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

December 8, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I attended a news conference at the CAW Local 199 hall in St Catharines yesterday afternoon to lend my support to a strategy to save the GM foundry and axle plant. I endorse and urge the Ontario government to accept the recommendations under provincial jurisdiction that emanated from that meeting, namely:

(1) To launch a major public investment program to create jobs now while building up the infrastructure that we will need for the future.

(2) To invest in public services to assist the victims of the recession and to maintain jobs.

(3) To launch a buy-in-Canada public sector purchasing program to create new jobs and end imports.

(4) To establish economic renewal funds to assist businesses in trouble and to support new investments.

Also, we called upon Premier Bob Rae to form a broad-based task force from businesses, community, social and labour leaders and any necessary experts from across the Niagara Peninsula and Hamilton to study the causes and effects of the deepening economic and social decline and make recommendations for positive renewal.

We joined in and supported the Fighting for our Working Future Niagara-Hamilton campaign. The symbol of the campaign will be a purple ribbon. We strongly urge all residents of Niagara and Hamilton to wear this ribbon as a symbol of our determination to survive as a growing and prosperous area of Canada.

I urge the Treasurer to abandon his ill-conceived and counterproductive special tax on automobiles and suggest that he eliminate the provincial sales tax on new vehicles to spur the sales and create a demand that will result in more jobs for our workers.

LAST POST FUND

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The Last Post Fund is a non-profit corporation that has been serving Canada's war veterans for more than 70 years. The problem is that there are still many veterans who are unaware of how the fund operates and of the services it provides.

The Last Post Fund is funded through the assistance of the federal Department of Veterans Affairs and by private donations. The fund provides for a number of burial services, including the services of a funeral director, transportation expenses, the cost of a cemetery plot, the opening and closing of the grave and a suitably inscribed military marker.

To be eligible for these services, the deceased must be a Canadian ex-serviceman or woman who meets the fund's financial criteria and has a record of active service during the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War. Furthermore, anyone who served in an active civilian capacity during these periods and who is receiving a disability pension or a civilian war allowance under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act may also benefit from the services of the fund.

Anyone interested in learning more about the Last Post Fund should contact its headquarters in Montreal by phoning 1-800-465-7113 or the Ontario branch at 923-1608.

I encourage other members of the Legislative Assembly to convey to their constituents the availability and services of the Last Post Fund.

I would like to thank Judge Sidney Roebuck, who has had a long and active association with the Last Post Fund, for bringing the services of this organization to my attention and to acknowledge publicly his efforts to promote its worthwhile endeavours.

WINDSOR GOODFELLOWS CLUB

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to inform the House of a group of dedicated and hardworking Windsorites who have one goal in mind. These men and women are the Goodfellows of Windsor and they collect food baskets for the needy in Windsor at Christmastime.

The Goodfellows begin their work immediately after each Christmas season and begin a journey collecting money required to purchase the food which makes up the baskets which are used at Christmastime. This important gesture will put some food on the tables at a time of the year when it's important to have some staples. The Windsor Goodfellows collect money, buy the food, assemble the baskets and then deliver them.

The Goodfellows are ladies and gentlemen from all walks of life who stand on street corners and brave the winter cold one weekend in December to sell a Goodfellows newspaper in the city of Windsor. This newspaper is printed by the Windsor Star at its expense, with money going towards the Goodfellows endeavour. With the street-corner selling, along with a radiothon at CKWW radio, hundreds of volunteers and much generosity from caring Windsorites, the food baskets are then produced.

Applause and accolades to the Goodfellows in Windsor who are good and great people. I'd like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all those who give of their time so generously to give to others. Especially at a time of year when they are busy with their own families, they make time -- a dedicated group helping and giving to those in need.

The Windsor Goodfellows will be selling newspapers in Windsor. Give what you can. Roll your car window down and help this year.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I see that the Premier has just entered the Legislature and I again would like to remind both him and his government of some of the dire circumstances we have in the Quinte-Hastings area.

I have here a paper that was just released by the director of the county of Hastings social services department. If I may quote from it, it reads:

"I am enclosing a copy of a report which was recently released by the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association. According to this report, Hastings county has had the single highest increase in the number of welfare cases for the period January to September 1992. The primary reason for this increase has been the overwhelming number of manufacturing jobs which have been lost in the Quinte area during the early part of this year. Our case load for November stood at 4,380, and as I write, we are experiencing one of the busiest weeks we've encountered throughout the entire year.

I am also told that, "At the moment, our case workers are currently carrying nearly double the recommended number of cases (188 for each worker)."

I would remind the Premier and the Treasurer and all the members of that government that we have some very dire circumstances in the riding of Quinte and in Hastings county, where some of his own members are members, and I would ask that this government look at some remedies to provide additional jobs in that area so that we do not have as many people who are on welfare and really suffering.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The NDP government wants us to believe it is serious about resource conservation. They pat themselves on the back for their energy conservation projects. They claim these will save money and energy and create jobs.

But if they really believed in conservation, why did they introduce Bill 121 on rent regulation? This bill is putting a cold stop to conservation investment in private rental housing and apartment buildings. Bill 121 takes away the incentive for private landlords to invest in conservation. Tenants can receive rent rebates for any cost savings, but landlords cannot recoup their investments.

The Minister of Housing had the nerve to say that her public housing conservation scheme will lay the groundwork for private sector energy conservation. Recently I met with a group from Aqua Save International Ltd and they've come up with some simple, effective technologies that save water and energy that would be extremely beneficial to apartments. But Aqua Save and companies like it can't sell their technology because the NDP has eliminated the financial incentive for landlords to buy improvements.

The NDP's Bill 121 is seriously flawed. Its impact is already being felt, both economically and environmentally. This illogical legislation needs to be changed, and the incentive to invest in conservation must be restored. This government comes along and in one sentence says it's going to do something good, and in another, it just throws it all out --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): That's misinformation.

Mr Cousens: -- like the baby with the bathwater. Why don't you straighten up your act and do something right for a change?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Brantford.

JOB CREATION

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I know we're all concerned in this House about our local economy in Brantford. I have some good news.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I don't interrupt your mouth when you are speaking. You're chattering away. You have no respect.

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

Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I'm losing my time here. Are we going to roll it back?

The Speaker: The member can proceed. We will adjust the clock as quickly as we can.

Mr Ward: As I said before, we're all concerned in this House about the local economy in Brantford. I have some good news. A local company, Gates Canada, has recently announced plans to spend nearly $20 million over three years in an expansion and upgrade that would create nearly 100 jobs. As Brantford's largest industrial employer, Gates operates a hose plant on Iroquois Street with 230 workers and a belt plant on Henry Street that employs 350. The Denver-based multinational decision to invest in Brantford is a coup for our community because five American plants were vying for some of the new equipment.

Brantford received this investment because of the plant's location and productivity. But one of the main reasons was the skill level of the employees and their willingness to adapt to new technology. This announcement once again has proved that good things happen when business, labour and government work in cooperation and partnership, management and labour presenting a unified effort to Gates's head office and our NDP government agreeing to meet the training needs of the new employees. This is good news indeed.

On a separate issue, I'm wearing an orange ribbon in support of my local ambulance workers in Brantford, some of whom visited us today.

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On December 3, last week, I wrote the Minister of Transportation concerning fatal situations on Highway 50 in my riding, at least four fatalities in 1992 and, unfortunately, three in 1991. This particular highway is currently a two-lane provincial highway. At various points, roads intersect or branch out of this busy highway. Some intersection points are controlled; others are non-controlled.

Clarkway Drive at Highway 50 is one example of a non-controlled and extremely hazardous intersection. Traffic northbound on Highway 50 must come to a complete and sudden halt when a motorist stops to turn left on Clarkway Drive. In many cases, traffic does not come to a halt. One finds oneself in a precarious situation and zips around on the right-hand shoulder all too often.

Sadly, in many cases there have been accidents at this particular area and others on the highway. Even more sadly, many of them have resulted, as I've indicated, in fatalities.

The Ministry of Transportation is currently looking at a proposal to add more lanes to Highway 50. The proposal is at the design stage, with construction scheduled to begin some time in the spring of 1994. But I've been advised by officials that it probably won't happen until 1995. I can attest to the seriousness of this situation as I drive that route from time to time and I've been in that situation.

I have suggested in my letter to the Minister of Transportation that perhaps as an interim measure we could have passing lanes so that motorists could drive around and avoid the hazardous situations they now encounter. I only asked the minister last week in writing. It has been short notice and I hadn't expected a response yet, but I make this statement to draw attention to the urgency of this matter and ask the minister to give serious consideration and expeditious consideration to my letter.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): This past week Ontario entered into an agreement with the provinces and federal government to dismantle trade barriers inside Canada within the next two years. This is an extremely important objective for the future of our province and indeed our country. As we know all too well, discussions with respect to the free movement of goods and services across provincial boundaries have been ongoing for many years. They were addressed in the 1940 Rowell-Sirois commission, the 1985 Macdonald commission, and despite a lack of firm support that is perceived out there from Ontario, they were also part of the proposed Charlottetown accord.

The approximately 500 internal trade barriers which exist are a hindrance to economic growth and activity. It is estimated that they cost the economy of Canada more than $6 billion a year. Canada's declining competitiveness can be directly linked to domestic trade barriers. The Conference Board of Canada recently confirmed what had long been suspected, that oftentimes it's easier for Canadian business to do business with the US than between provinces.

We are part of a growing global economy. At a time when Canada is part of a continental trading block, when Europe is moving to become one market and when Asian countries are creating closer trading relationships, surely we must end our internal fragmentation.

I think we have been presented with an opportunity to correct the mistake of the past, and by not making this issue a priority we will continue to deny Ontario economic opportunities which are increasingly being offered to our international trading partners. I would hope that the minister and the Premier take these negotiations seriously and make them a priority of their government. I think there's been enough lipservice paid to the issue; I think we should deal with it once and for all.

PIC PRESS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to recognize Kingston's Progressive Independent Community Press, a volunteer community organization which publishes PIC Press.

PIC Press describes itself as a grass-roots organization dedicated to alternative media as a method of "giving meaning back to the democratic process."

The latest edition of the paper highlights two themes, the issue of violence against women and the suppression and expression of ideas and images. A number of articles, editorials and a poem are included to remember the tragic death of 14 women in Montreal three years ago. Women and men write about their concern that violence against women is still a major problem in our society, and some have made suggestions for ending this crime.

Freedom of expression and mass media manipulation are explored in a review of Manufacturing Consent, a documentary film on Noam Chomsky. PIC Press shares Chomsky's views on the importance of the alternative viewpoint and freedom of expression. I quote from the review: "The alternative media, like PIC, is formed by coalitions of concerned citizens and is pivotal to the realization of Chomsky's larger ideal of social reform."

I applaud the volunteers who produce PIC Press free of charge, thereby promoting the awareness and the discussion necessary for a democratic society. I want to invite all people in the Kingston area to turn out at Princess Court Cinema at 7 pm, January 15, for a benefit featuring Manufacturing Consent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'd like to inform the members of the House that we will not proceed this sitting with Bill 94, the legislation enabling Metropolitan Toronto to implement its interim tax plan. Instead, we are sending the plan back to Metro for revision and resolution of problems I will highlight today.

We made this decision after careful and thoughtful consideration of the issues.

It became increasingly clear during the last few days of the public hearings that the financial consequences of Metro's interim plan would not be confined to Metro Toronto alone. The cost of this plan would be borne by communities beyond Metro's borders and could well have a detrimental effect on the provincial economy as a whole.

The public hearings have been productive and useful, bringing the negative consequences of Metro's plan clearly into focus. The more we listened to the public deputations, the more we were convinced that this plan would lead to unacceptable levels of economic disruption both within and outside Metro. As the public hearings into Bill 94 continued, day and night, accommodating 175 individuals and organizations, the ultimate workability of Metro's plan was also called into question. In particular, we cannot reconcile certain aspects of Metro's financial analysis with our own.

There are simply too many unanswered questions and too many unresolved issues arising from Metro's plan as it now stands. Valid questions have been raised, questions which this government cannot in all conscience ignore. In the absence of answers, we believe it would be irresponsible to pass this legislation this sitting.

The government is prepared --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Didn't you read it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The government is prepared, however, to pass legislation that would implement a revised Metro plan that addresses the questions and concerns I will highlight today. We do not intend to withdraw the bill. We simply want a workable Metro plan.

From the beginning we saw Metro's interim plan as an attempt by a duly elected body to update a property tax system that had not been reviewed for 50 years. It was an interim plan only, not full market value assessment. Metro's compromise interim plan is a unique system of phased-in increases and decreases, unlike any other property tax system in the province. However, this phasing in of increases and decreases would not apply to all properties within Metro. The plan called for certain categories of properties to be moved to full market value assessment immediately upon implementation. Not all classes of properties would be included in the cap and the clawback system.

Members of this House will also know that I stated early on that I was concerned that a change in home ownership would automatically move that property to full market value assessment. We also expressed concern that other properties, like railway and hydro rights of way, vacant lands and municipal parking authorities, would move to full market assessment immediately upon implementation. We tried to address those concerns by crafting the bill in such a way that Metro would have the permissive authority to apply its system of caps and clawbacks to these categories.

We even asked Metro to specifically consider this option. But at no time during the public hearings did Metro indicate that it would in fact do so.

If the property owned by Ontario Hydro were to be assessed at the full market value of the adjacent property, as Metro's plan requires, the cost to Ontario Hydro would be $60 million. Hydro rates would go up for all Hydro's customers across the province. Cutbacks and layoffs would result. Jobs would be lost. There is clearly a provincial interest here.

The cost to CN and CP is estimated at $40 million. Fares would likely increase, jobs would be lost, and there could be serious deterioration in rail service for both freight and passenger travellers. I remind members that the rail system services the business community as well as commuters. GO Transit and its customers would obviously also be adversely affected by Metro's plan.

The exporting of the financial costs of Metro's interim plan beyond its boundaries is not acceptable to the government. A more studied look shows that there is a wider provincial interest in the details of Metro's plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Neither Ontario Hydro nor CN and CP had a chance to make deputations to Metro on the final plan which was struck on October 29. The public meetings were held prior to the formulation of the final package, before the complete financial consequences on the final plan were known to anyone, including Metro. It was at the province's public hearings, not in the dying hours of the October 29 Metro council meeting, that these serious financial costs surfaced.

Members will know that there are certain vacant lands in Metro, large and small, that are in the final stages of development approval. According to Metro's plan, these lands would be subject to full market value assessment immediately upon implementation. A dramatic increase in property tax assessment based on full market value could put an end to that planned development. Badly needed construction jobs would be lost. Badly needed affordable housing would be at risk.

We had committed ourselves to work with Metro over the next five years to find a more workable tax system for the future. We believe that those attempts to find a more workable system would be compromised with a significant portion of Metro properties already subject to full market value assessment.

There are too many unanswered questions, too many unresolved issues. There are questions about economic impact and job loss. There are serious concerns over inequities and treatment of different categories of property.

The government has already made the right and responsible decision today. Metro's interim tax plan is not workable in its current form, and there is not enough time to properly amend the bill in this sitting of the House before proceeding with third and final reading. Instead, we are returning the plan to Metropolitan Toronto with a request for a revised plan that addresses these concerns and provides the province with a full financial analysis.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Ontario took an important step today in support of rural economic development by directing the use of ethanol-blended fuel in ministry vehicles.

Agriculture and Food staff have been directed to fuel ministry vehicles with --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I'll start from the top again.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of Ontario took an important step today in support of rural economic development by directing the use of ethanol-blended fuel in ministry vehicles.

Agriculture and Food staff have been directed to fuel ministry vehicles with ethanol-blended gasoline where it is available and competitively priced.

OMAF's Ridgetown College has already received authorization from the Ministry of Transportation to fill its central fuel tank with ethanol-blended gasoline for use by all its college vehicles. All five of OMAF's agricultural colleges are being directed to purchase ethanol, where possible, for the bulk fuel tanks which service college vehicles.

I wish to thank my colleagues in the government, especially the rural members, who have joined my ministry in encouraging the ethanol industry in Ontario and in promoting the greater use of ethanol in government vehicles. Indeed, the ministers of the Environment, Health, Natural Resources, Transportation and the Solicitor General, including the Ontario Provincial Police, support our policy and are planning to implement a similar ethanol procurement policy.

The government is committed to encouraging the use of all alternative fuels to gasoline. I am pleased that the Ontario government fleet administration council, which administers the government's fleet of vehicles, supports the use of ethanol as well as all alternative fuels.

Ethanol is a renewable fuel which requires no modification of automobile engines and it is now competitively priced.

I believe that there are substantial benefits to be drawn in Ontario by encouraging the development of the ethanol industry. That is why I commissioned an interministerial committee on ethanol last April to assist in the development of options and opportunities for my ministry to pursue the development of Ontario's ethanol industry.

The committee reported in September, after consulting farm producers, retailers, cooperatives, municipalities, researchers, engineers and other interested parties. The committee produced a discussion paper which outlined ethanol-related issues, including the impact on the environment, energy and agriculture, health and safety aspects and trade, regulatory and fiscal implications. It also clarified aspects of production and distribution here in Ontario.

Consideration of the many issues highlighted in the discussion paper led me to direct my ministry to support the ethanol industry through this procurement policy, effective today. Supporting greater use of ethanol within my ministry and within government benefits Ontario in several ways. First of all, ethanol is produced from grains and thus provides an enhanced market for farmers' crops.

In addition, as the ethanol industry continues to develop in Ontario, we're at the same time supporting the development of vital economic partnerships with our rural communities, partnerships between business, farmers and government.

I am pleased to have already received the support of other government ministries and I will continue to encourage all my colleagues to support ethanol use in ministry vehicles.

My federal colleague Mr Bill McKnight, Minister of Agriculture Canada, has also today encouraged Agriculture Canada staff to use ethanol in department vehicles where available and competitively priced. I applaud this effort and once again I invite all my colleagues to join in this important initiative.

On one final note, the critic from the official opposition, the member for Cornwall, Mr Cleary, has been away from the House with some health problems. I understand he's on the mend. I would like to wish him all the best, because he's been on his feet many times asking me questions about ethanol. In the same vein, I'd like to thank the critic from the third party, who has also joined with me in working on ethanol and making this announcement possible today.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I stop and shake my head at the issue --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Sorry, Mr Speaker, the members in the government benches of course don't take this place very seriously, have never really taken this place very seriously. I hold up as exhibit A the statement that was made today with respect to the reasons behind the government putting the stall on Bill 94.

Many of the things which have been highlighted by the member for Windsor-Riverside, the minister, are items which have been brought to the attention of many of us prior to this bill being brought into this place. Nothing new has really been brought forward in the public hearings, although I can tell you, Mr Speaker --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): You weren't listening, Murray.

Mr Elston: The Treasurer says I wasn't listening. I at least was at the hearings, unlike you, sir, and you are one of the people responsible for the tremendous tax hit the people of this province are suffering. In fact, the Treasurer of this province is proposing new taxes at a time when our economy is sputtering.

If he wishes to create more chaos in this province, then let him go at it. Let him argue with the Minister of Transportation, who is going to bring in new taxes. Let him argue with the Premier, who says new taxes are on the way. Let him argue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has bungled this whole problem.

He said he was a partner with people, looking at fairness and taxation. The Treasurer has declared fairness as an exhibit of his efforts through the Fair Tax Commission. Those people are fairly and squarely to blame for the new crisis in this province, economically, politically and socially, as they botch up the entire world of the Ontario that used to respond so well to the competitive forces that have faced us throughout these last 125 years of our nation's history.

It has taken but two years of New Democratic bungling and fumbling of issues to show how poorly governed this province really is. When they declare an intention, when they declare a provincial interest, it is of interest to note that if it's one declaration today, there will be another tomorrow and there will be another the day after that.

We are very close to the end of this session. We are, I understand, to prorogue in this place. There is still time for these people to change their minds. For those people who think there is fairness in these individuals' hearts, as they meet around the cabinet table, they only need to know that the only people they are trying to be fair to are themselves.

This New Democratic government has one intent, and it is its own interest, that it wishes to sponsor. I give again to you as an example exhibit A, the speech by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): We agree that the Minister of Agriculture and Food's announcement regarding the use of ethanol gasoline is positive and we thank him. It's positive for the citizens of Ontario because ethanol burns cleaner and it's positive for farmers who produce the renewable resource from which it comes.

We request the minister to act further, however, because there's been no real action from the government on the pilot project funding for Seaway farmers' ethanol co-op, and indeed no announcement for funding for 13 existing proposals for ethanol funding. We encourage all members, in fact all citizens of the province, to use ethanol gasoline. Let's get on with it. We request the government to reduce or eliminate any excise taxes presently on the production of ethanol so that ethanol gasoline indeed will be cheaper to use.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): While he was doing that, I was wondering why the Minister of Agriculture and Food didn't announce special aid for the Niagara region. While this will help many parts of the province of Ontario and in that sense he's responding to what the opposition has called for, I would have thought his statement would have had included an announcement included about more help for the Niagara region and the farmers who are struggling so hard to preserve their livelihoods in that part of the province. I hope he'll make that announcement before the week is out.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): For nine years in this Legislature, since elected, I have been pushing and asking governments of different stripes to support an ethanol industry. In March of this year, immediately after the federal budget, I stated that now that the federal budget eliminates the excise tax on fuel ethanol, Ontario must include measures to further the use of fuel ethanol. One way to promote demand is for Ontario to require its own vehicles and those of provincial agencies to utilize 10% alcohol fuel.

This is a win-win-win situation. We have some very poor quality corn in Ontario this year. If we only had the distilling facilities to utilize this corn, we would have a home and a market for it. Eastern Ontario will have some cogeneration facilities. Eastern Ontario has the corn; it has the livestock to utilize the byproducts. Eastern Ontario should be where at least two or three of these plants should be set up. We fully support the minister on this one.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to comment on the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If ever we have seen a government so totally incompetent, if ever we've seen a government that, to use an analogy, makes the Beverly Hillbillies look very good, all one has to do is read the statement of about a month ago of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, talking about how he was going to bring in enabling legislation to allow what is a Metro issue in Metro council to proceed, versus the statement that he makes today. Just read those two statements, Mr Speaker, anybody, and Jethro looks awful good in the province of Ontario.

You say in this statement, Mr Minister, that there's not enough time to properly amend the bill. We called for hearings on November 3; you refused to hold them until November 30. If you had started the hearings when we called for them, there would have been plenty of time for the Legislature to deal with this in an orderly fashion and in a responsible way to both Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto councils.

Secondly, if you weren't in such a hurry to get out of here this Thursday, there's still time next week. There's still time in January if you were up front in telling us what the real objective is. The real objective appears to be to try and cover up for our incompetence, to cover up for the fact that we didn't know what we were doing and perhaps to delay the implementation of market value assessment until after the by-election in St George-St David. Why don't you come clean with us and tell us exactly why you are doing what you are doing? None of it is in the interests of either Toronto taxpayers or in the interests of Metropolitan Toronto or in the interests of Ontario taxpayers.

If you had announced an economic impact study while you were waiting, if you had announced a cancellation of the commercial concentration tax while you were studying this, I would have thought today that you might actually have the best interests of the taxpayers of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto at heart, but you have only your political interests at heart, and I say shame on you.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There are probably going to be a significant number of very disappointed taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto today. It's very difficult to keep track of what the policy of this government is. I guess it must depend: the last person they speak to before they come into this House dictates policy for the day. This government must have stepped through the looking-glass. You've got to be in Wonderland.

People had expected this to go through because you have said you would do it. A month ago you were talking about the good things Metro council did, about the autonomy of local council, about the ability for local council to chart its future. If they had read the legislation that came from Metro, none of these things is a surprise. What have you been doing for the last month?

I read in the newspaper that you were sick of the public hearings because they were repetitive. Little did I know that two days later you would stand in this House and repeal the action you have taken as a government. People believed the position you took, although how can they be shocked? You campaigned on the promise you were opposed to MVA. You get elected, and suddenly you're in favour of MVA. Not 30 days later, you're opposed to MVA again.

To suggest that you're just incompetent is flattery. You couldn't organize a two-car funeral --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: -- and you've got members heckling who are so distorted in this House about what position your party is putting forward that it is absolutely insane to expect the people of this city to understand what you're doing with taxes. Shame on you. Shame on all of you. Get your act together.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. It is time for oral questions.

Point of order, the member for Bruce.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: This guy said we were heckling. Holy smokes.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Have you ever had a single thought in your life, Gord?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is asked to come to order.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you will know, having observed last evening's proceedings, we were saddled with two pieces of business yesterday which became, as a result of timing, incompatible. One was the time allocation motion which dealt with the so-called advocacy bill package, Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110, which by the motion of the government through its new rules was time-allocated to finish at 5:45 of the clock yesterday, when it was called for third reading.

At the same time we were saddled with a deferred vote on the so-called OTAB bill, which had been finished on second reading on Thursday and was deferred by motion of the government to yesterday's date at 6 o'clock.

Because we could not complete the deferred vote by 6 o'clock, as was required by the deferral notice -- the deferral notice having been made under the standing orders, which indicate that the deferred vote must be taken the next business day after routine proceedings but in no case after 6 o'clock on that day -- I stood in my place and said that the bill as a result fails and in fact cannot be voted on after 6, and that since it was not moved to be voted on prior to 6 o'clock, in fact the government by its action had withdrawn it and the bill as a result is a nullity.

My point of order, of course, is that the bill has now appeared on the Orders and Notices paper and has been shown to be now ordered for committee proceedings. That has been, I think, taken to mean that in the intersession we will meet on it.

Mr Speaker, I would ask your ruling on the matter with respect to whether or not this bill can appear on our Orders and Notices paper at all, since my contention is that you cannot vote on a bill that does not any longer exist because it was not called in due course.

From that point of view, I ask you now to rule whether or not that bill really does in truth exist at all, since we did not comply with the standing orders and vote on it prior to 6 of the clock yesterday. It was not for us to challenge the Chair because that no longer is available to us; there is no challenge to the Speaker's ruling, although I was sorely disappointed in the ruling that was taken.

It is not possible for us to abstain from a vote. As you know, that means that when a member has been called, he/she is ejected from the chamber, and as a result that is not a way to protest. We, as a result, were forced to cast a vote because we had no other option available to us.

Our option today, however, Mr Speaker, is to come to you to provide us with a ruling as to whether or not a bill can be perfected when it fails for process in this place, ie, not being voted on in time to meet the standing orders for a deferred vote.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, you will know that this matter was raised yesterday, and --

Mr Elston: No, no, it's on the Orders and Notices paper.

The Speaker: Order. The member has presented some information and I am attempting to respond to him. Perhaps I was a bit hasty. The member for Parry Sound had something to add on this point?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I believe the member for Bruce indeed has a valid point of order and I would ask you to consider this matter very carefully. The request that was put in writing to the Speaker, as is proper, by the chief government whip was that the vote take place at 6 pm. I've looked at the wording of the letter and that is exactly what it says; it doesn't say 6:07, it doesn't say 6:05.

The member is also quite correct, in my opinion, in that the standing orders clearly say that a vote cannot be deferred any later than 6 pm. We had a similar instance in this Legislature a few weeks ago with respect to matters happening after 6 pm, and I think this is indeed a very serious matter.

As it happens, the previous vote on the advocacy bills was not completed until 6:07 pm yesterday. The standing orders clearly state that a vote cannot be deferred any later than 6 o'clock, and in fact it was impossible to take the vote in accordance with the standing orders on Bill 96. I would ask you to very carefully consider this matter and perhaps give us a written judgement or submission from yourself, with all due respect, after you've carefully considered the matter, because I do regard the matter as being of some importance.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound and the member for Bruce, I appreciate the concerns which they have expressed. This matter was brought to the attention of the Chair yesterday and a ruling was made. I was certainly aware of the events as they occurred. I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the table officers and with the other chair occupants and indeed the ruling was correct.

I think members should realize two particular points: One, of course, is that the deferred vote process is one which was implemented as a way to assist members in an orderly way so that they would have a better opportunity to be present when votes are being called. So when a vote is deferred from one day to the next, it allows all members of the House to organize their affairs so that they can be here, if at all possible.

Secondly, I think the other point to be kept in mind is that once a procedure has started, then of course it is fully proper to complete the procedure. It is impossible to vote on two things at the same time, so once the process was started on time, as per the directions of the House, then of course the matters proceeded until everything had been dispensed with.

I would ask the members to reflect that, should we not be able to do that, then the extreme consequence would be that you might never be able to vote on anything. If you started into a process, were unable to complete it for a second item, as was the suggestion with respect to yesterday's, then if you take that to its logical extreme, you wouldn't ever be able to be presented with the opportunity to vote on that second matter -- which may appeal to some but not to others. So the Chair was perfectly right yesterday in saying that having started the process on time, they were able to indeed continue with the business until they had concluded the matters that had been brought before the House.

As the member has mentioned it previously -- and this is the last point -- with respect to the ability to abstain, as he will know, it has not been the practice in this chamber. That's not to say that it shouldn't be the practice, and indeed the Legislative Assembly committee perhaps should take a look at that practice to see if it's something we should be adding to our procedures here so that members do have an opportunity. The member made his point quite strongly and with great strength the other day, and I may be sympathetic to the member's point, but the rules do not allow anyone to abstain.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology refuses to deal with the resignation of Ontario's agent general in New York. He has stated that the agents general are appointed by the Premier; they are the sole responsibility of the Premier. Therefore, you must now be prepared to field the questions on this issue.

Your government's Management Board directive of March 1992 outlines very specific procedures for harassment investigations in the Ontario public service. In fact, the Globe and Mail reported on August 12, 1992, that under its own guidelines, the government has trained more than 500 employees to investigate sexual harassment complaints, and that Management Board itself was overseeing investigations which are complex or involve senior officials.

Premier, I would simply ask you: Given the special units your government set up to investigate sexual harassment, given that you have already trained over 500 people to investigate these cases, given that cases involving senior officials are to be investigated by Management Board, why did you order a special investigation of the Masters case? Why did you deviate from your own directives?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Treasurer answered the questions yesterday very effectively and, in the circumstances, gave the only answer that can be given: that is, I have no comment to make other than what has already been said with respect to Mr Masters's decision.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it seems that your government has a history of hiding behind the freedom of information legislation when it wants to avoid answering difficult questions.

You suppressed the Grandview report despite the ruling of the freedom of information commissioner that its release would not hamper investigations; you've placed a gag order on Al Holt and the Hydro board members, even though the commissioner had ruled that our questions were acceptable at that committee; and now you refuse to answer even the most basic questions surrounding the Masters investigation, as we understand it from the Treasurer's response yesterday, on the grounds that it will violate privacy laws.

Premier, this government seems to hold the privacy laws in high regard, unless your name happens to be Judi Harris.

The press has been publicly reporting the allegations against Mr Masters since August. It is unfair to leave this hanging. Will you stop hiding behind this legislation and simply tell us what investigations have been carried out by your government to probe these allegations, over what time period, and what the investigations revealed?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm as bound by the law as any other member of the House is. I've made my decision, and the government has made its decision, in terms of how we are responding overall to any number of situations, and we certainly have indicated very clearly to the member the position we're taking in this regard.

Mrs McLeod: Let us then recognize very clearly, Premier, that this is your decision; it is not a matter of the legislation. You have so often said that justice must not only be done, but that it must be seen to be done. In this case, you have not only failed to apply your government's own clear directive for the investigation of harassment cases, but you have also refused to disclose why a special investigation was ordered and what the investigation revealed.

As a result of your stonewalling, as a result of the fuelling of the fires of speculation, there is no question that Mr Masters is being judged in the court of public opinion. We don't know if justice was done to Carl Masters, we don't know if justice was done to the women or woman who made the allegations. All we have are rumours and speculation. Premier, do you not agree that your continued silence on this issue casts serious doubts on the fairness of the entire process to everybody involved in it? And I ask you today, will you not break that silence?

Hon Mr Rae: Neither rumour nor speculation will come from me. I would say to the honourable member that the law is very clear, and I think the government's obligations under the law are very clear too.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Well, Mr Speaker, in entire frustration on this issue, let me turn to an entirely different question.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Premier, I would suggest that after the scandals and the incompetence of this session, we thought the government couldn't possibly look more confused, but it seems we were wrong.

Yesterday, we saw another example of members of the cabinet taking totally different positions on an issue, causing considerable concern and speculation again for the people of the province. Our offices are now receiving phone calls from worried drivers, asking whether or not they are going to be facing tolls on Ontario's highway in the future. The Transportation minister says he is sold on the idea. The Treasurer has called the notion "pie in the sky."

Premier, we ask who is speaking for your government on this issue. Is it the Minister of Transportation, or is it the Treasurer? Is your government seriously considering toll roads, or is it not?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Who's speaking for the government? On transportation matters, it's the Minister of Transportation who speaks for the government. On overall financial matters, it's the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier. Other ministers have their responsibilities, and I have my responsibilities.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to indicate to the honourable member that the government has no intention or plans of applying tolls to existing roads. However, I would say to the honourable member that with respect to future construction of new roads, obviously we're looking at a range of financing alternatives, of which tolls are one. Beyond that, no final decisions have been made. But I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving me the opportunity to answer the question.

I think she can assure all the worried drivers who are phoning her office on a regular basis that this is an issue that will be fully debated and discussed within the public realm, as well as around the cabinet table, and I look forward very much to the positive and helpful suggestions from the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Well, I'm sure the Premier in turn immediately after question period will discuss with his Treasurer what he actually said, and whether that rationalization sufficiently explained the inconsistency of what the Minister of Transportation and the Treasurer have said on the particular issue.

But let me ask the Premier about what he himself has said about his government's intention to raise taxes in general. He is surely aware that the Treasurer has said that he would be forced to raise taxes in order to deal with the government's financial crisis. We are also aware that you have said that you would make sure that the taxes that would be introduced don't slow the economy down, don't discourage investment and don't discourage economic activity.

Now you've indicated that one of those taxes that you may be looking at on new roads is a toll tax. Clearly, we all want highways to operate efficiently, but we recognize that tolls are a form of taxation that drivers would pay out of their pockets for new roads.

Premier, given the fact that you do not want new taxes that deter business activity in Ontario, can you assure us that if you or the Minister of Transportation or the Treasurer or, by some miracle, all three of you, are looking at tolls on new highways, that economic studies have been done and that you will table those economic studies to prove that toll roads in any form will not harm Ontario's economy?

Hon Mr Rae: After a little over two years in government, I can say to the honourable member that --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You've never had more fun.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I've never had more fun, quite right, and second of all --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member for Ottawa West, the Beverly Hillbillies lasted for a long time and they're still in syndication and they're still in reruns, so I'm not too worried about that.

I say to the honourable member in answer to her question, of course the government will be studying whatever impacts decisions have, but in all seriousness, there are things that need to be done in order to get the economy going, in order to get the transportation system moving and in order to deal with -- if you'll pardon the pun -- many of the roadblocks which now seem to exist in the system and which I can say, as Premier, I find increasingly frustrating in terms of getting this done. So we are determined to get on with things, and of course we will share the information and of course we will have the debate, but the point, I think, is clearly to get things moving in the province.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder whether the Premier has checked the recent Nielsen ratings for the reruns of the Hillbillies show.

If either the Premier or the Minister of Transportation or the Treasurer had decided, again by some miracle, to consult with the affected groups before making up their minds whether to introduce toll roads, they might have talked to people from the trucking industry and they might have found that trucking groups are particularly affected by taxation in the transportation sector and that they have complained that the province already takes more out of the industry in taxes than it now spends on roads.

In 1991-92, Ontario received $2.8 billion in transportation taxes, mainly in the form of fuel taxes, but the provincial government only spent $1.9 billion on road maintenance and construction. Toll roads, as we understand it, might be accepted by trucking groups, but the province, to make that acceptable, would have to give back to drivers, in the form of lower gas taxes, the difference between what it takes from this sector and what it spends on roads.

Premier, I would ask if you will make a commitment today that, if you do decide on toll roads, it will not be just another tax grab. Will you commit, as a move to stimulate the economy, to lower gas taxes by the amount of money you raise from any road toll system that your government may introduce?

Hon Mr Rae: The first thing I want to say to the honourable member is that I can't let stand on the record the statement she's made twice, that there's a disagreement of any kind between the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation.

I've sat in at meetings in cabinet and at P and P with both individuals, and I can assure the honourable member that disagreements between them are very rare indeed, and on this subject I have not heard any. I've heard a very substantial agreement between the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation, of a desire, which I certainly share, to get things moving and to move ahead in terms of more creative ways of financing, so that we can in fact begin to drive things through the system a little bit more quickly.

Let me say to the honourable member, I've heard her suggestion, and of course there are ongoing discussions with members of the trucking industry and with all kinds of interest groups out there. We'll continue those discussions, but I'm not prepared to make any blanket statements with respect to taxation or anything else at this point in the session of the House.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier.

Section 21(2)(

a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows information to be disclosed when "the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny." That is what the freedom of information act says, Mr Premier. This is the act that your Deputy Premier yesterday and now you today appear to be hiding behind.

I'd like to ask you this, Premier: If the eradication of sexual harassment against women is not of the highest public interest, what is?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can only say to the member that the sections of the act are there. You've read one section; I could read out others. Generally speaking, matters involving personal privacy of people who are in the employ of the government of Ontario are not matters to be divulged, and that remains the basic law of the province. Those are the rules the government has followed and that's the direction we've taken.

Mr Harris: The act was never intended to allow a government to hide behind it. In fact, the act is there and this clause 21(2)(

a) is there to encourage, where there is a matter of public interest, that disclosure can be made, should be made and ought to be made.

Mr Premier, we're dealing now with employees of your government who have made allegations of sexual harassment against Mr Masters. If it's in the public interest to get to the bottom of this sexual harassment against female employees in Ontario, let alone your own female employees of this government, if eradication of that sexual harassment is at all important to you, then my reading of the act obliges you to come forward with the information.

I would ask you this: Is it because you cut a deal with Mr Masters not to disclose the information that you're not talking? Or is some misguided

interpretation of the freedom of information act that you're trying to hide behind the reason you will not answer our questions today?

Hon Mr Rae: When the honourable member says this is something that no other government has done, quite the contrary; there are many circumstances in which people leave the government in which the clear indications are there. I think it's very clear.

Mr Harris: Will you confirm today, Mr Premier, that you in fact made a deal, that you or your government or somebody on behalf of the government of Ontario made a deal with Mr Masters as part of his resignation that you would not disclose any of the details? Will you confirm or deny that today?

Hon Mr Rae: I've answered the question as clearly as I can and said to the honourable member that I think this is the fairest position to take in the interests of all concerned.

Mr Harris: I would ask you this question: Why did Carl Masters resign?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Masters resigned. I can add nothing further to that. He resigned in order to return to the private sector.

Mr Harris: Given that this matter cuts to the heart of one of the top priorities of all 130 members of the Legislature, to eradicate sexual harassment against women in the workplace, given that it cuts to the heart of that, why did you accept Mr Masters's resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: I accepted Mr Masters's resignation because it was offered.

Mr Harris: Clause 21(2)(

a) clearly calls upon you and upon the government of the day to disclose information that is in the interests of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny. This case cries out for disclosure of what happened on behalf of those women who have made allegations against Mr Masters, on behalf of all victims of sexual harassment within the province of Ontario, particularly those who work for you, the government of Ontario, for you as Premier. This cries out for disclosure if that is indeed one of your priorities.

I would ask you again. If this is your priority, and if you haven't cut a secret deal with Mr Masters -- which is another issue, if you have -- will you now come forward with the information in the interests of these women who have alleged sexual harassment and in the interests of all women past, present and future, to make sure that we can proceed as best we can to a harassment-free workplace here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I think my answer has clearly been given. I really have nothing to add to the answer I've given to the member.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Treasurer. Last night I attended a St Catharines city council meeting. One of the recommendations that came out was to move up the move of the Ministry of Transportation to St Catharines. They recommended -- and I would ask the Treasurer if he would agree with this: That the purchase and sale agreement for the lands comprising the MTO site be signed by December 31, 1992.

-- That approvals of demolition of vacant properties be granted by January 31, 1993.

-- That the province proceed with requests for information from the development community relative to the construction of the Ministry of Transportation building by December 18.

-- That the province establish a vanguard office.

-- That the province move 200 people in 1993 and another 200 in 1994, and the balance of 1,000 positions as the building is available.

-- That the contract for construction of the Ministry of Transportation building be awarded by June 1993.

I've given the Treasurer a copy of the recommendations. Would he agree that the government is prepared to do that to assist the city of St Catharines and the Niagara region, which are hit by very high unemployment and plant closings?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the member for St Catharines sending me over a specific copy of the proposal. As a matter of fact, I saw him on television last night in attendance at that meeting, I believe.

I'm pleased that the member no longer feels there's an attempt to slow down the relocation, which I hear he was rumouring in the last week or so around St Catharines, which of course is not the case at all. I'm glad he now sees the error of his ways in that regard.

I do regard the proposal as serious, and I commend St Catharines for the work it's done on it. I am prepared to sit down with the ministries involved. There are many ministries involved in this. There's Government Services, there's Industry, Trade and Technology, and there's the Ministry of Transportation as well. It's not a simple case of snapping one's fingers. There have been commitments made already, particularly, in some cases, to people who work in various ministries and so forth.

I would, however, say to the member for St Catharines that we think it's a serious proposal, well done, and we'll take the requests in it very seriously.

Mr Bradley: The requests which are not in this category but for other matters include:

-- Fifty thousand dollars to develop a St Catharines strategic economic plan such as is available to municipalities in eastern Ontario.

-- That you create a Niagara heritage fund similar to the northern Ontario heritage fund and with all of those implications.

-- That the province allocate PRIDE moneys to St Catharines in 1993 and 1994.

-- That the province, through Treasury and Economics, allocate moneys to the city in its 1993-94 budget for mutually agreed-upon projects.

-- That the province fast-track any applications for assistance under any provincial program.

-- That the province provide an additional Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology field officer.

-- That the province direct Ontario Hydro to freeze or decrease industrial hydro rates in the Niagara Peninsula until a study of the area is completed.

Those are among a number of other recommendations.

I would ask the Treasurer to give a commitment in the House this afternoon that he is prepared to accept these recommendations and implement them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly wouldn't give the commitment to accept and implement all of those proposals; it's a very comprehensive list. But I appreciate the fact that it is a comprehensive list and not just one demand and an insistence that that demand be met. I think it's a very responsible way to approach government that the city of St Catharines has taken, and I appreciate the fact that the member for St Catharines has raised it here.

As I indicated, I will sit down and talk with the various ministers involved just to see what is possible. I know the member for St Catharines and other members of the Liberal caucus understand that in some cases there could be precedents set that would be somewhat worrisome. But having said that, whatever can be done, I can assure the member, we'll take a very serious look at.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. There is nothing in the freedom of information act that prevents you from telling us whether you are stonewalling because of the act or because you cut a deal with Mr Masters. Presumably, if you cut a deal, the deal was to stonewall. Presumably, if you didn't, you're using the freedom of information act.

Given that there's nothing in the act to prevent you from disclosing which one of those two it is that you're using to stonewall information on the Masters affair -- in my view and in the view of many certainly preventing information from coming forward that may be of benefit to eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace -- and given that there is nothing in there to prevent you from telling us which one of the two you are using to cover up this information, I would ask you again: Is there anything in the deal you cut with Mr Masters where you agreed to not disclose any of the information in any of the questions we're asking?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the freedom of information act is very clear and the protection of privacy principles are very clear. I think I've answered the member to the very best of my ability.

Mr Harris: No, Premier, you have not answered to the best of your ability, nor according to what you're allowed to answer by law, or in fact according to what you are obligated and should answer by law. Given there's nothing in the freedom of information act to prevent you from telling us why you refuse to answer the questions, I ask you one more time, very clearly, very explicitly: Was there anything in the deal that you or your government cut with Mr Masters that prevents you from disclosing any of the information that would help get to the bottom of this sexual harassment case?

Hon Mr Rae: As I said before to the honourable member, I've answered his question as best I can with respect to our obligations under the law and I think that's the clearest answer I can give.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, on the evening of November 22, residents in my community and I met to discuss the importance of Lake Simcoe. Many of them derive their livelihood from the lake. In fact, it's known that it's the ice fishing capital of the world, up in Georgina. We have many marina businesses up there and ice fishing hut operators who depend on the lake for their livelihood.

Minister, I know that last year you realized the importance of the lake because you came to a forum sponsored by the South Lake Simcoe Naturalists and talked about the need for protecting the quality of Lake Simcoe. Can you tell me what the update is, right now, of the government in trying to protect Lake Simcoe?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm certainly aware of the concern raised by recent reports about the state of Lake Simcoe. I'm certainly aware of the study and the committee that has been established to oversee the work on trying to restore Lake Simcoe. That committee is chaired by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and has representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as my own ministry.

The problems in Lake Simcoe include phosphorous loadings and lack of oxygen. It's certainly the position of our ministry that no further development should occur that might result in an increase in the phosphorous loading to the lake. We are also very concerned about non-point sources, especially of phosphorous, and believe those should be controlled.

Our program is designed to do that, as well as modelling studies about the oxygen depletion and the prospects for establishing a link between phosphorous and the oxygen content of the water. These modelling studies will help us to implement some of the recommendations of the Lake Simcoe environmental management study. As well as that, the CURB program, Clean Up Rural Beaches, has been applied to trying to address the problems that affect Lake Simcoe.

Mr O'Connor: Minister, the meeting I had was with a group called Georgina Against Garbage. Given your answer about the commitment of time and the resources dedicated to protecting Lake Simcoe, how can the Interim Waste Authority possibly consider a dump site so close to the lake? It just doesn't make sense to be cleaning up the lake on the one hand and having it destroyed by a potential leaky landfill. Will the government stop this process and revise it, so the tiny town of Georgina doesn't end up with a mega-landfill?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd like to make two points in response to the member's question.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Way to go, Larry. Fantastic for Larry. Way to go.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me just say to the members of the opposition that the member for Durham-York's effective, constructive and responsible action on behalf of his constituents is a model that perhaps some of the rest of them might follow.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: With respect to his concern about the IWA, the Interim Waste Authority's search for a landfill site, let me remind him yet again that the site he has referred to is one of a list of candidate sites the Interim Waste Authority has identified. The arguments, the technical ability of that area to absorb the landfill that is being contemplated for that particular site and the surface water quality of the area, will all be issues before the Environmental Assessment Board. I know the member and his constituents will be very active in making their representations through the environmental assessment.

Let me merely comment, in conclusion, on his reference to leaky landfill sites by reminding him that landfill technology has improved considerably over the years. There have been landfills for 200 years and the ones that have been constructed in recent years and that certainly are contemplated for the future will not be leaky landfills.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. My Brother's Place is a success story. My Brother's Place was named the Daily Bread Food Bank's agency of the month in September 1992. It has endorsements from many other agencies and service providers in Metropolitan Toronto. It has a letter of support from an NDP cabinet minister. It has support from a former NDP cabinet minister.

Many individuals in the social services community have also supported the efforts of this group. Indeed, it is seen as the last and only resource for many who would otherwise fall through the cracks, helping those making that very difficult adjustment from long-time institutionalization to life in the community.

Madam Minister, what have you to say to the staff and residents of My Brother's Place, who have continued to be supportive, one of the other, as you cut staff and programs and put individuals who have high needs, high-risk needs -- in fact the broader community -- at risk by your decision?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I'm sure the member is aware, there were a number of different funding sources for My Brother's Place. Issues were raised about some of the accountability issues, some of the issues of care of clients and so on over time, and all funders, on discussion, began to withdraw funding for various reasons.

I have met with members of the board and the executive director of My Brother's Place personally. Members of my staff in the ministry and members of my own office staff continue to keep track of the various concerns that have been raised. These concerns have been raised by community members, by former staff members, by former board members and by former clients, and there are fairly serious issues around accountability that we continue to struggle to get to the bottom of.

Mrs O'Neill: Madam Minister, you are giving a lot of excuses. You know there are differences of opinion on this matter. You know the board has been in existence for six years. Many of the members are original members.

I have in my possession three letters you have sent from your ministry. The first one was dated March 13, 1992, and you confirmed funding for 1992 -- another broken promise. The second letter is dated July 3 and says, "We have decided not to proceed with an investigation." Finally, I have a letter from yourself dated August 5 and you announce "the final decision to withdraw funding for the programs on Dufferin Street as of June 1992," a retroactive withdrawal of funding, I may add.

I remind you that the goal of My Brother's Place is to save and help those who are falling through the cracks, whose life skills are almost non-existent, who have been in institutional settings for most of their lives, and you refused to review the program. You refused to investigate, and that's in writing, and now you have withdrawn vital funding.

Madam Minister, I ask you, what have you to say about these letters to the residents and staff of My Brother's Place? I suggest you're abandoning another success.

Hon Mrs Boyd: My responsibility, and that of other ministers and other ministries, is to ensure that the goals of the transfer payment agencies that we fund are indeed being followed out. Obviously, it must be clear to the member that, following the April letter confirming funding, additional information came forward that was there. When we decided initially not to investigate, as did the other funders, that information was not as complete as it subsequently became.

Our responsibility is to ensure that the outcomes of the programs we offer are appropriate to the clientele, and in terms of this particular program there were serious concerns about the appropriateness of a number of issues at My Brother's Place.

PROBATION OFFICERS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Mr Minister, at a time when increasing numbers of violent offenders are being placed back into the community, we're told that Management Board is considering the removal of the degree requirement for probation officers. In response to my question of October 21, the Minister of Correctional Services advised us that your government is reviewing this situation, so my question today is, will the current bachelor's degree requirement remain a minimum standard for a probation officer?

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the minister of corrections has been working on this issue and I will refer the question to him.

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to answer the question the honourable member raises today. As I have said previously, this matter is being reviewed currently by a work group consisting of members of the Probation Officers' Association of Ontario as well as the union and members of the ministry to review and make a recommendation to me, as most of these recommendations apply to employees who are with the Ministry of Correctional Services. I expect I will be receiving that report within the next week or so and at that time will be better able to give the member a full answer as to the direction we're taking.

Mrs Cunningham: I heard the minister. It's the same answer I got on the 21st. I just have to say very simply that the governments before us have requested studies dating back to 1957, and as recently as 1987, and by the way, the taxpayers of the province pay for these.

There was a recommendation that the university degree be a bare minimum starting requirement for the probation practitioner. We see no reason, nor did the union -- of course, the lack of consultation didn't help -- that things should be changed right now unless there is some ideology behind this which isn't in the best interest of the public. The best interest of the public is its safety, and this is an extremely important job. Probation officers are seeing increasing numbers of these very serious offences, including sexual assaults and crimes involving violence.

My question to the other minister is simply this: If nine out of 10 provinces in Canada require this minimum standard, and 49 of the 52 American states, why would you even be looking at this and when are you going to give us your response? We hope it will be positive.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think I have now answered maybe for the fourth time that the fact of the matter is that the question still had the premise that a decision has been made. There has not been a decision. That's why there was a working group that is now looking at the very issues the member raises, as well as a whole host of other issues, and I would also say that we do agree on one point, that these people provide a very valuable service. They provide an excellent professional service and nothing that is being contemplated will remove any of that.

Mrs Cunningham: Why are you looking at it?

The Speaker: Order, the member for London North.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It is a question of, will this particular requirement remain in place or will there be equivalents? I do wish the member would stop posing questions that suggest something has already been done. The consultation is under way and I expect to receive that report very shortly.

CONSENT TO TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Health, and I think it's a very appropriate question in that we have so many young people in the gallery here. This morning I picked up the Toronto Star and I pretty near flipped out when I read that under the consent to treatment law passed yesterday, children are now able to refuse medical treatment, including vaccinations. Madam Minister, are we allowing the children the right to refuse to be vaccinated? I'd like your answer.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I can understand why the member was alarmed, and I'm sure actually a number of parents were alarmed to read that headline. I was alarmed to read that headline. It's big, it's bold and it's wrong. The legislation encodes what currently exists in common law. Existing law doesn't require or compel mentally capable young persons to take health treatment. There hasn't been anything that's changed. Quite frankly, I think to mislead the public in this way is very unfortunate. It also, let me say, is not very accurate in terms of immunizations.

In the school immunization program, most children receive those by the age of six. Six-year-olds are not going to be judged by a doctor to be mentally competent.

I want you to know very clearly that the Ontario Medical Association called us today very concerned. Dr Ted Boadway said very directly that they don't believe that the legislation in any way will change the current practice on obtaining consent for children. So the OMA thinks that the Toronto Star was wrong as well.

Mr Mills: Madam Minister, in the newspaper it says words to the effect that medical practitioners are severely opposed to this and have bitter opposition to this. Are the health care practitioners opposed to this legislation or are they not?

Hon Ms Lankin: That's another thing that was wrong in the article. It said that health care professionals were "bitterly opposed." That's quoting right from the article. The Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association certainly had a number of concerns when the legislation was introduced; there is no doubt about that. We worked with them and with members of the opposition to address those concerns, to provide a number of amendments, and they are very pleased with the changes that were made to the consent-to-treatment legislation.

Again, the doctors called us today and said they don't think the headline was right and they don't think the

article was right. Let me tell you, I don't believe that it was right. Quite frankly, they're looking forward to working with the government on implementation of the bills and education of the public. So, to the headline writers of the Toronto Star, I hope that we might get a retraction that's as big and as bold as well.

CORONERS' COUNCIL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Solicitor General. In 1972 the Coroners' Council was established on the recommendation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The council's role is to provide an independent forum through which the actions of the coroner can be reviewed. Could you advise the House of the status of this council?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I'm not aware of any difficulty with respect to the coroner's office except for some public comments about the speed and timeliness of some actions there. If there is some difficulty, I'd be pleased to hear about it.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I hope you heard the Solicitor General.

This thing doesn't even exist. The fact is that recently a young man was tragically killed at York University, and his mother wishes to appeal the chief coroner's decision for an inquiry but does not have an avenue for recourse as the council does not exist.

This council was established, as I said, in 1972. You sat on it, your Premier sat on it and did not appoint a chair of that council. You sat on it and did not appoint any members of the council. Now he says he doesn't know if there is any problem with that. I ask for reassurance from the minister that tomorrow here in the House he will bring back a review of what is happening with the status of the council. Could I ask that of the minister today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly, the member can ask for a review or status on any items with respect to the coroner. If there is any difficulty in any particular case, I'm quite willing to take it up with Dr Young and respond back to the member on this or any other matter.

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. NorOntair's original mandate was to provide scheduled air service to communities where the private sector cannot compete. Over the years, norOntair has expanded its service and currently operates in direct competition with private sector airlines. Could the minister explain why the government continues to subsidize norOntair, in fact last year to the tune of $3 million, and allows it to utilize predatory pricing practices against the private sector airlines?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): If the member has some examples of predatory pricing, I would like him to raise that with me, because I am not aware of any practice that is undertaken by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in that regard.

I should say to him that the mandate was to provide air service in northern Ontario to many of the communities. The private sector came in after we had been in those communities providing air service, and that occurred because in many cases the private sector did not want to go into the communities because it was not profitable for it to do.

I can tell the member that it is my understanding that at the beginning of December the general manager of ONTC was sitting down to meet with one of the carriers in northwestern Ontario to look at some of the scheduled flights to determine if we could have a rationalization between the public and private sector in northwestern Ontario. But at this point in time we continue to operate in all of the communities. We have been for many years now. If there is a change in that policy and a rationalization occurs, I would certainly advise the members of this House.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I've anticipated what you were going to say and I'm sending over, at this moment, a current air fare comparison. If you look at it, you'll see the differences in prices from Thunder Bay to Sudbury. NorOntair and private airlines are exactly the same price. Miraculously, when you look at Red Lake to Sudbury, your airline manages to charge $10 more than from Thunder Bay to Sudbury and yet the private airlines have to charge $935, almost double.

Minister, what on earth is wrong? This is using taxpayers' money to subsidize the public sector against the private sector. While your Premier trotted around Asia telling people that Ontario was a good place to do business, you, in the meantime, are chiselling away at the private sector.

Hon Miss Martel: It was under the Tory government that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission was established, and it was established because in many cases the private sector refused to go into many small, remote, northern communities to provide service because the profit was just not there. I don't think that I'm going to apologize for that because many, many northern communities and northern residents have benefited by having access to service that the private sector would not provide.

I said to the member, and I will repeat, that we have entered into discussions with one of the carriers in northwestern Ontario because we do believe that a rationalization in service can occur that would be beneficial to all residents of northern Ontario. But I would point out to the member that we will not interrupt or halt our service into remote northern communities without being guaranteed by the private sector that it in fact will provide the service. It is not our intention to leave northerners stranded without air service if the private sector does not want to come in.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question today is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week there was reference made in this House to the second interim hunting agreement signed by the governments of Ontario and the Algonquins of Golden Lake. Could the minister please clarify the substance of this agreement and how the public was involved in reaching this agreement?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I want to thank the member for his question and the chance to correct some misinformation that was brought forward to the House last week.

As you know, we made a commitment of this government to negotiate last year with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. I'm happy to tell all of the members of the House that on Monday of this week the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable Tom Siddon, joined me with the chief and council of the people of Golden Lake to indicate that the federal government agrees that these negotiations should proceed and is prepared now to participate in those negotiations.

I should indicate that the agreement with the Algonquins on hunting was arrived at after making a number of consultative approaches, including a number of public meetings and correspondence with many individuals. We sent out over 800 public notices and there were three weeks of time to respond. We consulted with the municipalities and the public input helped us to reach an even better agreement this year than we had last year.

Mr Waters: Maybe at this point, Mr Minister, you could tell us exactly what improvements you did get in this year's agreement over last year's.

Hon Mr Wildman: This year's hunting season has been shortened. We've improved the monitoring of the harvest, and one of the ways we're doing that is that the Algonquins have hired a conservation officer who will be working with them to enforce the rules, particularly in the park area, and that conservation officer will have the status of a deputy conservation officer for the Ministry of Natural Resources as well. This agreement will be reviewed by a coordinating committee which is independent, and again, the results will be made public.

This agreement improves on the one that worked well last year, where the Algonquins took only 34 deer when they were allowed to take 175, and only 47 moose when they were allowed to take 100 in the whole area, the park as well as the area outside the park. This is an example of cooperation and co-management that hopefully we can build on in the future.

Cela fait maintenant plus de 14 mois que le Conseil scolaire d'Ottawa-Carleton, le conseil publique francophone, est sous sa tutelle. Maintenant, on sait fort bien que la tutelle n'a pas bien marché, n'a pas fonctionné. En effet, la dette de ce Conseil est maintenant à plus de neuf millions de dollars en haut de ce qu'elle était avant que vous aviez mis la tutelle en place l'an passé.

La question que l'on pose, Monsieur le ministre -- les parents, les professeurs, les étudiants -- c'est, quand est-ce que vous allez mettre fin à la tutelle, et quand est-ce que le conseil scolaire va encore avoir la place de diriger les affaires du Conseil pour le bien-être des francophones de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, Monsieur le ministre, quand ?

L'hon Tony Silipo (ministre de l'Éducation) : Je suis complètement d'accord avec le député quand il dit que la meilleure chose serait de retourner le plus tôt possible le Conseil scolaire à la direction des conseillers scolaires. Mais il sait sûrement que le problème qu'on a c'est que, pour y arriver, il faut une attitude de coopération entre les conseillers scolaires et M. Léger, qui est maintenant le responsable du le conseil scolaire. Jusqu'au moment où on arrive à avoir un certain niveau de coopération entre les deux côtés, la seule chose que je peux faire comme ministre c'est continuer le Conseil scolaire sous la tutelle où il se trouve maintenant.

M. Beer : Cette réponse n'est pas vraiment acceptable. Encore une fois, Monsieur le ministre, ça fait 14 mois que le Conseil est sous la tutelle. Je pense que n'importe qui devrait dire que ça n'a pas de bon sens que de mettre un conseil sous une tutelle de si longue durée.

Le ministre sait fort bien qu'il y avait une autre option devant le gouvernement que de faire ce qu'on a fait. Simplement, cette option était de nommer quelqu'un du ministère à travailler étroitement avec le Conseil, pas avec le Conseil à côté où le Conseil n'aurait absolument rien à faire sous la direction du conseil pour les parents, pour les professeurs, pour les étudiants. Et c'est ça la grande question.

Donc, je pose la deuxième question, la suivante. Est-ce que vous êtes prêt à mettre la tutelle de côté, à nommer quelqu'un du ministère et afin travailler avec le Conseil et avec le Conseil en place, dès maintenant ?

L'hon M. Silipo : La position que j'ai annoncée reste la même. Nous avons déjà essayé de faire ce que l'honorable député nous a indiqué, c'est-à-dire avoir quelqu'un de la part du ministère qui essayerait de travailler avec le Conseil scolaire. C'est en effet le rejet de cette position, de ce processus de la part du Conseil qui nous a enfin apporté vers la tutelle.

Donc, la position reste que, s'il y a une attitude de coopération de la part du Conseil scolaire, une attitude de vouloir travailler avec M. Léger pour en arriver à des solutions, il y en a, des solutions. Il y a dans ces solutions aussi un rôle que le ministère va jouer. Mais ça peut commencer seulement s'il y a cette attitude de coopération de la part du Conseil scolaire. S'ils continuent à résister et à être contraires à toutes sortes de propositions qui sont mises devant eux, alors malheureusement, la situation existante va continuer.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you would be aware that there is a serious crisis facing children's aid societies in this province. They have mounting deficits and growing demand from the increased numbers of children who are being born in this province who are crack cocaine addicted and the numbers of children who are being born with foetal alcohol syndrome, while the numbers of children who have been sexually and physically abused have grown dramatically in this province.

Yet in that environment and with that understanding of the increased demand and with the understanding that the only people who are there to protect these children are the laws of this province as upheld by your government, I ask you, Minister, why it is that you have cut funding or reduced the levels of funding with both the base funding at a 0.5% increase when transfer agencies received a full 1% and you reduced and will reduce by two thirds the total amount of exceptional circumstance review funding in this province, which is the time-honoured funding mechanism we have to address these increased demands for children who are out there suffering and cannot receive the services.

I remind you, Minister, children's aid societies are in deficit, they have reduced their staff positions by 175 and their cuts total $13.5 million.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jackson: Minister, what assurances can you give this House that the offensive priorities, this statement of comparative value for your funding, will be undone in your next announcement with respect to CAS funding in Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm really pleased to have an opportunity to answer once again the question that the member has asked both in the estimates process and in the House, because I think it is important for people to understand.

First of all, his claim that their funding was reduced from the amount given major transfer payments is not right. We in fact increased the funding by 0.5%, as was done with most of our other agencies. We did direct additional funding to areas of our priority.

The member is indeed right that the exceptional circumstance review way of funding is time-honoured. That doesn't mean it was ever appropriate or that it is at all appropriate since the 1985 changes to Children's Sand Family Services Act.

I have told the member before that part of our plan with the CASs is to develop funding mechanisms that meet the risk factors that are there in communities in a much more appropriate way, and we have developed and tested to the best of our ability thus far a funding structure, a strategic directions document that we expect to be able to release shortly that will give clear direction as to how the dollars under CFSA would be better allocated to meet the changing and diverse needs within the province.

Mr Jackson: Why would I be surprised? The minister isn't listening to my question, because she hasn't been listening to CASs. I said reduced funding levels. You gave a 0.5% increase to women's shelters, you gave a 0.5% increase to CASs that are out there protecting children who are the victims of sexual assault and you gave more money to transfer agencies. The comparative funding levels are down. That is the offensive set of priorities for your government.

Minister, we have increased demand in this province for children who are vulnerable. I have a case, I cannot mention the child's name, but it's documented from the mother who talked to the CAS and the crown attorney's office. They are unable to proceed with a sexual assault of a two-and-a-half-year-old child. All of it is documented, but to go and talk to the other 12 or 15 children and their families --

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Jackson: I will, Mr Speaker, but this is a very important issue about a child who's been sexually assaulted in this province, and this government is underfunding the process for that child to get help.

My question is simply this, that there are not hundreds but thousands of children in this province today who are depending on this government not to look at them and to put them at the bottom of a barrel with an 0.5% increase --

The Speaker: Will the member please place his supplementary.

Mr Jackson: -- but to provide adequate funding to protect children in this province. Minister, stand in your place and make the promises in this House today about that funding and reiterate your statements from the last election when you --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: If the member is suggesting that there is a children's aid society in this province that is not carrying out its mandate, then he needs to give me that information, because they are not working within their mandate. The member knows very well that exceptional circumstance review funding is there to meet the needs of associations that are in that situation --

Mr Jackson: There were 175 people laid off.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and if the member has that kind of information, it is his responsibility to let me know so that we can investigate. If it is a mandatory investigation that is not being done, there are dollars to cover that through the exceptional circumstance review. It is not appropriate for the member to suggest that a decision on the part of a children's aid society not to proceed with a case is necessarily to do with funding.

Children's aid societies frequently decide, in conjunction with the crown attorney's department, not to proceed with particular cases, and I would want to know the detail of this case, because I believe very strongly that the member has misrepresented the issue.

Mr Jackson: "Let's stop foster parenting so we can do more sexual assault." Is that what you're saying?

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Relax, just relax. Now, I would ask the honourable minister if she would withdraw the remark.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Yes, Mr Speaker.

PETITIONS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Cette pétition est adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes, plus de 10 millions de dollars, qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones de l'Ontario.»

J'y ai affixé ma signature.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the above-mentioned implementations;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I support this petition as well.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise in the House with great pride today to read this petition into the record:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned, deplore the passing of Bill 75 into law. We ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because:

"

(1) It does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings;

"

(2) It is not in the best interests of the area and its residents;

"

(3) It awards too extensive a territory to the city of London;

"

(4) It will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex; and

"

(5) It will allow for the progressive development of prime agricultural land."

It is my great pleasure and honour to affix my name to this petition. Thank you.

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes, plus de 10 millions de dollars, qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton.»

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here.

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and recreational vacation land, these areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities, the farm families in these areas have continued to invest large sums of money in their farms, these communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump;

"Whereas most of the people of Georgina depend on groundwater for a drinking water supply and a dump would threaten their clean supply of water;

"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice-fishing capital of the world; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe's health provides a strong draw for tourists to fish year-round; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of the community;

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and to turn it into Metro's and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew its efforts, to seek alternatives, like waste reprocessing, to landfill and implement progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I affix my name to this petition.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Premier and to the members of the Legislative Assembly:

"General Motors' announcement to close the foundry operations in St Catharines, with the resultant loss of 2,300 jobs, adds to the growing devastation of the vital manufacturing sector in the Canadian economy. The spinoff effects will result in four to six lost jobs in other sectors for every job lost in auto. The foundry closure also puts the remainder of the General Motors St Catharines operations in serious jeopardy, which has a total combined employee population of 9,000 hourly and salaried workers.

"I strongly urge the Ontario government to intervene in all possible manner to stop the erosion of jobs and the economic base of our province and, in particular, the Niagara region."

This is signed, and I'm prepared to add my name to it, because I'm in agreement with this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by several hundred people in my riding, mainly in the town of Belle River. It says:

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

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

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

I affix my signature to it.

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes, plus de 10 millions de dollars, qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones de l'Ontario.»

J'y ai apposé ma signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has not consulted the people of Ontario regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to it.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm reading a petition addressed to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada;

"Whereas statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents;

"Whereas it is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions;

"Whereas this is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern;

"Therefore, in the interests of saving lives, preventing injury and reducing costs, we urge you to support graduated licensing for new drivers."

There are probably hundreds of signatures on this petition, and I have signed my name and dated it.

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes (plus de 10 millions de dollars) qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton.»

J'y appose ma signature.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by many residents of Ottawa-Carleton, including Russ Barton, Archie Campbell, Chris Jackotzy and many others.

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Ottawa-Carleton; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants; and

"Whereas Ottawa businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of 150% to 250%,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on Ottawa-Carleton against the wishes of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and to consider another method of property tax reform."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from citizens of the county of Middlesex who ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it is not in the best interests of the residents of the London and Middlesex area, it awards too extensive a land base to the city of London and it will jeopardize agricultural land and the viability of Middlesex county.

I have signed my name to this petition.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I'm honoured to present this petition to the Legislature signed by many of my constituents, specifically addressed to the Minister of Transportation. It reads:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. It is in the interests of saving lives, also preventing injuries and also reducing costs, that support for graduated licensing for new drivers is being petitioned."

I affix my name to this petition to be tabled with the Clerk.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the assembly, the government of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, feel that the French Language Services Act discriminates against non-French speaking citizens (voters of Ontario)."

It's signed by 200 petitioners from all over the province.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have many petitions to the Parliament of Ontario.

"The Rae government is proposing an $11-a-day increase in nursing home residents payments." That is a 38% increase. "Mr Rae's government feels justified by saying, 'Those targeted are able to afford it.' This increase is unconscionable and is aimed at a helpless and vulnerable group. The Minister of Health, under the NDP government, can push this through before the public realizes what has happened. We don't want this to go through without proper consultation. The people involved must be adequately consulted.

"We say no to this proposal."

To this I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Community and Social Services had the floor when we broke last night.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I won't take the whole 20 minutes I have left. I just have a few more comments I need to make in terms of some of the comments of our members on this side of the House as well as members opposite.

I think the petition that was just entered into the record of the Legislature raises some of the questions that are of most concern to some of the vulnerable people who are in nursing homes, homes for the aged or charitable homes for the aged, that we need to be addressing.

That member who introduced the petition suggested in it that there had not been consultation in terms of the way in which nursing homes and homes for the aged fees ought to be based, and of course that's incorrect, given the extensive kind of consultation that has been held throughout the province on this issue.

It is important for the people of Ontario to understand that the increase in the charge is an increase in the basic board and lodging portion of the charge only, and that if a person is unable to pay, based not on a means test, as the previous government had suggested, which would have taken into account all assets of the individual, but on an income test that talks about the income that person is actually bringing in at the time the income test is done, then that person would have the charges changed to meet the income level.

Certainly, if a person is receiving the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government, it is clear that there is a limited ability to pay, and if a person is unable to pay that full per diem amount for accommodation, the charge would be reduced or eliminated.

It is also important to note that many of those who would be paying the new fee of $37 a day are currently paying a great deal more, because there is a charge for many of the services that are now being offered in those facilities that we would not allow to be chargeable under the new system.

It is very important also to understand that these acts will enable the government to ensure that if there is overcharging for any of the services that are offered by homes -- for accommodation, for additional services such as hairdressing, particularly different services that might be offered on a discretionary basis -- this legislation would give the government the ability to recover those charges from the nursing home and return those dollars to the individuals involved.

That is an improvement in the situation that has been demanded from time to time, certainly by us as an opposition party but also by other members in both of the other parties. It is very important for those of us who have loved ones who are in facilities and for those who are in facilities themselves to know that there is some recourse when in fact overcharging does occur, and we think that's one of the most important changes that this bill would make.

The issue of vulnerability has been raised a number of times, and certainly the vulnerability of people in facilities has been an ongoing concern for us in this party and continues to be, I believe, given what we heard during the consultation, a major concern of most people who are interested in the issue of long-term care in the province.

We would have under this legislation the ability to ensure that the nature of the care, the quality of the care that is offered to people in long-term care facilities meets a standard that is clear, that is clearly set out to the resident himself or herself, as well as to the family of that resident, and that in fact there would be a required and posted plan of care. There would be a quality assurance portion to the kind of care planning that would be done that would give some of that confidence, and there would be appeal mechanisms if people had concerns about care.

Naturally, the Advocacy Act, which we passed yesterday, is an important component of our assurance of quality care and safety to residents, because we now would have not only the assurance of the contractual agreement that is in place between a long-term care facility and the funding government, but also an ability to monitor that and to ensure in fact that vulnerable adults had the services of the advocates if problems should arise. We believe that's an important improvement and one which I think will give added assurance to those of us who have loved ones who are either seniors or are physically disabled and require care in long-term care facilities.

In closing, I would emphasize that these changes that are included in Bill 101 are only the beginning of the long continuum of legislative, regulatory and program changes that will be required to bring into full force the full vision of long-term care, as the Minister of Health, I know, will be announcing in the very near future.

We are introducing this bill at this time because it is very important that we bring some financial stability to those who are providing care within the facilities in our communities. There have been many complaints over a long period of time about underfunding. It is very important for us to be moving ahead so that in fact we are able to go to committee and have the concerns raised in an atmosphere that enables us to strengthen the bill, if that is required, that enables us to answer some of the concerns that have been raised, and of course gives us another chance to have the input of the whole community.

We do want to move ahead, because we as well as the opposition members have expressed concern about further erosion in the availability of service. That is certainly not our intention or something we believe will naturally flow from this act. We believe very strongly that this will strengthen the facility sector so that it is there when it is necessary.

But we re-emphasize to the people of the province of Ontario that although facilities are part of the continuum of care, part of the kind of intervention we must have at some points in people's lives, they are only part of that care. We have put far too much emphasis on facility care for those who need long-term care and we need to be looking at the way in which to maintain people longer in the community, and to move people who have not been able to enjoy independent living within the community into the community in order to attain a truly healthy society that is fulfilling for them.

We look forward very much to moving forward in the new year with additional elements of the long-term care vision. We are hopeful that our move in this area, which fulfils some of our concerns around stabilized funding, around the kind of care of individuals, and particularly, of course, as I mentioned last evening, for our ministry, our ability to flow funds to individuals so that they can plan their own care in a self-sufficient and independent way, that these changes will show a significant beginning and give a clear message to those who have been concerned about long-term care that we intend to move ahead with enthusiasm on our plans.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I was interested in hearing the minister speak last night with respect to the direct funding pilot project, which the Minister of Health assured us in estimates committee would have taken place last autumn. Last night, the Minister of Community and Social Services indicated that it did not occur because no one responded to a call with respect to the pilot project.

I wonder if she could clarify that. How were applications solicited? What parameters were placed on a pilot? What other organizations were contacted to be part of it? It seems to me that it's a singularly important part for the disabled community for that pilot to go ahead, and I would have thought that if nothing occurred kind of naturally with respect to proceeding with the pilot, the minister would have indeed encouraged their application for participation with specific organizations and groups, and maybe even underwritten them. I certainly would like to hear more from the minister in the time of her response as to why that pilot didn't proceed.

The other aspect I think many of us are interested in knowing, and several members have referred to it, is if the minister could clarify if it will be the federal test, which is automatically used to provide an indication of when an income supplement or supplementary assistance or maximum payment would be made, or what other process will be implemented.

I think we all want to pursue, and I'm running out of time here, the question of the charges not allowed for those institutions where existing contracts are already in place for accommodation which is more extensive or luxurious than would be the system for the average person in long-term care.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The member for Brampton South.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Not questions or comments; I'm participating.

The Speaker: Then the minister has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to respond to the member. I want her to know that I think she misunders