'aimerais inviter tous les députés de l'Assemblée législative à souhaiter la bienvenue dans la Chambre à nos invités des parlements de la république du Bénin, du Québec, de la Suisse, de la France, du val d'Aoste, du Canada et de la Belgique qui sont assis dans la tribune du Président.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUDGET

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1994 budget for Ontario to the Legislature and to my colleagues on Thursday, May 5, at 4 pm.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm looking forward to the budget on May 5. I guess I'd start by saying that last year when the minister and the Premier presented their budget, you may recall that jobs were the number one priority in that budget --

Interjection: Still are.

Mr Phillips: The fact is, you haven't delivered. The member across said, "Still are."

What we now see -- this is now heading into the fifth year of the Rae government --

Hon Mr Laughren: Talk about your numbers.

Mr Phillips: -- is a record number of people out of work in the province. The Premier promised that things on the job front were going to get better. As this budget ended, the final three months of this budget, we saw 4,000 fewer people working in the province of Ontario than the year before. The Minister of Finance may shake his head, but those are the facts.

As we look in the rest of Canada, what's happening in the rest of Canada: 150,000 more people are working in the rest of Canada and 4,000 fewer people are working in the province of Ontario. That was the number one priority in the budget, and it's not working.

Among our young people there is a tragic level of unemployment. The reported number is approximately 20%, one out of five. The real number, when you look at the number that have simply dropped out -- they're not enrolled in colleges or universities -- is one out of three. So last year, as we looked at this budget, the number one priority was jobs and it has not worked.

I will say that on Friday my leader issued a report called Getting Ontario Working Again. I would hope that we would see, as this budget is prepared and presented, many of the ideas that are presented in this report that will get people working again.

The second thing that the budget promised was to get their fiscal house in order. I went back over the last three budgets. In the first Rae budget, taxes went up $1 billion. In the second budget, taxes went up $1 billion. Last year's budget, taxes went up $2 billion. Taxes have gone up dramatically.

Hon Mr Laughren: Are you talking about the Liberals?

Mr Phillips: What's actually happened is tax revenues have actually dropped, and so getting your fiscal house in order, Mr Premier, has not worked. You have taken taxes up dramatically and tax revenues have dropped. Something is fundamentally wrong in our economy.

The Premier's second key objective in last year's budget -- first was to get jobs created in the province; it's not working -- was to get our fiscal house in order. The more you've taken taxes up, the more tax revenues have dropped. If you go back three years, tax revenues have actually, as the Premier knows, dropped by $2 billion while you've taken taxes up by $4 billion. That is not working.

The third thing I wanted to say --

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Explain that.

Mr Phillips: "Explain that," you said? Yes, you should understand this. What you're doing is, you're taking the tax rates up and you're driving people out of the economy. If you don't understand that, you aren't listening to us.

The third thing I would say is that as we look at the budget, and I realize that for many this may not be a central issue, we will be looking at things like, is it your plan -- this year, the year that just ended, the government theoretically sold $400 million worth of GO trains. I gather that in the budget that's coming up they may very well "sell" our ferries, "sell" our planes, "sell" our heavy equipment and then lease them back.

They are taking a holiday from making payments against our pension funds. The unfunded liability in our pension funds is roughly $10 billion. It is growing at the rate of approximately $800 million a year, but we're making no payments against that.

I will say to the Minister of Finance, we will look at the budget on the basis of: When are we going to start seeing jobs created, and how will this budget help that? When are we going to get our fiscal house in order? The third thing we will want to look at is the numbers. Have we listened to our Provincial Auditor, and will the budget that is presented in fact, as he wants, reflect in an accurate way the finances of this province?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I think everyone is anxious to see how this government is going to create jobs. In our pre-budget finance report we gave you about 19 recommendations, Minister of Finance, everything from taxation to what to do with the employer health payroll tax to what to do with workers' compensation to what to do with social assistance to what to do with regulations. We have given this government almost two and a half pages of recommendations of what needs to be done in this budget.

It starts very clearly that there cannot be any taxation increases in the province of Ontario. The difference between us and the Liberals is that we've been arguing that since the late 1980s, when we told you, "You can't continue to tax, spend and borrow like there was no tomorrow." Now tomorrow is here.

The last budget gave us the biggest tax grab in the history of this province, even bigger than the taxing of the Peterson government, which was at record levels. We had another $10-billion deficit in the last budget. We had another credit rating; it's been our third downgrading of credit ratings in three years. Over this year, we had the refusal of the Provincial Auditor to endorse the books, and we've had the start of a tax revolt with the underground economy, because people are saying that you don't spend their money wisely and they will do anything to avoid it.

The annual forecasts were off again. We were supposed to be getting the deficit down. We have not. We call it the deficit du jour. Each week that goes by there have to be other cuts. There is no long-term game plan.

In order to be credible, we laid out very clearly in our pre-budget report what we would like to see done in the province of Ontario. Two years ago, I sat on those hearings and we again gave recommendations to the Minister of Finance. He didn't listen on the issues of taxation, and had he listened, we would not have had to go through some of the measures we had, such as the social contract this year, because we warned you three years ago that you had to control government spending and that the only way we're going to create jobs is to allow the private sector to be successful.

Instead, you did nothing but tax the living daylights out of every person and every business in the province of Ontario.

We gave our recommendations to this Minister of Finance. We hope on May 5 of this year you're finally going to start to listen to some of the ideas we've put forward for literally three and a half years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Clearly, the Treasurer has gone about teasing the bears with this controversial statement here today, two pages to tell us the budget is on Thursday, May 5, 1994. It will be the fourth budget offered up by this socialist government in the province of Ontario. On May 6, the people in the province of Ontario will be breathing a collective sigh of relief, because more than likely, thank God, it will be the last budget offered up by the socialists in the province of Ontario.

I will also add, it is very true, the Liberal critic for Finance does mention the fact that by raising taxes they're generating less revenue. We know on this side of the House you could never accuse that Liberal government of that. When they raised taxes, they got a lot more money every time they increased those taxes. So if they want to give lessons, there's a crew over there who will listen very intently, because they got the raise in taxes part right; they just didn't get the getting more money part right, and that was the difference.

I will look forward to this next budget, because the Treasurer has promised, for the first time in a budget he has brought down, no tax increases. To the beleaguered taxpayers in this province, that is the first and most important thing that any Treasurer in this province representing any party could offer up to those taxpayers.

Never was it made more clear than yesterday, when this Treasurer went out and reduced the taxes on the brew-your-own breweries. That was reduced, and we know why it was reduced: because the speculation was that it would generate some $5 million in extra taxes and in fact it's come in pathetically below the $5 million, thereby proving the point we've been trying to explain to the socialists since September 6, 1990.

They're at the tax wall. Just because you raise the taxes just means you drive more businesses and more honest citizens underground, and that's not where they want to be in this province. They want to be paying their fair share, but you've pushed them to the wall, Mr Treasurer, and you've pushed them directly to the wall with your previous three budgets.

Lastly, in this upcoming budget, I would like the Treasurer to know that job creation is an important cog within this caucus and within this party and this province, but you must be cognizant of government spending, and this budget will be very interesting in how you delicately balance what you've claimed you are going to do for the people.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Finance. As our treasury critic has indicated, on Friday we released a report called Getting Ontario Working Again, and it is the report of our task force on jobs. In this report we set out a comprehensive framework for getting people back to work again.

The minister has challenged our Finance critic to talk about our numbers, and I do so with pride, because the goal we set out in this report is to get unemployment in this province down to 6% because this government's projections of 9% unemployment are completely unacceptable.

It is quite clear that last year's budget is going to fail to reach its job targets, and one of the reasons it's going to fail to reach the job creation targets is because of the $2 billion in job-killing taxes that were in that budget. It was made very clear to our task force that it would be necessary to reduce taxes in order to get people working again, and I realize the minister has finally begun to acknowledge that and we too were pleased to see that he had decided to reduce the taxes on the you-brews. That had been a vibrant and growing industry until this government put a tax on it in last year's budget, and we've since seen some 500 people laid off and some 40 businesses close.

I ask the minister: Given the fact that you have finally acknowledged that the you-brew tax was forcing people to lay off employees and to close their doors, can we now expect, as we look towards the next budget, that you are examining the whole host of job-killing taxes you introduced last year and that you will be taking steps to determine what other ones should now be cut?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the reference to the official opposition's task force on jobs. When I was reading it, I could not help but notice the numbers and even do a little bit of analysis of the numbers contained therein.

I don't want to be mean to the leader of the official opposition or to tease the bears on the benches opposite, but I did want to tell her directly that she's wrong on the numbers in her task force on unemployment, she's wrong on the numbers on job creation and she's wrong on the level of deficit that would be achieved by the actions that you recommend in your task force report. Your task force report is full of holes, and I hope you will not ask me to use it as a benchmark for any future actions we'll take on this side of the House.

Mrs McLeod: I was very pleased about the fact that what we have set out in our jobs task force report has received independent confirmation from economic specialists that it is indeed balanced and realistic and would work. I say to this Finance minister that the clear evidence that his approach has not worked is seen in the fact that there are 4,000 fewer people working in this province at the end of March this year than there were at the end of last year. That is clear evidence of what does not work.

I take the Treasurer back to my question of whether or not they are prepared to look at job-killing taxes and remove them as he approaches his budget. I want to give him an example of one tax that I believe he should cut.

Treasurer, last spring you announced that you were going to put a new tax on ferries in eastern Ontario. The communities that were affected have argued long and hard that those new fees, a tax by any other name, will hurt tourism and that they will kill jobs. The Premier said the government would do a study on it, and the study was done, but it didn't look at the impact of the fees and it didn't look at the impact of those fees on the local economies.

In absolute frustration, the people in one of those affected communities, the people in Glenora, did their own study, and they found that the fees on the Glenora ferry alone will cause job losses and that the province will actually lose $48,000 in revenue as a result of those job losses.

So, Minister, I ask you: Given this kind of evidence of not only lost jobs but also revenues lost to your own budget, why would you proceed with these fees? If the fees are only going to lower revenues, why don't you cancel them and save the jobs that would be lost?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm glad that the leader of the official opposition at least now is calling them fees and not taxes. If you use the service and pay a fee for using the service, I don't think that's unreasonable at all. I see nothing unreasonable about that whatsoever.

When the leader of the official opposition talks to us about job-killing taxes, and in her report makes special references to the employer health tax as a job-killing tax, I want simply to remind her who it was that brought in the employer health tax in this province. It was the Liberal Party when it was in office. And if the leader of the official opposition doesn't like using herself as a benchmark, perhaps she could look to her cousins in Ottawa, who raised UI premiums by as much as 7% in January of this year. There needs to be at least a modicum of consistency when the leader of the official opposition puts her questions.

Mrs McLeod: We are at least prepared to deal with today's realities, and that's what our task force report does. I would suggest that people who are prepared to deal with today's realities stand here and look at what is happening in Ontario today. The leader of the third party would not be voting for the Frank Miller budget and the increase in personal income tax that was in that particular budget. Today's realities are different, and I take the Treasurer back to this very specific example of a tax by any other name that is going to cost jobs and cost him revenue in his next budget.

Minister, let me focus on what you're doing here. You hope to collect $190,000 with these new fees -- a tax by another name. It's going to cost you $68,000 a year to collect the fees. The Glenora study -- this is just on the Glenora ferry alone -- shows that the local tourist operators will lose $375,000 in business and this will cost you $80,000 in lost revenues. The pick-your-own farmers will lose $150,000 in business and that will cost you $33,000 in lost revenues. Added to all of that, 45 jobs will be taxed out of existence.

Minister, do you not realize that this is another case just like the you-brews where you are taxing away jobs and strangling the economic recovery? I ask how you can justify that kind of tax increase that is both going to kill jobs and cost you revenues.

Hon Mr Laughren: I suppose we could have a debate on the numbers contained in the question by the leader of the official opposition, but I would simply say to her that I do not think it's unreasonable for people to pay a fee for the services they receive on something like a ferry. I just don't think that's unreasonable. Whether it's riding on the TTC or whether it's riding on a ferry, I don't think that's unreasonable.

I know the leader of the official opposition wants everything to be free, to have no taxes, to have the deficit going down, to have job creation but no cost to anyone. Get real. It is not possible to do all that you want to do, given the promises that you try to extract from us for not increasing taxes.

You've just taken me to task for raising taxes in the last budget. At the same time, your critic is on his feet castigating us for the level of the deficit week after week, which is his job and he does it well, but at the same time, you cannot have it both ways. Where do you stand on the deficit? Where you do stand on the level of taxation? I can just say to you as the leader of the official opposition that I think it's time you put your positions in front of the people of this province.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My effort today, once again, is to try and find out where the government stands and what the government is planning to do, so I will again go to the Minister of Finance, on another issue.

Minister, in late March you announced that you will be keeping funding to schools, hospitals, colleges and universities and municipalities at last year's level in order to preserve essential services and to save jobs.

Municipalities greeted that announcement with pleasure, but they recognized that this particular program, the commitment on unconditional grants, is only 16% of the transfers they receive from the province. They're still waiting for the other shoe to drop. They're waiting to hear from you about your commitment specifically to road funding transfers, which are tied to billions of dollars' worth of local road capital projects.

I have in my hand a copy of a government letter which was sent out to all municipalities last week warning them that the province's road funding budget will not be finalized until May and that there will be "significant reductions" in road funding.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is concerned that you may be prepared to cut road grants by as much as 20%, which would mean a $73-million cut in maintenance funding and a $73-million cut in new construction funding. Perhaps even more significantly, according to the association of municipalities, that would mean 1,100 fewer jobs this year.

Minister, can you explain why you have decided to break your promise to match last year's transfers to the municipalities and why road transfers would be cut and 1,100 jobs would then be threatened?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could refer that question to my good friend and very competent Minister of Transportation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The dilemma: the impasse of having municipalities that are anxiously awaiting each and every year the base capital transfer payment, the money that flows from the province to more than 850 client groups.

Last year we were talking in terms of $714 million. That's money that left Queen's Park and went to 882 clients. Part of the money was used for maintenance -- Harry Smith, the grader operator during a snow storm; and part of the money was used for capital, fixing the potholes in a small and remote community: $714 million.

The announcement hasn't been made, but I know and I remain confident that the commitment of the province will make each and every recipient and partner proud of the money they shall receive. It is not our intention, never was, never will be, to unload, to make a transition in the negative from the province to the municipality. There's no shell game here. Let's wait and see, and you can look to the future with confidence when it comes to transfer payments.

Mrs McLeod: Do we assume, then, that the minister's response to that question is the Treasurer's response to the concerned letter from the association of municipalities that has been sent to the Treasurer today?

I would remind you that the construction season for road projects is beginning, that municipalities have to know now what they'll be receiving in road funding so they can firm their tenders, so they can sign contracts, that you're now making them wait until May to even start making those decisions.

I would remind you that last year, even with the social contract and the expenditure cuts, you were still able to tell municipalities what they would receive for road funding early in the year, because you recognized then that it was important. In fact, at that time you said you were protecting capital funding to help support jobs and economic growth. Why has the agenda changed this year, when you promised to maintain transfers?

While the Premier is going on boasting about his record on capital spending, you're playing hide-and-seek with the municipalities of this province. I ask you directly, why are you continuing to delay the announcements on road funding? Tell us exactly how many projects you expect to be cancelled and how many jobs will be lost.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can appreciate the anxiety, but when we're talking about jobs, there's nothing phenomenal here. There's no hidden agenda. This isn't a shell game.

We're moving full steam ahead on four subway lines for public transit. The largest project in North America, Highway 407, is going full steam ahead. Let's talk about jobs: You're talking about more than 20,000 jobs. No work has been done on public transit vis-à-vis the subway in the past 10 years. We're moving not on one, not on two, not on three, but on all four lines.

We've formed a corporation. We're spending more money on highways than ever before. We're full partners in the provincial-federal-municipal infrastructure program: more money, more jobs, more women and more men going to work.

We've very much aware of the need at the municipal level to be able to set your budget. It wasn't too long ago that most municipalities took full advantage of their allocations under the "interim tax levy," 50% based on last year's figures. I too, coming from a small and remote community in northern Ontario, can relate directly: I have been there; I am still there. There will be more jobs than ever before, more money from capital transportation going back to the taxpayers via the municipalities.

Mrs McLeod: How can we believe what the minister has just said when there is a letter that has gone out saying there will be a significant reduction? What does "significant reduction" mean? This minister is playing games with municipalities in this province and he is playing games with 1,100 jobs that could be jeopardized by this delay and by this significant cut in funding. There is an absurdity to this, because the letter to the municipalities asks for supplementary grant proposals to be made. It says, "We recognize it will be more difficult for you to assess your supplementary funding needs without knowing your base allocation."

While this government is playing games with municipalities, it is quite clear that it is moving full steam ahead with its own capital project announcements.

Over the past few weeks we have watched the Premier conducting a kind of trial election campaign, handing out provincial capital grants while the municipalities are being left to sit on hundreds of millions of dollars in capital projects that could be starting right now. In fact, at the same time in one day last week that the Premier was handing out about $30 million in capital grants, the municipalities were being told their road funding would be cut.

Why is the funding for the Premier's pre-election campaign announcements ready to go while the road grants are being delayed? Are 1,100 road construction jobs being jeopardized because you can't put a Jobs Ontario logo on them?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect, I know, given the high office, that the Leader of the Opposition has better things to do with her time allocation, which is limited, and I appreciate and respect that, than scrutinizing and reading between the lines of messages that appear in a brown envelope from an anonymous source.

Let me reiterate what I have said before in a nutshell, in one-liners: People will be pleased when they see the cheque in the mail. You have the capacity to be positive.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The Leader of the Opposition keeps interrupting. I don't know if it's a matter of having had a difficult childhood or refusing to understand what I'm saying, plain and simple.

The work will be done. There will be more jobs than ever before, capital, rolling stock, highways. People will be working more than they ever have before. It's a success story. Why don't we share in it and resist the temptation of parochial and partisan politics? People are going to work. They're bringing a paycheque back home. It's good news for all Ontarians.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I appreciate the answers from the minister, who demonstrates on a daily basis that he's still in childhood, from what we hear.

I was intrigued with the suggestions of the leader of the Liberal Party, the party that in a very short, five-year period hiked more taxes and had a bigger bureaucracy and higher spending than in the history of the province of Ontario. To stand and have the gall to suggest that taxes are too high suggests to me a significant case of amnesia.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last year, Minister, you announced a 26-cent-a-litre tax on brew-your-own businesses. In eight months that tax killed 150 jobs and 30 businesses, and despite this devastating impact on the industry, you only collected one fifth of the tax revenue that you had projected.

Yesterday you said -- quite frankly, I congratulate you for recognizing and acknowledging it and I hope I'm quoting correctly from what I read in the press reports, because you didn't say it in the House -- that lowering the you-brew tax will actually increase your revenues to $3 million annually.

This is exactly what we have been trying to tell a succession of treasurers for 10 years in the province of Ontario. It is exactly what we have been telling you in your tenure as Treasurer for the last three years.

Now that you have recognized that we have hit the tax wall -- it's a wall beyond which, when you hike taxes you actually get less money, and if you will cut taxes you will get more money -- would you acknowledge and have you examined, two weeks before you present your budget, other tax rates that are at or in excess of the tax wall where you could actually get more money by cutting rates? Could you give us that analysis?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): If I might respond first to some of the comments in the leader of the third party's

preamble in which he, I thought, was a bit unfair to the official opposition --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Wait for it, wait for it -- a bit unfair to the official opposition in making references to their tax increases. Does he forget that it was the Liberal Party of this province that promised to reduce the sales tax by 1% in the middle of the last election campaign? Give them credit for something. I think you're being too unfair to the official opposition.

I would say to the leader of the third party not to read too much or to generalize from the particular on the reduction in taxes on the you-brew establishments. I think a better example would be what happened when we lowered cigarette taxes in the province.

We know that with a dramatic decrease in taxes, revenues to the province will drop, even given the increased sales, particularly to young people, by about $500 million this fiscal year. I wouldn't want the leader of the third party to generalize and come to the same conclusion that Ronald Reagan did, that if you lower taxes your revenues automatically go up.

Mr Harris: No, I have not forgotten the 1% on the road to Damascus in the final weeks of the campaign. They seem to be hung up on this 1% solution; that we'll forget the massive billions of bureaucracy and spending and tax increases.

However, let me by way of supplementary deal with the issue at hand. The you-brew tax I assume you cut because you understood you were beyond the wall on that tax instrument, and that cutting the tax in half would actually increase the revenue and produce jobs and economic activity, get more people working, more people spending, more people investing in that area.

There are dozens of taxes, Treasurer, that we believe you can cut. You and the Liberals have hiked taxes 65 times since 1985 alone, and the result of those tax hikes is a $10-billion deficit and half a million people who are unemployed. Of those 65 tax increases, 11 were personal income tax hikes.

Given that you and the Liberals hiked personal income taxes 11 times, given that the personal income tax rate in Ontario now is among the highest of all the jurisdictions we must compete with, will you in two weeks' time in your budget cut personal income taxes on hardworking Ontario families so we can let them spend some of the dollars and create some of the economic activity and the jobs? Will you cut income taxes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would not want to pre-empt the event on May 5, which is the budget. I wouldn't want to write it by some kind of quirky committee system here on the floor of the Legislature.

But the leader of the third party has made references in both his question and his supplementary to the you-brew tax. I believe revenues will go up as a result of the tax decrease on you-brews, because that was a struggling, infant industry going through a real struggle as it tries to find a niche in the marketplace, so I do think that was the right decision.

But I also know that all of our revenues are hard-found revenues. The taxpayers obviously are making their contribution to the continuing provision of essential services in this province, and I would not want to mislead anyone into thinking that massive tax reductions can happen at the same time we preserve the essential services in this province, which everyone tells me they want to preserve.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer refers to an industry that was threatened and struggling. I want to tell the Treasurer that the middle class of this province, families, individuals, hardworking Ontarians, feel threatened, they're struggling, they're concerned about jobs.

One of the greatest barriers to job creation and why they feel threatened is the high rate of personal income tax. I want the Treasurer to know that. In addition to that, 85% of all jobs in Ontario are created by small business. In every community where our task force on small business visited we were told that payroll taxes were among the most punitive taxes on jobs -- the most punitive taxes for them and the most punitive taxes on jobs.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business told you earlier this year that "without question, payroll taxes are a deterrent to new job creation."

The Liberals introduced a whopper payroll tax for health care in 1989. Three years later, you increased that tax to include self-employed business people. For the sake of jobs and for the sake of investment in Ontario, will you eliminate the payroll tax on all small businesses in your upcoming budget two weeks from now?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party is correct when he indicates that the official opposition, when it was in government, did introduce the employer health tax. But to be fair, the health care premiums were abolished at that time. The leader of the third party knows that the total employer health tax means over $2 billion in revenues to the province, so in total that's a lot of money.

The leader of the third party, to be fair, I believe was referring only to the small-business aspect of it, which is already at a 50% rate of what large business pays as an employer health tax. I think the leader of the third party was asking if the small-business component could be eliminated. I appreciate all suggestions when it comes to dealing with the tax system, and I will certainly allow that suggestion to roll around in my head for the next couple of weeks.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'd like to read briefly from Hansard from the Minister of Transportation's statement yesterday with respect to the Highway 407 tendering process. He said: "I don't know if it was the lowest bidder. I understand that negotiations are still going on."

Minister, I'm rather alarmed by yesterday's answer, as you might suspect. If you don't know that the winning consortium for the 407 project was the lowest bidder, why have you chosen a winning bidder, and how can you justify leaving such important decisions in the hands of non-elected officials?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the follow-through on the question. First, you will allow me to help my friend the member opposite by saying emphatically -- not that it matters at all, but just a mise au point -- that I was not at the fund-raising dinner. I don't think it matters, but you had assumed, with respect, that I was there, but I wasn't.

Regarding the question, my understanding of the process is that the criterion was value for money. Which of the two consortia was to meet that crucial, that vital criterion in terms of getting the best shake for the dollars of the taxpayers? Not necessarily the lowest bidder.

At the very beginning of the process, and it's important, cabinet chose to distance itself, because of the size of the contract and because of the innovation of the capital corporation, from the process, so the vacuum had to be filled. What they did, and I think in their wisdom, sir, was to appoint four deputy ministers to guide the process through and actually make the decision.

Today we have a winning consortium, a successful consortium. There are still three to four weeks of negotiations vis-à-vis the contingencies to tidy up the final package, for instance. We're not involved in the process. We have the jurisdictional capacity, the mandate, to appoint people -- that's what we did -- and to monitor the process to make sure that everything was aboveboard. We hired the reputable firm of Price Waterhouse and they're the people who can certify as to the integrity and the good flow of the process.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I'm reminded of Harry Truman who had a sign on his desk which said, "The buck stops here." There's no chance that any of your ministers, particularly you, sir, are ever going to have a sign like that on your desk.

You've just talked about value for money and the best shake for the taxpayer. The financial capacity of the winning consortium, CHIC, has been called into question. Matthews Group, which was one of the original members of the consortium, went bankrupt during the proposal process. Armbro Holdings Inc, the Brampton-based road builder, filed for restructuring under the companies' creditors act during the proposal call. What assurance can you give to the taxpayers of the financial capacity of this group to complete the project?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'll go back again to the monitoring done by Price Waterhouse. If you mention one, two, let's say, individual companies, you have to keep in mind that this is not a catalyst but those are components. They're part of a larger body which is the corporation, the consortium, and the consortium can have, with subcontractors, as many as 80 to 140.

Suffice it that in most instances, they are reputable, they are solvent and they have a track record which will lead, individually and in the collective, to the ability to deliver the project on time, because it will be a contractual arrangement, within budget. You have the assurance that their shoulders are broad enough to bring in this well over $1-billion project. They will help us create more than 20,000 jobs.

I appreciate the interest. What is at stake here is simply the largest highway project in North America in 1994: 3,000 jobs this year, and by the time of its completion, gradually well above 20,000 jobs with a multiplier of two and half dollars for every dollar that is put in the project.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, every day that you stand up here, you demonstrate over and over again that you don't understand what you're doing. Let me assure you, and you can check with your ministry officials, that when you're in a consortium, you are not obliged to bail out other members of that consortium. Okay? Get that clear before you answer me this time.

As you correctly pointed out, this is a $1-billion project. It's a $1-billion project that is being funded by the public sector, not the private sector, as the Premier said when he announced it. Your lack of knowledge in this whole field indicates incompetence. We need full disclosure of all these details. You owe it to the taxpayer, sir: full disclosure of this very, very odious deal.

I want you to commit today to reveal the contents of the winning bid in all the details so that all the members here can examine how you are spending public funds.

Hon Mr Pouliot: There is no Pearson spectacle when we refer to the 407. There is no facsimile of the questionable deals at SkyDome. There is nothing cartelian or monopolistic. When the member above says that on a daily basis, whenever given the opportunity, I display a lack of knowledge which is obvious to all --

Mr Turnbull: And incompetence.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, I have been reading stock pages for well above 30 years, not always unsuccessfully. Maybe that's one reason why the member opposite is sitting there and I'm sitting here.

The member mentions that the public, the taxpayers of Ontario, will pay for the 407. We have established a corporation. The corporation will go to the marketplace. The corporation will borrow money. But borrowings have to be paid back, so when people give a loonie for their county, when they take a token out of their pocket and they put it in the slot before they drive on the highway, or electronically while they're using the highway, the money will be gathered in a pool. You'll go back to the banks and the financiers and pay your debt. The users will finance the building of the 407 over a period of 25, 30 or 35 years.

It is innovative. The cost of the project is reflected over the life of the project. It's a win-win-win situation to alleviate the oversubscribed traffic on the 401. We now have the 407. You have a choice. More than 20,000 people who are directly involved with the project sure appreciate the financing aspect of this project.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please stop the clock for a minute.

I would like to inform the members of the assembly that we have in the Speaker's Gallery today the consul general of Poland, Mr André Brzozowski. Please join me in welcoming our guest.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question today is to the Treasurer. You have called upon the opposition parties to make suggestions to assist you on improving your deficit position. My suggestion relates to the tourism industry, which as you know has been devastated over the last few years: large job losses, bankruptcies, a huge drop in the number of tourists visiting our province and a large drop in the tourism tax revenue to your ministry; in all, a Canadian travel deficit of $7.7 billion last year.

Over the last few years, our tourism marketing budget has been reduced from $25.5 million in 1987-88 to approximately $13.6 million in 1993-94. Of this $13.6 million, only $5.8 million is spent on marketing in the US and only $2.3 million in the overseas markets.

In Quebec, where they see the importance of tourism, they have retained their foreign offices to advertise and promote their tourism, and in their recent budget they have allocated an additional $10 million a year for each of three years to promote tourism. On the US market alone, they will be spending between $9 million and $10 million this year, versus our $5.8 million.

In your upcoming provincial budget, will you consider transferring from within your budget additional funds to the tourism marketing budget, a move I believe will greatly increase our tourism numbers and improve our tourism tax revenues, provide jobs and revive our tourism industry in the province of Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I would be the last person to undervalue the worth of tourism to the Ontario economy and to specific regions within the province, but I await the member's supplementary, because I'm sure he's going to tell me from which ministry or which service he'd take the money that he would put into tourism.

Mr O'Neil: Of course, Treasurer, this really points out one of the real problems with you and with your government, and that is that if you're going to bring in tax revenues, you have to know where to spend the money and you have to know where to save.

What I'm suggesting to you is that, with the multiplier effect of spending additional funds in the Ontario marketing budget, you will attract millions -- maybe not millions, but hundreds of thousands -- of new tourists to the province of Ontario, giving you additional tax revenues, not only from what they spend but also from the jobs you will create. When we look today at the value of the American market and their economy improving, and when you're looking at the value of their money, there are millions of dollars in revenue for you and your government, yet you don't seem to be able to see that.

What I'm asking is, will you look at spending additional moneys in the marketing budgets which will give you a very large return? The tourism industry really needs it.

Hon Mr Laughren: As I said, I'm not quarrelling for a moment with the member's assertion about the importance of tourism and the revenues that flow to the province from it. But there is almost an unlimited list of projects on which we could spend more money and the argument could be made that more money would come back to us. At the end of the day, some more money will come back to us, but our expenditures will be going through the roof as well.

These are not the 1980s. I appreciate the fact that in the 1980s, when your party was in power, you were able to spend, spend and spend. That is no longer the case. We have put a lid on expenditure growth in this province and we're going to continue to keep to that commitment. It's up to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, of course, to allocate the dollars within her ministry.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as a person who sits around the cabinet table. I read with interest last week a notice that you have sent to the people of Hastings-Peterborough. I'd like to quote from that notice, which is dated April 13 and is addressed to the people of Hastings-Peterborough. It talks about the selection of dump sites as being a municipal process. You say that "selecting dump sites is a municipal process driven by county government working within certain guidelines that were set up by the Liberals in the 1980s." Is this the policy of the NDP government?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member is quoting from a press release which was quoted in local papers in my riding. Yes, I was explaining to the constituents in my riding that the responsibility for the selection of dump sites was given to a committee which hired a consultant and it was through a process that was set up back in the 1980s in order to select the best site for a landfill site in Peterborough county.

Mr Tilson: Having said what you've just said, would you be prepared to tell the municipalities of Caledon, York and Durham why they don't have a similar process?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not responsible for Caledon and those other areas in terms of what goes on in terms of the GTA and finding landfill sites. I can speak with some assurance about what goes on in Peterborough county in terms of landfill sites on agricultural land. I'm sure the member knows that our ministry will be commenting on landfill sites in terms of whether or not, through agricultural land, we will have some input into that process.

I can't really comment on the IWA process. That's up to the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

FOOD LABELLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Recently I attended the annual Oxford federation of agriculture conference held with municipal, provincial and federal elected officials. The theme of this year's meeting was Oxford 2000 and how the local agricultural community is preparing for the next century. One of the issues raised that day was the question of food labelling. The cattle producers, who have lost a lot of market share to imported beef, are very concerned about this matter.

Minister, can you tell the Legislature what you are doing to ensure that when consumers purchase fresh meat in the grocery store, they can make an informed choice by having the meat labelled by its country or province of origin?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member raises a good point, because certainly all products that we normally buy in other stores are labelled with country of origin. In the province of Ontario we have responsibility for labelling of grades. One of the things we are looking very seriously at doing soon is to be able to grade fresh meat so that it will be labelled with the grade so we'll know whether it's grade A or whatever the grade labelling is, and we can bring that regulation into play hopefully very soon.

We are consulting with the industry, though, to make sure that we're doing something in terms of the retailers and the producers so that we're bringing in the right kinds of regulations that will not be an impediment to doing business in the province either.

Mr Sutherland: This initiative will not only have significant benefits to beef producers in Ontario but will also have significant benefits to consumers. It will allow them to make informed choices about purchasing fresh meat, particularly if the meat is from countries that do not have the same high standards of inspection as does Canada. When can both beef producers and Ontario consumers expect to see labelling of fresh meat by country of origin in Ontario grocery stores?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Unfortunately, perhaps, when it comes to having regulations to label country of origin, we have the federal government and the provincial governments with joint responsibility. That will require us talking to my federal counterpart, which I've already done by correspondence, asking that we do that, because it would be very important for the meat producers, not only the cattlemen but certainly the pork, chicken and other producers, to have country of origin labelling on all fresh products.

I have talked to my counterpart in Ottawa. We very much hope that we can get such regulations in place by this fall at the latest. I look forward to the cooperation of the federal minister on this issue.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for my friend the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. It's a matter that I raised with the Minister of Citizenship some days ago when the Tourism minister wasn't here. It concerns the public government funding of that writers' conference that the Writers' Union of Canada is convening that white authors need not, and indeed may not, attend.

Frankly, I don't care what organization organizes what meeting and I don't even mind if the organization chooses to say, "I'm sorry, no white people may attend this." What I get concerned about is when the state, the provincial government, indeed the minister's ministry, says: "We want to sponsor this. We're going to provide $15,000 worth of funding for this conference."

I just want to put it to the minister and ask her not to hide behind the notion that this is an arts council grant and it's independent and it has to make its own choices. I want the minister to tell me whether she thinks that it is a good idea, that it is good public policy that this kind of conference receive the sanction of the provincial government and funds from the taxpayers of Ontario in the form of financial sponsorship.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): First of all, as the member knows full well in his reference, the $15,000 was not actually a grant from my ministry; it was from the Ontario Arts Council. None the less, it is my position that it is not the position of this government to tell the writers' union just what they can hold a conference on and what they can't hold a conference on.

I understand the controversy and I understand the feelings around it, but what this reminds me of is my own days in the women's movement as we as women tried to grapple with, should we sit down and have conferences trying to explore our feelings around issues and how to empower ourselves and deal with issues that included men right within those groups, or did we need to have some time to be able to sit down and meet with ourselves and talk together? We often decided we needed to have some time to be able to sit down and meet and share concerns together.

It seems to me that's what the writers' union has decided to allow to happen in this situation. It doesn't seem to me that it's my position to tell them that's not for them to do.

Mr Sorbara: My problem is that the minister says this is good public policy, and I find that very strange. I remember, when I was very young, my mother telling me about public beaches in Toronto which said, "No Jews Allowed," and the politicians of the day said that this was a good thing, because it's important that people bathe separately. It's the same sort of thing.

I want to suggest to my friend the minister that she pick up a little volume called The Disuniting of America, written by none less than a very pre-eminent American author named Arthur Schlesinger, who says that the ethnicity rage currently going through America -- I'm paraphrasing there -- "not only diverts attention from the real needs but exacerbates the problem, creating a society fragmented into ethnic communities. The culture of ethnicity exacerbates differences, intensifies resentments, antagonisms and drives ever deeper the awful wedges between races and nationalities."

I'm saying it's not a matter of one writers' conference. It's a question of whether or not, as the Culture minister, this separation, this statement that white authors cannot attend, is something that you publicly support and is the position of your government that it is deserving of support. Yes or no?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I don't accept at all the analogy of the writers' union's conference for writers, particular writers, as being equivalent to the days in Toronto when we had signs on the beaches saying "No Dogs or Jews Allowed." I was raised by my family to understand the horrendous discrimination that meant to powerless people in the society who needed to be able to have defence and to be able to be restored to power in this society.

It seems to me that there is a time for us, as groups, to come together and work together, and there are some times for groups that have been traditionally disempowered and are not enjoying the power that some of us do in society to be able to come together and to share perspectives themselves.

I don't think that the member for York Centre would be advocating that this government cease the funding to Italian associations that I know he very much supports. It seems to me that if this government should be helping to continue to further the funding to Italian associations, where groups for instance will speak together in Italian, which in itself can be somewhat exclusive, I support that funding. I would hope he would have some understanding of the value of these writers' conferences the writers' union is sponsoring and of their right to make their own decisions about what workshops they sponsor.

BUDGET

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. For the last year and a half, you've been standing in the House and indicating that you're now keeping comprehensive statistics on social assistance in this province. Perhaps part of that is because of the 1992 Provincial Auditor's report, which identified these weaknesses, and in particular in the "Maintenance and Child Support" section.

I'll remind the minister, in that report the auditor noted that the ministry procedures are not followed in maintenance cases. The ministry's policies requiring that child support cases are reviewed periodically to assess the status of support payments, waivers on support, should be reviewed if a parent is available and able to contribute, but this was not the case being followed by your ministry.

My question to you is: How many support-paying fathers are defaulting and now seeking social assistance in this province? And the corollary, of course: How many new applications for social assistance are we receiving from mothers because their ex-spouses are no longer making their child support, court-ordered payments?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't have those figures available with me, but I'd be quite happy to provide those to the member and to anyone else who would be interested. I can tell him in a general way that my understanding is that the situation has significantly improved as a result of the processes that have been put into place. But as I say, I don't have the exact figures to share with the member at this moment.

Mr Jackson: That is not what I am led to believe when I talk to various people around the province who are dealing with this matter. In fact, it certainly isn't the undertaking you took before the public accounts committee and the Provincial Auditor that you would pursue this case more vigorously.

I'm concerned about a case which I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe is more common than not. It involves a Mr Johnston from Hamilton who, before a unified family court judge, made application for a variance and had $20,000 of his accumulated arrears written off and his ongoing payments suspended. He too, like his ex-wife and their daughter, is now on welfare in the province of Ontario.

Minister, why are you not monitoring the cost implications of this growing trend, especially considering the fact that the Attorney General administers the family support plan? The Attorney General's office is involved through the decision, yet the Ministry of Community and Social Services is in fact the party in court seeking these funds on behalf of the Treasurer.

We're seeing this level of write-off occurring far too frequently. Will you please return to this House and give a fuller report as to the amount of these write-offs, which are increasing the cost of social assistance, in our view most unnecessarily?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'd be very happy to come back and provide both the member and other members of the House with more detailed responses I have undertaken to do. I will just again reiterate for the member that it's important that we keep in mind in this situation that I think the information I'll be able to share with the member will show that the situation has significantly improved since we instituted the family support plan. I'll be happy to share that information.

There are some things that continue to concern us, but I think all of this has to be done in the knowledge that if people aren't out there and aren't working, they obviously have to be given some leeway in their ability to be able to comply. But I think the efforts that we've undertaken in this area have vastly improved the situation, and it has meant that fewer people, particularly fewer women, have had to rely on social assistance in order to get what is legitimately theirs through support.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you are aware that in November of last year the Lambton county council passed a motion to allow the warden of the county to view the names and addresses of all welfare recipients in the county. That includes people in my riding of Sarnia.

Council's motion outraged many of my constituents, both those who receive benefits and those who don't. In spite of that, Lambton council had the opportunity to rescind the motion in March, but chose not to.

I am very concerned about this motion for two reasons: First, this is a blatant abuse of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and, second, this motion further stigmatizes and humiliates those people in Lambton county who find that they are in genuine need of assistance.

Minister, I know through writing to you and discussions with you that you share my concerns, but, frankly, concern is not enough. Something needs to be done. Everyone in Lambton county has a right to dignity and a right to privacy. This motion takes those rights away from people who are receiving welfare in my community. What will you do today to have this motion rescinded by Lambton council?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to thank the member for raising this question in the House, because I know that this is an issue that concerns him and, quite frankly, concerns me and the ministry as well very seriously.

We have been quite clear since -- I guess it was about December when the council passed the resolution that it did -- that we consider the actions they have taken to be contrary to the municipal freedom of information act and contrary to our directions under the General Welfare Assistance Act. We don't believe that the warden or any other councillor has the right to receive the names of people who are on social assistance and we've been very clear in that.

I can tell the member that, given the fact that this resolution is still on the books of the council, we are in the process of communicating again with the warden and indicating that if they do not take steps to rescind the resolution, we will take steps to discontinue electronic funds transfers to that municipality. We want to be very clear that we expect compliance with the legislation and we will take all steps necessary to ensure compliance is adhered to.

Mr Huget: Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you for your commitment on a very important matter. I only hope that Lambton county council will heed your advice, rescind the motion and this will finally be over. But I have one concern about discontinuing the electronic funds transfer. If council does not rescind the motion and the ministry takes this action, is there any chance at all that there could be delays in recipients obtaining their cheques?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think again that's also a useful point. Obviously, as we proceed in this situation we want to monitor very closely and we will monitor very closely what happens. We hope that the message we are giving to this municipality will be quite clear in terms of their understanding how seriously we take the issue of confidentiality of clients' records and that it is something that has to be respected in everything that all of us do to continue to manage the system.

We will obviously continue to monitor the situation to ensure that there are no delays in the payment to individual recipients who are eligible for general welfare assistance and we will take further steps, as necessary, to ensure that.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, last week you said that in measuring the effectiveness of your ministry and your programs, we should not just use money as the only criterion. You mentioned also bankruptcies. Maybe we should just set that record straight.

The Tories over here left their government with 356 farm bankruptcies in 1985. After five years the Liberal government bankruptcies were down to 18 in 1990. Now, after four years of NDP rule, you're telling us they're back up to 58. But then, you and the Tories are much the same when it comes to farmers.

But let's look at one of those non-cost initiatives the minister and the government say they support. Bob Rae and the NDP government have promised the AgriCorp legislation since they took office. The legislation is supposed to streamline and improve the delivery of crop insurance and stabilization. Bills 63, 64 and 65 were introduced in June 1992 and are still awaiting second reading.

Minister, you said on June 11:

"The idea for an agency to deliver safety net programs has been around a long time. The creation of the AgriCorp is another example of how this government is committed to working with the producers and others to ensure the long-term economic health of the farming community."

When can we expect to see this legislation? When will we have these three bills in for second and third reading, or, once again, are these not on the NDP's A and B list?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): First of all, I would like to make sure the member understands when she's talking about the number of bankruptcies that have occurred in the province of Ontario farm enterprises that if we give the fact that in 1990 there were 18 bankruptcies, which is the figure I have, over the five years, if you include 1990 as part of the Liberal administration, there were 359 bankruptcies. In 1991, 1992 and 1993 in total there were 58 in three years,

whereas in five years there were 359, which is more than double, more like triple. We have to be careful when we're talking about the number of bankruptcies.

There were some bad numbers also back in the early 1980s, which I'm sure the member is alluding to, back in the recession in 1981, 1982 and 1983 and the fallout from that recession. I think everyone would agree there were a number of bankruptcies due to that particular recession. But even though we've had hard times in terms of the 1990s, the bankruptcies are down to a reasonable level. They are up from 18, but there were only 22 in 1993.

On the other point, the member's question about legislation, obviously the formation of AgriCorp is important to the government. We could go ahead and introduce and finish this legislation. However, I want to point one thing out to the member and to the farm community. We now have a government in Ottawa that's talking about a whole farm safety net program, which means that there is a chance that in a year or so the gross revenue insurance plan programs are not going to be necessary in this province. We may have to look at new programs and new administration.

At this point in time, I'm kind of weighing the options of whether to proceed with the AgriCorp legislation or to wait and see the whole farm proposals that come forward and put something in place that would satisfy the needs of whole farm policy as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd just like to remind the members, once again, that the questions are too long and the answers are too long. Try to make it more to the point. Brevity is really the answer.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 53, and that Mr O'Connor and Mrs Akande, Mr Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt) and Mr Ruprecht, and Mr Beer and Mrs McLeod exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken courses and/or hunted for years; and

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

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

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

I have also signed that petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by a significant number of constituents of mine as well as of the greater Toronto area. My petition goes something like this:

"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;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto," -- and that is astounding, that number -- "and

whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart 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, MET published statistics);

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

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in small towns, villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to a shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis. If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and want the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately.

"We have attached our names and signatures to this petition."

There are literally hundreds of names on this petition. I thank you very much and I'll attach my own.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, just so you know how important this is, I have yet another petition from Twin Elms folks in the riding of Middlesex who petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I have most certainly signed my name to this petition.

JUDGE'S COMMENTS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition signed by 570 names from the people of Northumberland:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We request that the Attorney General, the Honourable Marion Boyd, reprimand Mr Justice Jack Jenkins for his misuse of judicial power in making discriminatory and abusive comments towards a victim and her mother in a recent child sexual abuse trial. These comments occurred while instructing the jury in an Ontario Court (General Division) at Cobourg, Ontario, dated February 23 through February 25, 1994. In so doing, we feel a public apology to the victim and the victim's mother is both appropriate and necessary."

I realize this really should be directed to the federal Attorney General because Judge Jenkins is a federal appointee, but I have spoken to our Attorney General, Marion Boyd, and she has assured me that this will get redirected to the federal House.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood 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 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've 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 Collingwood."

I've signed this petition, along with several people from the Collingwood area.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition from the area of Fort Frances, Burriss, Barwick and Devlin, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have dozens of petitions from people in my riding, which read as follows:

"I have just received notice that the NDP government in Ontario intends to kill child care reform. Families in Victoria and Haliburton counties will be affected dramatically by this decision. I urge you to act now to reform child care. Child care keeps taxpaying parents working and helps other parents return to work and training. Ontario's children and families deserve fair treatment from your government."

This is signed by dozens of parents in our community.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metropolitan Toronto council has passed bylaw 95-93, prohibiting cross-boundary accessible taxi services; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been requested by Mr Ron Cowan to amend the Municipal Act to reflect open borders for accessible taxis throughout all of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Municipal Act states that a municipality may exempt taxis from outside municipalities engaged in transporting of the disabled,

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

I affix my name thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a petition signed by several of my constituents living in such places as Micksburg and Round Lake and Pembroke and Killaloe, which petition reads --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): All holiday destinations.

Mr Conway: My friend the speaker knows these places very well.

The petition reads:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to endorse and sign this petition and present it on behalf of these constituents.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring local school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the required funding to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high,

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

I support this petition entirely and have signed it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have yet hundreds more names from the great riding of Elgin with regard to Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario. They're asking that it provide 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in these small towns and villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to the shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis. If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and want the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately.

"We have attached our names and signatures to this petition."

I have attached mine as well.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is about Bill 21, which is an important bill for many people in my riding who live in the Subway trailer park.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord,

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to final and third reading of Bill 21" in the interests of those constituents.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition, from a number of people in my constituency and other constituencies, that I've been asked to read by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Ms Gigantes, on behalf of Mr Charlton, moved government notice of motion number 25:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 120,

An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property, the standing committee on general government shall not proceed further with consideration of the bill and shall report the bill to the House on the first available day that reports from committees may be received following passage of this motion. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That one further sessional day be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on that day. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on that day.

At 5:45 pm those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

Debate. The honourable Minister of Housing.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you could help me on this. Is this what you refer to as a closure motion, preventing further debate? I just wanted to get that clarification. Is the motion a closure motion?

The Acting Speaker: I'm sure it's up to the member to draw his own conclusion.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It's my understanding that there is agreement among the House leaders that there will be a division of time in the debate on this motion. I am therefore proposing to speak first for 20 minutes and to reserve for the member for Kingston and The Islands the further 10 minutes of our time in the debate.

This motion is what is known politely as a time allocation motion, as our friend the member for St Catharines knows very well, and he knows the reason why the motion is necessary.

Bill 120 is a bill which represents an improvement in residents' rights in Ontario. It is a bill which has stood before this Legislature in debate and in committee for many months now. It warrants urgent attention because it provides rights for residents who have not had rights before in the province of Ontario.

The way in which it has been treated by members opposite in our attempt to move it forward has been one really of, to put it kindly, reluctance; certainly deferral. For example, in the clause-by-clause portion of the committee work which has been done on this bill so far in the standing committee on general government, we have had over 22 hours of discussion, but in the clause-by-clause work we haven't got beyond discussion of clause 2, nor have we completed discussion of clause 2. It indicates to you, Mr Speaker, the kind of delay that has been provided by members of the opposition as we tried to move this bill forward.

It's a bill which has wide support among members of the public in Ontario, for very good reasons. It's a bill which provides rights to people who have not had them before, and they are people who very much need those rights. Unlike other tenants in the province of Ontario, those tenants who live in apartments which did not have appropriate zoning, and those apartments were in houses, did not have coverage and protection under the legislation which is designed to provide protection and coverage to tenants in all other rental units in Ontario.

Further, the bill addresses the rights of people who live in care homes in Ontario, those residences which, though permanent, provide elements of care service, which may be living supports, which may be food, which may be help supports of various kinds. These people too have not had rights that other tenants in Ontario have been able to use for many years, rights contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act, for example, rights contained in the Rent Control Act of Ontario and, for those residents of care homes, rights that are provided in the Rental Housing Protection Act of Ontario.

To speak first to the care homes situation, when our government was first elected, we asked Dr Ernie Lightman to follow up on some of the very tragic circumstances that had befallen people who live in care home settings in Ontario and to do a report for the government. He found that there are almost 50,000 people who live in what have been called unregistered care homes in Ontario. Many of those are living in retirement homes which provide a very comfortable, secure and generally excellent living style for people who have retired.

But in other cases, the places where people are living are places where they have been subject to great difficulty with their living situation, where they have been frequently evicted without due cause, where they have been living in unsafe conditions, where there has been inadequate care, where there has certainly been a lack of privacy. They've been denied the right to have visitors. There have even been instances of sexual abuse and real health and safety problems.

These problems Dr Lightman dealt with in very poignant detail in the report he provided to the government. He recommended most strongly that the government should take action to provide protections for people, many of whom are frail elderly people who may not feel in a position to exercise rights easily, people who have physical disabilities, people who may have developmental disabilities, people who have had experience in psychiatric treatment, people who generally are quite vulnerable to a living situation in which their rights are not protected and have not been in the past.

In the past, there have been exemptions for care homes under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act. We intend to change that as a result of Dr Lightman's recommendations. Residents in care homes will have full security of tenure and privacy rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Rent Control Act will apply to that portion of the monthly charge they pay which covers their living space, their accommodation.

The amount they pay for care services, for food, will not be covered by rent control, but we will insist that those charges, first of all, be known and well spelled out to people who are entering care homes; that they cannot be changed, except once a year; that they must be registered, once this bill is proclaimed, in the rent registry system of the Rent Control Act; and that they will be monitored over time by the government so that we can ensure that there is a situation in which people are not being charged outrageous rent increases.

Care home operators will be required to register with the rent registry, as I indicated, and this will enable municipalities and inspectors, both provincial and municipal, to ensure that maintenance standards are being kept up and to improve living conditions in many of the care homes.

As I indicated, most care home operations in Ontario provide a very excellent service, but the instances in which people have suffered abuse and indeed died in care home situations in Ontario have brought us to a situation where we feel it is urgent to take action.

The Rent Control Act will mean that operators of care homes will provide a full package of information to those living in care homes, outlining what services are provided at what prices, when increases will be allowed, and also describing staff qualifications.

Before there are any increases in care service charges -- I had previously indicated that could happen only once a year -- there will have to be 90 days' notice. It will also be the case that in order to change the use of a care home, an operator will have to abide by the elements of the Rental Housing Protection Act.

The second group of people to whom I referred are people who live in apartments in houses. We estimate that in Ontario currently there are somewhere near 100,000, maybe 110,000, units of apartments in houses which are illegal because of their zoning. They may also be quite unhealthy and unsafe. We have seen instances recently where there have been tragic deaths in two cases of mothers and young children in basement apartments which did not provide adequate egress in an emergency situation. They couldn't get out when the place caught fire.

We're very concerned about the safety and the health of these tenants. We're also concerned that there should be access in Ontario to the kind of affordable housing that is provided by apartments in housing. There is a market there, clearly, which is being met illegally as far as zoning goes. What we want to do is to remove that element of the situation in which apartments in houses exist, bring those apartments in houses out of the underground economy into the light of day and have them meet health and safety standards, which will mean there will be an end to the kinds of conditions which created hazards for tenants in the past.

We're very anxious to see this happen now. We feel that the amendments to the building code which were undertaken last year, in July, particularly designed to deal with standards associated with apartments in houses, and also the draft regulations to the fire code of Ontario, which again have been developed and consulted upon widely among experts in the field to ensure that standards are being created within apartments in houses which will address fire separation standards, emergency exits, the need for properly working fire alarm systems -- all these things now need to be brought to bear so that people who live in apartments in houses will be safe.

We know that the passage of this legislation is not going to mean that overnight, as if with a magic wand, every apartment in every house in Ontario which had previously been illegal because of zoning will suddenly become safe, but we do know that if we bring them out into the open economy, those property owners and tenants who have in the past been absolutely unwilling to get in touch with the appropriate officials to discover, for example, what the fire safety measures should be in that apartment in the house will now come forward. Tenants will be able to do that feeling assured that they won't be evicted simply because the apartment is in a zone which is inappropriate.

There's been a lot of discussion around this legislation and there's been some misunderstanding about the legislation. We've certainly made every effort to clarify as far as we could, particularly with municipalities, what this bill will actually do. The bill says that a property owner who wishes to install an apartment in the house has a right to do so. The property owner must go to the municipality, get a building permit and build an apartment which meets both the building code and the fire code requirements, and it will be inspected.

The municipalities have been reluctant to give up their zoning power and in some cases I think have misunderstood the degree to which this is a change in their zoning authority. The only element which is changed by Bill 120 is that municipalities will no longer be able to designate zones in which it is illegal to build an apartment in a house. In all other matters of zoning that affect a particular property, including the setbacks, the yard plans, the site plans and all the normal kinds of zoning and planning requirements, municipal authority will remain, including reasonable standards for parking requirements.

So we're not proposing a total removal of municipal responsibility and interest in this area. We are simply saying that in order to bring these apartments out from the underground economy into the light of day, where we can hope to begin to institute a situation in which health and safety matters are being attended to properly, we have to remove that power of a municipality, which has been widely used in Ontario, to say that "In these zones there shall be no apartments in the houses."

We have also provided in the legislation increased powers for municipalities to enforce standards within apartments in houses. Previously, if a municipal inspector were to enter a property, that inspector would have to indicate to a justice of the peace what evidence he or she intended to seize in an inspection. That requirement has been removed. It will now be much simpler for municipal inspectors to enter.

In fact, we expect that the really critical element that will improve the situation for entry of municipal and fire officials in the future, after passage of Bill 120, will be the fact that they will be welcomed by tenants. And there will be many property owners who will also welcome them and who are very anxious to make sure that the apartments which currently exist within their houses are brought up to standard.

The bill also provides power for municipalities to enter into extended agreements with property owners for the placement of what we call a garden suite, commonly known as a granny flat, on a property. That must be a building which is dependent for its services on the main building on the property and which can be removed. We've given municipalities the discretion. They can choose to do it or not to do it as they please, to enter into 10-year agreements with property owners where previously they could only enter into three-year agreements. That will provide, both for municipal purposes and for the property owners, a much more stable situation in which granny flats can be developed in Ontario.

The act also provides that for zoning purposes, it will be the case that unrelated people who share living accommodations in a single housekeeping unit will be treated the same as the traditional family. This goes back to ancient arguments, and we seek to clarify it in Bill 120.

What we have done here is to provide for two groups of tenants in Ontario, those in care homes and those in apartments in houses, rights and access to rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act providing security of tenure and also, under the Rent Control Act, providing some discipline of cost increases and access to mechanisms for making sure that maintenance is kept up to decent standards. This will be the first time these two large groups of people who rent their homes will have access to those rights.

Both these bills have been through extensive consultations, and there have been some changes in the bill that was originally introduced as Bill 90 in June 1992, which affected only those tenants who live in apartments in houses. We, as ministers, Ed Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I met with numerous representatives from municipalities, and the ministries received large numbers of briefs and met with groups, and we did make changes to the draft legislation.

Rural municipalities had been concerned about the fact that apartments in houses would be developed where there were septic tanks and that might place a strain and an environmental problem might arise. We have adapted the bill to say that apartments in houses will not be as of right where a house is dependent on a single septic tank.

We also heard from building and fire officials that it would be reasonable to have changes done under the Fire Marshals Act and the Ontario Building Code rather than through the Planning Act, and we've acceded to those recommendations.

The office of the fire marshal, as I mentioned, did set up a task force to develop new standards for fire code provisions within apartments in houses, and, as I mentioned also, the Ontario Building Code was amended last summer to provide for standards for apartments in houses. Public support for these two pieces of legislation, which we've brought together under the familiar title of residents' rights, has been very strong.

The Ministry of Housing undertook a survey back in the fall of 1991 which indicated that when you asked people in Ontario, and this was throughout Ontario, whether they objected to having a neighbour develop an apartment in the house, 70% of people said no. That finding was borne out time and again by surveys which were undertaken by municipalities themselves in the context of their work to update their official plans, to bring them in line with our housing policy statement in Ontario.

We found that even in suburban areas, such as one you're familiar with, Mr Speaker, the Kanata area of Ottawa-Carleton, when people were asked, "Do you object if your neighbour develops an apartment in the house?" roughly 70% of people said, "No, we don't mind."

It makes sense, from all kinds of points of view, that that would be the case. People understand that there is a market for apartments in houses. They feel very strongly that they should be made safe for the people who live in them. They also understand that for older people, or for younger people just purchasing a home, the development of an apartment in a house can provide both a source of income, which may be very welcome indeed in the household, and also a sense of security of knowing that there's somebody else in the home.

It makes sense from all those points of view and also from the point of view that once we have a requirement for a building permit for the establishment of apartments in houses as of right there will be increased use of contractors and builders, and we will see increased economic activity as a result of the passage of this legislation.

On the care home side, not only Dr Lightman but hundreds of people around this province have been in touch with us over the measures that are proposed within this legislation. Among the most vulnerable people in our province are the people who live in care homes in Ontario.

There has been a very sad history of lack of standards and lack of rights for people who live in care homes. Dr Lightman made it very clear when he did his report that the key to providing a better future situation for people in care homes was to provide them with rights that they could use. He said it was critical that we address the fact that there was no protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act and no protection under the Rent Control Act for people in care homes.

There has been some misunderstanding of this legislation. We've had numerous letters from care home operators who operate what are commonly known as retirement homes, where people can afford a fairly good price to find a comfortable place to retire and have good social surroundings and a good level of services and feel very content. Some operators have determined that they don't care to have this kind of legislation developed and have encouraged some senior citizens to feel anxious about the passage of Bill 120.

I would like to take this occasion to assure you and to assure any senior citizens who may be watching this debate that their lives will continue in the comfort and in the manner to which they have become accustomed. What Bill 120 will be doing is ensuring that they, like other tenants, have access to rights that exist for almost all tenants in this province under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act.

The Acting Speaker: The government party will have approximately six minutes to sum up. We now go to the official opposition.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am very unhappy that I should rise on this occasion to have to deal with what amounts to an effort to do away with democratic procedure in this House.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Twenty-two hours for two clauses.

Mr Cordiano: The minister is sitting in the House. It's unfortunate because just as we were beginning to see the light and just as we were beginning to make some headway -- in fact, the minister gave me every indication that she was beginning to understand the position that our party had put forward and that we had discussed at great length in committee, but certainly did not do justice, nowhere near the kind of time that was required to even begin to examine this very detailed omnibus legislation.

I would remind everyone who is observing today that this, after all, was an omnibus piece of legislation, two distinct pieces of legislation, one dealing with accessory apartments and one dealing with residents' rights in care homes, brought together in a very convenient fashion in order to expedite the government's legislative agenda.

After all, there is really no reason why we should be dealing with this matter in a closure motion by the government. All members of the committee were quite involved in the proceedings and were actually very informed and very cooperative and had become quite knowledgeable about the very difficult and complex issues that we were beginning to deal with on that committee with regard to this piece of legislation.

I see that the parliamentary assistant is here in the minister's place, sitting in the Legislature. I would remind him, and he was a member of the committee, that at the end of the day even the members on his side of the committee had every reason to question the details in the bill that was before us. In fact, they did question various aspects of the bill. Mind you, we only got to the second clause of the bill and we had not completed that.

I think it speaks to the very importance of this legislation and the degree of complexity with which this legislation deals that you need ample opportunity to examine to the fullest the details around the legislation. After all, we're talking about legislation which affects many thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people actually.

I say to you that when that many people are involved, I honestly believe the Legislature must complete its process of examining legislation in its fullest and give voice to democratic expression, give an opportunity to people to come before the institutions that govern them and to have the input that's necessary so that, at the end of the day, no one can stand up and say that this government blocked their voice, that this government did not want to listen to the very real concerns people had expressed before the committee.

In fact, that's what ends up happening, and I say to my friend the parliamentary assistant that at the end of the day there will be people who will come forward and suggest that they did not have an opportunity to come before the committee. I tell you that because we even restricted the number of people who did come before us, who did appear before the committee, so as to expedite the legislation. I believe that at the end of the day, out of a list of 230 requests to appear before the committee, in fact only 150 actually were invited to appear before the committee.

Dealing with this legislation, I point out again that this was omnibus legislation, two disparate pieces of legislation which had very distinct and very detailed matters before each of them, dealing with sectors that are really unrelated, the home care sector and people living in rooming houses, people living in homes for the aged and rest homes, trying to deal with their concerns around residents' rights, and throwing them or lumping them into a bill which deals also with accessory apartments and includes a variety of acts, the Planning Act and various other acts, changes to the building code, amendments to the fire code.

We're talking about a series of complex matters that had come before this committee to be dealt with in a fashion that I thought was very appropriate, and that was to deal with each clause in a meaningful way, to have debate in a meaningful way.

I would say to the minister that at the end of the day Bill 120, the legislation making accessory apartments legal as of right, leaves a lot to be desired for our party. We have repeatedly suggested to the minister -- in this House and in committee I have tried to suggest to her -- that this legislation is indeed flawed, that at the end of the day, because you legalize accessory apartments and make them possible as of legal right, that does not make them safe places in which to live.

We've said this repeatedly and our leader has on many occasions, in this very Legislature, asked that the minister seriously consider our