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

December 5, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

COUNTY OF OXFORD

M.M. ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL

CORRINE LEGER

TOWN OF BOSANQUET

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FINANCING

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CAVE SPRINGS DOCUMENTARY

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

JOB SECURITY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

PENSION FUNDS

SUDBURY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

AUTISM SERVICES

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

PENSION FUNDS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HEALTH INSURANCE

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1994

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): At a time when health care in Ontario is under severe stress, we should note that demoralized and unhappy health practitioners do not do their best work.

Physicians in Ontario are indeed demoralized. They rallied a little some months ago when they heard a commitment from the government of Ontario that they would be permitted to incorporate their practices, as indeed do many other professionals practising in the province of Ontario. The NDP government agreed to incorporation and referred the matter to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.

Incidentally, the Ontario Medical Association has already agreed that any incorporation structure put in place would include the retention of personal liability on the part of individual practitioners.

Ontario physicians are increasingly constrained by a widening network of regulations, prohibitions and enactments which have the effect of undermining their professional freedom to practise medicine. I am speaking of the Canada Health Act in 1984, Bill 94 in 1986, the imposition of the GST in 1990, capping of physicians' billings, various clawback agreements and an ever-widening definition of professional malpractice policed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Now the government is hedging on its promise, claiming that the advisory council's June 1994 report recommends withdrawal of its commitment. The government wants to renege on yet another NDP promise. That would not be in the public interest nor in the interest of promoting good health care in the province of Ontario.

I appeal to the government to honour its promises and to recognize that patients suffer when clinicians feel demoralized and unfairly treated.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Premier. Gary Winters, president of the VON, Lanark branch, has voiced serious objections to Bill 173 and this government's treatment of home care providers. His concerns are outlined in a letter to the Premier in which he states the following:

"To place the citizens of our community in jeopardy for future services and to add more uncertainty and anxiety on care-providing staffs when your proposed long-term-care reform is already unsettling to both groups is both irresponsible and unwarranted."

The VON has provided a list of situations in Lanark county where patients have lost home service because of this government's approach.

This list includes a 94-year-old patient with cancer, lives alone, no family; an 80-year-old patient, lives alone, needs weekly injections; an elderly couple, the wife bedridden, the husband had to become the caregiver, he fractured his hip while doing laundry.

There are many other cases, but I think the point is clear: The NDP will abolish home care systems that work and, for the sake of ideology, they have placed the lives of these patients in jeopardy.

COUNTY OF OXFORD

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): January 1, 1995, marks the 20th anniversary of the restructuring of Oxford county. The county of Oxford's foresight has resulted in an improved form of local government that other jurisdictions may well wish to study. The restructuring of Oxford's municipal government resulted in a significant consolidation in the number of rural townships, from 18 to 8. The city of Woodstock and the town of Ingersoll rejoined the county government system.

The drive to restructure came from local politicians, supported by the Ontario government, concerned with the need for a stronger, unified approach to land use planning which would be better equipped to deal with development pressures.

The restructuring was also seen as an alternative to regional government that many urban centres in southern Ontario were discussing at the time, and Oxford county did not want to be absorbed into a regional government based in urban centres such as London or Kitchener.

The changes have been an overwhelming success. Oxford county stands as the only example of complete county restructuring in Ontario. The county assumed control over land use planning and established Oxford's official plan. Water and sewer services are joint local and county functions. The county takes care of a network of county roads and administers the delivery of social services.

Oxford county has also led the way in the creation of a computerized property records system that has been the focus of international interest and now is the basis for a province-wide system.

In closing, I would suggest that other municipalities may wish to review the Oxford county experience. They would discover a municipal government that is smaller, more efficient and more effective. Municipalities struggling to cut costs and maintain services in today's economic climate may well benefit from Oxford's example.

M.M. ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): For some time people in Halton Centre have been working diligently with me to ensure that safety and educational problems at M.M. Robinson High School are addressed in the Halton Board of Education's capital program.

To say that the need is urgent is no exaggeration. The art room, which is a converted janitor's storage room, is vented to the loading dock. Severe water damage has caused what appear to be structural weaknesses around large, original windows. Students are not allowed to use gas in their chemistry labs due to deterioration of the piping.

The Halton Board of Education has now set M.M. Robinson as its number one priority for capital spending. The problems at the school, I believe, need correction immediately, and I have asked the Minister of Education and Training to consider making the ministry's share of funding available in advance of the normal timing for capital allocations, since the renovation requirement is so serious.

Many of us who have been concerned with the needs of this school for some time were amused last week to hear the partisan rhetoric of the member for Burlington South on the topic. His intervention was distinctly unhelpful in assisting us to ensure that the students at M.M. Robinson attend a school that is safe and where the full curriculum can be presented.

Indeed, we haven't needed or wanted his help in Halton Centre for capital allocations for renovations, additions or new schools for either the public or the separate boards. In a cooperative effort, we have brought close to $200 million for schools to my constituency since my election in 1987. That is a record that is unmatched in any other constituency in this province.

CORRINE LEGER

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise today to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health and Solicitor General a situation that has caused undue stress on the family of one of my constituents. I bring it to their attention in this way as obviously the ministers have not paid attention to the letters written to them by my constituent's family.

A year ago this week, Mrs Corrine Leger died at St Michael's Hospital. Due to the sudden and unexpected nature of this death, an inquest was held. This inquest, held last July, did not provide conclusively the cause of death. In fact it raised many more questions than it answered.

Needless to say, the family is not satisfied. They have continued to try to find out the real circumstances surrounding their mother's death, and to this end they have appealed to the Minister of Health, the Solicitor General, the Ombudsman and the Premier.

The family has some very serious questions as to the recourse one has when not satisfied with the results of an inquest. The family feels the various ministries are closing ranks when it comes to their complaint. In over 20 letters to the government, the family has repeatedly asked for help. The only responses they have received from the ministers simply defend the accusations that a conflict exists when one has to contact the office one is complaining about in order to talk to the office that investigates the complaint.

The ministers have been quick to justify how their bureaucracies function but have done absolutely nothing to help these people. The family has serious concerns as to the availability of justice in this case and they deserve some answers. They have been treated extremely poorly, and I urge both ministers to get personally involved in this case and help the family put this unfortunate situation behind them.

TOWN OF BOSANQUET

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I'm very pleased to inform the Legislature today of a historical event in my riding of Lambton which I had the pleasure of attending on Thursday, December 1. The township of Bosanquet, by order of Queen Victoria on May 30, 1849, was declared a township in the county of Lambton. On December 1, 1994, I took

part in the official inauguration by an order of the Ontario Municipal Board to erect the township of Bosanquet to town status.

Bosanquet was first settled by Asa Townsend in 1821, and he described the new-found land as exotic. I commend Mayor Fred Thomas, the council and the staff of Ontario's newest and largest town for their progressive actions and efforts on behalf of the residents of the town of Bosanquet.

This day was also very significant as I announced the approval of a $436,000 Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. This funding will be used to construct a new building to house the town's firehall, municipal garage, water department and related offices. Work is to start immediately and will create 202 weeks of employment and one long-term job.

The town of Bosanquet is moving into an exciting era, and I encourage everyone to visit the town, which is one of Ontario's most beautiful tourist areas. With Pinery Provincial Park, the beaches of Lake Huron and many campgrounds and other recreational facilities, Bosanquet is truly a vacation consideration for the whole family.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FINANCING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a crisis in OHIP coverage that cries out for immediate attention by the Minister of Health. It is becoming clear that NDP provincial government ministers may be suffering severe damage to their backs from constantly patting themselves on that part of their anatomy during the announcement of funding of infrastructure projects in Ontario.

Astute members of the news media will be well aware that the only new funding in the infrastructure program is that which is coming from the federal government and that the provincial government portion consists simply of routine, regular grants that have been made to municipal-provincial projects in years gone by with little fanfare.

The same ministers who habitually bash the federal government for partisan political purposes appear large as life at the news conferences with their federal counterparts to share in the glory of good-news funding announcements that have been made possible only by the present federal government abandoning the policy of the former Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, which refused to participate in such a beneficial program.

The province has routinely funded road, sewer, water, recreational and cultural capital projects in years gone by as a normal part of its role. Federal funding has permitted far more projects to proceed, with employment benefits to the communities affected. This, members will recall, was the kind of job creation program ridiculed in Progressive Conservative campaign commercials.

Act immediately, Mrs Grier. The backs of your ministerial colleagues are becoming bruised and painful from all that self-inflicted patting.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): It's interesting to hear the Liberals and the NDP argue about who can spend more and who can congratulate themselves better, but today I would like to raise a number of issues regarding rural economic development which are important to Wellington county and all of rural Ontario.

First, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has taken a disproportionate share of spending cuts. If all government ministries experienced the same level of cuts as Agriculture and Food, the province would not have a deficit. A new government should ensure that agriculture has its fair share of government support.

Second, Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, became law in June 1994. Bill 91 allows for collective bargaining in agriculture, the unionization of our family farms. Because of the nature of farm work and farm products, work slowdowns can be devastating to this industry. The government should repeal Bill 91.

Third, the farm tax rebate program was implemented to correct an imbalance in rural property taxes. Until reform of the provincial property tax system is complete, the government should retain the farm property tax rebate program in its present form.

In Ontario chemicals must be approved by both the federal Department of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The present system is overregulated. The approval of a chemical at the federal level should be sufficient to ensure the safe use of these chemicals in Ontario.

Because of the continuing fluctuations in world markets and subsidies implemented by competing nations, we need effective safety net programs in Ontario. The government must actively promote the establishment of a whole farm support program. The inequities of the gross revenue insurance program should be relieved by increasing market revenue insurance coverage to 85%.

All these ideas have come from the people of rural Ontario and are referenced in our Conservative caucus's rural Ontario task force report. If implemented as government policy, our report would constitute nothing less than a welcome return to commonsense government in Ontario for the first time since 1985.

CAVE SPRINGS DOCUMENTARY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to the producers and subject of an award-winning documentary on Cave Springs Farm in Beamsville. The Magic of Cave Springs, a film made in 1993, was runner-up in the best documentary category of Maclean Hunter Cable TV 1993-94 in-house awards program. The 28-minute film was produced by Patti Crossley of Port Dalhousie. The executive producer was Joann Tweney of Maclean Hunter's Niagara division.

Maclean Hunter recently presented a special plaque commemorating the award to the film's main subject, Mrs Margaret Reed. Mrs Reed, fondly known as the witch of Cave Springs, has been giving tours of the Cave Springs site for years. She especially enjoys casting the magical spell of Cave Springs on the school children. Cave Springs has been the focal point of interest for many years, mainly because of the ice cave and magnesium springs. Its historical significance runs the gamut from lost treasure caves to early Loyalist settlement.

According to Maclean Hunter, the Cave Springs film was up against some tough competition from 22 other entries in the best documentary category, so finishing in the runner-up spot was a great honour. Maclean Hunter's Niagara division has only won this category once in the 10 years since the awards began.

The documentary has captured the essence of Cave Springs and the spirit of its keeper, Mrs Margaret Reed, a wonderful senior who says she'll live forever because she drinks the magic water of Cave Springs. Congratulations to Margaret Reed, Patti Crossley and Joann Tweney for a job well done, and be sure to visit Cave Springs in the future, Mr Speaker.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTURING

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I rise today to outline to the House this government's decision on next year's transfer payments to our largest partners in Ontario's public sector. I will also outline how we are reshaping the public sector to keep services affordable in the future.

As this House well knows, we have worked long and hard to strike a balance among our priorities: to get Ontarians back to work, to live within our means and to provide quality services at an affordable cost.

Our plan is working. We are striking the right balance. The current economic expansion that we've helped to create is fuelled by confidence about Ontario as a place to live and to work, and it holds the promise of sustained growth in the future.

It is tempting to think that our fiscal work is done and that economic recovery alone will solve our problems.

That would be wrong. We know it would be wrong because other governments in Ontario have made exactly that same mistake. They spent lavishly when the economy was expanding and ran up debt that we didn't need. A private sector report estimates that if government had kept spending increases simply to the rate of inflation between 1984 and 1989, we would have had an $18-billion cushion against the recession. Instead, when the good times ended and the money dried up, Ontario was $40 billion in debt.

We will not repeat that mistake. People in Ontario have suffered too much and we have worked too hard at setting things right.

It has fallen to us to make the tough decisions and bring about the lasting changes this province needed to get our fiscal house in order. We have done it in a balanced way. We put in place a social contract to trim $2 billion a year from the public sector payroll and to make those savings permanent. Our expenditure control plan will save government a total of $4 billion. Those measures and others have allowed us to cut program spending both last year and this -- an achievement that no Ontario government managed in the 50 previous years.

More important than our record on spending is our approach to it. At every step we have worked with our partners throughout the public sector in Ontario. With their help we have reduced spending without harming vital services that people depend on and without triggering the tens of thousands of job losses that would have followed from a harsher approach.

It is always easier to say, "Cut faster," but that rhetoric never admits the costs. Right now, we are seeing people elsewhere in Canada pay those costs, which are measured in security, fairness and human dignity. We must never forget that public services and public assets are woven tightly into our economy, and to tear them out unthinkingly weakens that entire fabric.

That is why we have taken a unique and measured approach to managing spending. We have focused on priorities. We have cut our own overhead costs by 16% in the past three years. We have found ways of making services more affordable, and shifted money to where the needs are greatest. Our community colleges have managed a 15% increase in enrolment in the past three years with less funding. Our school boards have been able to handle 3% more students over the past two years, even though funding has not increased. That's been achieved by trimming administration costs and getting a bigger share of funding into the classroom.

Health care spending has been basically flat, but we're managing the system better. Hospitals are handling 9% more cases with 20% fewer beds because stays are shorter and more people are being treated in day surgeries. That's allowed us to free up urgently needed funds for cancer and cardiac care.

Our approach has brought Ontario's deficit down by more than 30% from two years ago -- without destroying services, without laying off thousands of workers, without sending a recovering economy a shock it could not absorb.

We remain committed to balancing the operating budget by 1998, and we will meet that target with the same commonsense approach that has brought us this far. For 1995-96, this means that we will stick to the commitment we made to our transfer partners two years ago. Funding levels will be maintained for the coming year.

With these announcements today, transfers to schools, hospitals, municipalities, colleges and universities will total $15 billion in 1995-96.

The Social Contract Act will expire as scheduled on March 31, 1996. Our current fiscal plan reflects our intention to maintain funding to our partners at the existing levels for the 1996-97 fiscal year as well. However, our plan depends on action the federal government may take to reduce its own deficit.

Over the past four years, in decision after decision, the federal government has entrenched unfairness in Ontario. They unilaterally capped payments of the essential funding we needed for social assistance at a time when our needs were greatest. We have been shortchanged on training and on immigration funding. These and other actions will cost the people of Ontario $8.6 billion this year alone.

Now the federal government has made it clear that they intend to cut further into transfers to the provinces. Because of that probability, we cannot give our partners the guarantees they deserve on funding for 1996-97. Such federal cuts would have a direct impact on provincial funding for programs and services. We can only make our case with our partners to the federal government.

The work of reforming Ontario's public sector began in earnest three years ago, and since then we have achieved a great deal. But the job isn't done yet. We must continue to meet the challenge of reshaping Ontario's public sector to keep public services affordable in the future. The expiry of the social contract, our transfer announcement today and future federal cutbacks underscore this fact.

That is why I'm announcing today new ways in which we will help Ontario's public service and the broader public sector meet their goals. These new measures follow directly from the efforts we have made in the past to handle change in a way that is sensitive to the needs of workers and communities, and it is similar to the approaches we have taken to assist our private sector partners in dealing with change.

It will focus on the public sector's most valuable asset: its workers. We have consistently demonstrated our commitment to people affected by restructuring by offering labour adjustment support and by creating programs such as the wage protection fund and the worker ownership program.

Our strategy promotes cooperation between employers and employees. Through such initiatives as the sector partnership fund and the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, we have consistently encouraged workers and management to tackle their problems and plan their course together.

Our plan for the public sector builds on these approaches by using workers' skills, energy and experience to make changes that improve their work lives as well as their service to the public. It ensures that those affected by change have the chance to use their skills in new ways to serve the public, and it bolsters cooperation to better plan for the future.

This restructuring strategy will help manage public sector change in a way that is planned, humane, democratic and creative. It creates a foundation for positive workplace change.

We will support this initiative by expanding access to the resources of the $300-million job security fund created by the Social Contract Act. The success of the social contract in avoiding layoffs has meant that use of the fund has been minimal. We will therefore move resources from the job security fund to support these broader restructuring programs, which will run to April 1, 1997.

Our restructuring package has three major components. First, to help workers who are affected by change to find new jobs and to help employers find skilled and experienced people, each sector set up under the Social Contract Act must establish a job registry, a task that many sectors have already begun. All sectors are to have a registry up and running by March 1, 1995. These registries, to be run by sector panels, will match laid-off workers to new opportunities in the public sector.

Second, we will increase our support for training that leads to new opportunities. We will help organizations retrain workers for new jobs, either at the same workplace or a new one. We will provide income and training support for employees listed on the job registry and, when necessary, we will pay for any skills upgrading needed by employees hired from the job registry.

Third, we will promote new ideas by sponsoring a number of demonstration projects. These will highlight workplaces where partnership between workers and management is creating innovative approaches that save money and maintain services. In order to make sure workers are involved in change, an organization's access to the training program and to the demonstration projects will depend on the restructuring plans that are developed jointly by labour and management.

Finally, access to these two programs will be conditional on participation in a sector's job registry.

This strategy for supporting change in our public institutions is unique. It is the most comprehensive public sector labour adjustment strategy anywhere in North America, and it's good for everyone.

It is good for our public agencies. It will enable --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister.

Hon Mr Laughren: In case anyone may have missed the last sentence, I'll repeat it.

This is the most comprehensive public sector labour adjustment strategy anywhere in North America, and it's good for everyone.

It is good for our public agencies. It will enable organizations that deliver a broad range of public services to make the changes necessary to improve efficiency, while ensuring that they have the skilled employees they need.

It is good for public sector employees. It will provide a measure of security and opportunities to continue to serve the public. It also will give our employees a voice in how workplaces change.

And it is good for the people of Ontario. Our strategy will promote efficient and affordable government while assuring access to important public services in the years to come. It exemplifies our measured and thoughtful approach to change.

We and our partners in Ontario's public sector have already made tremendous strides by working together. Today's announcements will help us to make those savings permanent, which will allow us to build tomorrow's successes on today's strengths.

I must acknowledge the huge contribution of the 900,000 public sector workers across Ontario and the many service organizations that are working with us to preserve jobs and public services. We could not have done it without their support.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond partially and then I'll ask my colleague from Oriole to respond. I'll respond to the first part of the statement, which indicates that things are just fine in Ontario and things are working well under the NDP government.

I would just say that the report the government put out last week is really a report card on the four years of the NDP government. One only has to look at the four years of the NDP government to see that even in 1994, even with the economic recovery, the social assistance caseload continues to rise substantially. These are the government's own numbers indicating that social assistance continues to rise.

The government's own numbers: Jobs created in 1994 are going to be fewer in Ontario than they were in 1993. So we have the economic recovery, but it isn't a people's recovery. It isn't seeing job growth larger than 1993; in fact, fewer jobs created in 1994 than in 1993.

The statement goes on to say that the deficit is going down by 30%. For those people watching, the Provincial Auditor is our independent individual who monitors the finances. The independent auditor does not agree with the government. As a matter of fact, as colleagues will know, two weeks ago at committee the auditor said that the deficit is not going down. In fact the deficit, according to the Provincial Auditor, in 1994-95 will be higher than it is in 1993-94. This statement says the deficit is going down by 30%. The Provincial Auditor says, using any accounting rules you want, the deficit is going up.

So as we look at this report card on the NDP, the four years of this government, there is a record number of people on social assistance, fewer jobs created in 1994 than we had in 1993. The deficit, according to the independent Provincial Auditor, is going up in 1994, going up this fiscal year, not down.

What we have is a statement today by the government indicating its plans have been working. Fortunately, we are beginning to see some economic growth in Ontario, but we have dug an enormously deep hole and it is going to require years and years for the economic engine of Ontario to climb out of that hole.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): What I'd say to the Treasurer today would echo the words of the protesters who are here in today's gallery. They said it all when they said, "This is not what you promised." What we have here today is a $300-million shell game.

The announcement today leaves us with more questions than answers. It is an admission that the previous job training program was a failure. We know the chaos that was caused and the insecurity that was caused by the social contract. Now we are seeing the results of that chaos and that insecurity. This is yet another on a long list of failures of this government. We have seen a lot of words, a lot of action, and certainly we have not seen good management.

I would say to the Treasurer on his announcement today that he is very defensive about his statement, and for good cause: Nobody believes it. Everyone knows it's a shell game. People know it is not what you promised. It gives very little confidence to the people of this province who are workers in the broader public sector delivering the important services to the people of this province. I would say to you, sir, that the announcement that you made today gives them no comfort that the future for them will be one where they can depend upon what the future holds.

I would say to you that the $300-million program is a reallocation from an existing program that also had no criterion that anyone could understand, an inability for anyone to access those funds, and that's the reason why you have now reallocated it to a program which we believe, because of the lack of criteria, the lack of ability to access, will leave workers in the same precarious position as they have been in since the announcement of the social contract. This gives them no confidence, and this gives them no confidence that this government understands what the issues are or understands what the needs of real retraining and restructuring are in the province of Ontario.

I repeat: This is a $300-million pot of money looking for a program. It's an announcement of the government, but it is another admission of failure.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The issue here is trust. If the Minister of Finance called "Fire," no one would leave the building. Three years ago, 1992, there was an arrangement with the municipalities of Ontario of a 2, 2 and 1 formula -- gone. Last year, there was an arrangement with the municipalities, a formula -- gone. Along came the expenditure control program in mid-year with no consultation to the municipalities. Last year, the social contract program -- very little consultation in mid-year.

Now it's expected that the cuts will be permanent, when in fact what was put forward was a makeshift, naïve, ill-planned proposal: the social contract. There's bragging about the fiscal arrangements of the province of Ontario, bragging about the deficits. In actual fact, that's the fantasy. The fantasy is the 30% reduction. The reality is four years in a row exceeding $10 billion a year in borrowing in the province of Ontario, a debt under this administration that has increased by 113% -- four credit downgradings in four years. This province under this government inherited a AAA rating. We now have a AA- rating in the province of Ontario.

And yes, let's point the fingers at the Liberals. The Minister of Finance points the finger at the Liberals and said: "If Liberal spending had been kept under control, then we'd be in a better situation today. If the Liberal Party hadn't increased welfare payments by 60% during its period of time,

whereas the NDP have only increased welfare payments by 14%, then we'd be in a better position today." That's absolutely correct. The NDP inherited the spending follies of the Liberal government; no question about it.

But what have they done? What has the NDP done during its tenure? Increased spending. The debt in the province of Ontario will be $90 billion at the end of this year. That is reality. There will be fewer people employed in the province of Ontario at the end of this year than there were in 1990 when this government took office. There will be 200,000 fewer people employed in Metropolitan Toronto this year than five years ago.

We urged this government one year ago to make the cuts that were needed to put Ontario in a proper financial position. We said, "Make the cuts and make them permanent," during the social contract debate. We said, "The cuts have to be across the board and they have to be permanent." We put forward amendments to that effect; it didn't happen. We said: "If you don't do that, what is going to happen is that the costs are going to balloon. At the end of the social contract process, there is going to be a problem." Indeed, there will be a problem: There will be hundreds of millions of dollars that will be pent up in 1996.

Think of the vital services, the police services, the ambulance services, the fire services, vital services where the cuts have not been made but have been deferred until 1996. Think of areas that have been mandated, such as homes for the aged, such as day care centres, where the payments and the staffing have been mandated, where again the cuts have not been made. Think of those costs that are accumulating.

Think of the grid system that the teachers of the province of Ontario are demanding restoration of. All of those costs are hanging over the people of Ontario like a boulder that will be dropping to flatten the taxpayer unless those cost cuts can be made permanent. We urged you, Mr Minister, to make those cost cuts permanent a year ago. You chose not to, and now this is the disastrous situation we're in: hundreds of millions of dollars in 1996. The taxpayers are going to pay the bill for this failed social contract process.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, you'll be well aware that this past weekend there were media reports of a $10-million non-profit housing project being taken over by an insurance firm when almost half the bills went unpaid. May I ask you, Minister, how did the Unity Village project in Ajax, sponsored by Local 183, end up owing $4.8 million in unpaid bills on this project? And I ask you what the government's total liability is on the project now? How much money may the taxpayers have lost so far on this particular project?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Housing): The member will know that projects like this are normally insured either totally or largely with bonding agencies, and the insurance is with the construction company in question. When there is some difficulty between those two, as there was in this project, that the contractor did not fulfil the performance requirements with the insurer, the insurer took action. The insurer has since replaced the company in question with another construction company. As far as the ministry is concerned, there is no liability, no money has been lost and the taxpayers owe nothing.

Mrs McLeod: Over the past few years, as again you are well aware, there have been continuing stories about mismanagement in non-profit housing. In 1992, the Provincial Auditor warned you, warned the ministry, that ministry staff were not filling out required inspection reports monitoring the status of non-profit projects during the course of construction, yet during 1993, when the Unity Village project was being constructed, when the subcontractors were going unpaid, the ministry was apparently unaware of the problems that were developing.

Given the reports that we've seen from the auditor, repeated reports, given the examples of cost overruns, the examples of mismanagement that we've seen before, how could this happen yet again? How is it possible that there could have been a default of almost 50% on the bills for this project without your ministry being aware of what was going on?

Hon Mr Allen: I would remind her that the union in question, Local 183, has three projects with the ministry, two of which were contracted for under your past government. Two were denied by our government and one in fact has been accepted, which is the Unity Village project.

With respect to the nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about -- mammoth problems in the delivery of non-profit housing by the ministry -- let me remind her that there are 1,200 projects out there under the ministry and 1.5% of them have some order of difficulty, and we have located those ourselves as a consequence of our compliance reviews, our audit reviews and all the rest.

Since your government left office, we have tightened all the regulations, systematized the whole non-profit program, tightened up the auditing arrangements so that the accountants now give us a much fuller report on the program, and we have no problems at all that are not in hand.

Mrs McLeod: If the minister feels there are absolutely no problems at all in the management and the ongoing supervision of non-profit housing projects, if there is no problem with a lack of controls, then the same question applies: How is it possible that there could be a default of almost half the bills on a non-profit housing project? Surely the ministry responsible for that kind of project has a responsibility for making sure those controls are in place on an ongoing basis, and this government has not addressed concerns -- not just opposition concerns, Minister, but concerns of the Provincial Auditor.

But in this case there may be more than that to this particular issue, and I would ask the minister very directly if he could explain the allegations that have been made by some of the subcontractors on the project that the liens they filed on the non-profit project include costs for a commercial building next door. I would ask that you give us that explanation. I acknowledge that those are allegations, but I think it's legitimate to ask you for an explanation in this House, for your understanding of that.

I would also ask, given the other investigations that have surrounded Local 183's participation in government programs, including Jobs Ontario Training contracts and other government projects, will you launch an investigation into the management of this particular project and the outstanding unpaid bills?

Hon Mr Allen: The member is totally confusing the relationship between insurers and construction companies on the one hand, and the ministry's involvement and its investigation processes on the other. There is no essential connection between the two. We have monitored this project, been in touch with it, and when it had difficulties we have tried to help the parties work them out, but there is no connection between us and that operation as such.

The allegation that there is money lost to the taxpayers is not a matter of any substance at all. And as to the issue with relationship to the commercial building in question, the ministry has totally been on top of that. There is no connection between the two projects. There has been no money spent from the ministry or public funds for the commercial building whatsoever. This is a housing story flop, not a housing flop.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: I gather the answer from the minister was no, he's not prepared to have an investigation to determine whether there is substance to the allegations and the concerns.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'll place my second question to the Minister of Labour. Minister, today you are going to use your government's majority to force through the passage of Bill 165, a bill that will really do nothing at all to address the very serious crisis that faces the workers' compensation system. You may not be aware, Minister, that while we're voting in the House today, the bureaucrats are plotting strategy apparently intended to circumvent Bill 165.

On November 17, officials of the Toronto and eastern Ontario office of the worker adviser held an information session in Mississauga for people who work with injured workers. They told the meeting that it is the strategy of the office of the worker adviser to appeal every case where the Bill 165 supplement is denied. Their stated purpose in doing so is to tie up the system in order to force changes. Minister, were you aware that bureaucrats are advocating this kind of strategy, and if you were aware, can I ask you who it is who's driving WCB policy? Is it you or is it your bureaucrats?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition with interest. I don't have a comment to make to her remarks because history proves that many, many times in this House her remarks are totally inaccurate, so I wouldn't even waste my time answering them.

Mrs McLeod: Again I can assume that the ungiven answer is no, the minister was not aware that her bureaucrats are advocating the strategy to tie up the Workers' Compensation Board system. I would perhaps have to remind the minister, then, that this office, the office of the worker adviser, is a service of the Ministry of Labour. Its mandate is to assist injured workers with their WCB claims. Its mandate is not to establish board policy. Minister, you establish board policy. You're establishing WCB policy with the legislation you're going to force through the House this afternoon.

You may be aware that in your Bill 165 you are not expanding WCB coverage to include stress, yet at this same meeting your bureaucrats advised people who work with injured workers to substitute the word "stress" with the words "psychosomatic incident." It appears to be some kind of code word that is allowing claims for situations that are not covered by board policy to slip through the system.

Minister, how can you force passage of a bill today when your own bureaucrats are publicly advocating strategies to undermine it? How can employers have any confidence in your ministry's supposed reform? But even more important, how can injured workers, whose cases are going to be backlogged for years as a result of these kinds of guerrilla tactics, have any faith at all in your ministry?

Hon Mrs Coppen: The staff who work in the office of the worker adviser are not bureaucrats. They are very hardworking people who have made the workers' compensation group work very well.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who pays them?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Coppen: You can laugh all you want. They have been doing their job to the best of their ability, helping injured workers. And today we're having condensation of Bill 165, which is going to be very good for injured workers in this province. This government, this side, does care about injured workers. That's why we're putting in extra money to help people over the age of 70. People who were not covered --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- with the additional $200 a month we're going to put in. I don't want to hear negative remarks about the office of the worker adviser if it's not constructive. They have worked very hard the last couple of years, under shortages of staff, to make sure that injured workers' needs are addressed properly.

Coming from the opposition, condemning this staff is absolutely ridiculous. The staff should be commended for the work they're doing for injured workers.

Mrs McLeod: I simply asked the minister whether she was aware that people who are providing a service offered by the Ministry of Labour are deliberately advocating a strategy to undermine the very legislation that this government is forcing through in what it believes to be good policy for workers' compensation for injured workers in the province.

I trust not mistakenly, I was under the impression from the government's own document, Working in Ontario, that this office is not a part of the Workers Compensation Board --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mrs McLeod: -- but is indeed a service of the Ministry of Labour, and felt it was appropriate to ask the minister to respond to the concerns.

The minister will indeed hear us criticize Bill 165. We have a lot of criticisms of Bill 165. We don't think it goes nearly far enough to reduce the $13-billion unfunded liability of the WCB. We don't think it addresses the problem of rising WCB premiums. It threatens to kill the system of experience rating. Equally, Bill 165 doesn't do nearly enough to make the Workers' Compensation Board system work efficiently and effectively for the very injured workers who need to have their claims dealt with quickly and fairly.

Now we have the spectacle of an office funded by employer assessments advising people to appeal decisions, submit claims to circumvent board policy and tie up the system even more than it is tied up now. Minister, what action are you prepared to take to stop these actions at the office of the worker adviser?

Hon Mrs Coppen: The office of the worker adviser is in place to assist injured workers, and Bill 165 is going to carry through our government's mandate of helping people who have been hurt. When the opposition talk to me about the unfunded liability, their memories are very short to not remember that the unfunded liability doubled in the four or five years that they were managing this government.

Bill 165 is going to help injured workers, and I don't know that the comment she's making that the office of the worker adviser is sabotaging this bill is fact. I stand firm supporting that office and the work it has done for injured workers and will continue to do.

Today the opposition is very upset because we are going to have third reading of a bill that is going to help people in this province. They just can't stand it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, since January approximately 180,000 jobs have been gained in Ontario, but also since January 18,000 caseloads have been added to the social assistance system in Ontario. Minister, why is it that in Ontario welfare cases are increasing at a time of economic growth? Can you explain this prosperity paradox?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): It all depends, quite frankly, on what figures one chooses to use. The member is right that in the period from January to March caseloads have continued to increase, but I think he would also be the first to acknowledge that since March the caseloads have in fact been coming down.

We're just releasing -- people were working on the final numbers even as late as this morning. The indication for the last month, November, is that there has been a slight increase, which is not surprising given the seasonality that's historically been in the social assistance system. Overall, we are seeing fewer people on social assistance today than we had in March of this year, and that is a reflection both of the continued improvement in the economy and certainly of the kinds of actions that this government has taken through Jobs Ontario Training and other initiatives to help get people on welfare off welfare and back to work.

Mr Jackson: Minister, I only have to look at your own Treasurer's Ontario Economic Outlook figures to find you're projecting growth in social assistance cases.

The fact is that welfare rolls have steadily grown every year in Ontario since the recession of the early 1980s, no matter how strong the economy has been. Since you took over in government, the average length of time recipients were on general assistance was seven months, and today that figure has been stretched to 14 months as the average stay for a welfare recipient on social assistance.

There is therefore a clear trend developing in our province, a troublesome trend, a prosperity paradox. If we don't take action now, there are going to be serious consequences to our economy. What is needed is a comprehensive plan to tie welfare payments to work and to training, and to reduce benefit levels, because we're 30% higher than anybody else in North America. We're like a magnet to everybody who wants social assistance. We should be tightening eligibility and accountability.

Minister, my question: Why is it that you refuse to look at any of these comprehensive plans when Mike Harris and the Conservatives have clearly put forward a plan for your consideration? You refuse to consider even any elements of these necessary and specific reforms for Ontario.

Hon Mr Silipo: Unlike the Conservative Party, we don't assume that people are sitting around on welfare because they'd rather be doing that than being out in the workforce. We assume that most people who are on welfare would rather be working and we assume that the reason so many people have had to rely on social assistance has been because of the deterioration of our economy, which his former Conservative cousins in Ottawa did nothing but make worse because they completely forgot about Ontario and the fact that the economy of this country rests in large part on what happens here in Ontario.

They put us in a position where, through the free trade agreement and other initiatives they took, we saw job after job being lost. We have a high dependency rate, which is compounded, I might say, by the tighter rules we have around unemployment insurance in this province relative to other provinces. So that means people have to go on social assistance sooner in Ontario than they do in other provinces, again because of the unemployment insurance rules that the former Conservative government in Ottawa has put in place and which have been, unfortunately, perpetuated by actions that the present Liberal government in Ottawa has taken.

We believe that what we need to do is to continue to put into the system supports for people who are on welfare to be able to help them to exit from dependency on welfare, to be able to get jobs and keep jobs. That's what we're doing through Jobs Ontario Training, that's what we're going to do through programs like JobLink, and that's the kind of supportive way in which we believe we will make the welfare rolls come down, which is clearly our objective.

Mr Jackson: It's starting to sound like a broken record for the last four years. The fact is, for every 100 jobs that are created in Ontario, 10 people march into a welfare office and lay claim for social assistance. Those are the facts. I'm asking you, Minister, why is it that you and the provincial Liberals seem to be the only ones who don't understand that the system is fundamentally wrong and needs a major overhaul?

I want you to consider what people across Canada are saying: Roy Romanow, the Premier in Saskatchewan; the new Labour Party leader in Britain; Liberal Premier Frank McKenna; former Liberal Treasurer Bob Nixon; and even Bob Rae. The Premier recently told the Empire Club, and I want to quote from his speech: "Welfare has, for some, become a permanent source of income and a permanent way of life. Welfare should not be a permanent destination." We in the Conservative Party agree, which is why we can't understand your answer.

Minister, isn't it time for a major overhaul of Ontario's welfare system, an overhaul that other provinces feel they can proceed with and do without the support of the federal government because it's important that they turn their economies around? Minister, will you ensure that you will implement immediate reforms in Ontario in order to stop this prosperity paradox, where every time a new job is created, more people go in for welfare in this province? Will you implement the reforms called for by Mike Harris and the Conservatives?

Hon Mr Silipo: In a word, no. We will not implement the kinds of reforms that the Conservative Party would want us to implement, because we do not believe in that slash-and-burn-and-cut approach. We do not believe that by reducing benefits by 20% you do anything but create a higher level of poverty in this country and in this province. What you do when you do that is you hurt the 500,000 children who now, through no fault of their own, have to rely on social assistance payments. That's not the way to reform the system.

We believe we need to change the system. We believe we need to break the dependency on social assistance. I agree, as my Premier has indicated, that welfare should not be a permanent destination. We agree with that. We believe very fundamentally in that. But the big difference between the Tories and the New Democrats is that we believe in getting there in a way that supports people, in a way that believes that there's goodness in people, that in fact says that people want to work and if we provide those opportunities, if we provide those links back to the workforce, people will take advantage of those opportunities.

That's the direction we want to go, and I'm proud to say that that's a different approach than the slash-and-cut-and-burn approach that the Tories would take.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question too is to the Minister of Housing. Last spring and last summer my leader and I raised scandal after scandal in this House involving non-profit housing. The problems included conflict of interest, misuse of taxpayers' dollars and even criminal activities.

Two years ago, the Provincial Auditor warned us of widespread mismanagement and misuse of public funds in non-profit housing, and I emphasize it wasn't the opposition parties, it was the Provincial Auditor. Cases keep coming up to prove how right the auditor was.

Today I listened very carefully to your answer to the leader of the official opposition following up on the James Wallace story in the Toronto Sun. When I hear your answer, and the fact that you've already told us that you do understand the story behind the $10 million in public funds, can you explain why, in light of your answer, some of the subcontractors claim that the liens they filed and have since paid for covered the work and materials for the commercial building next to the project?

I heard your answer to the leader of the official opposition. I want to hear your answer again in order to know that you understood the question.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Housing): They claim to have uncovered scandal after scandal; all they did was repeat one or two instances over and over again. Where there has been one major instance, we have withdrawn the funding from that project totally. So we are taking action on all the issues. The auditor's report had to do with projects that he examined in 1992 that came out of the Homes Now project, which we have since totally rectified.

The issue that you're asking me about specifically, to the third-party critic, I simply say that those are allegations. The ministry has examined all the allegations. There is no substance to them. There was no money paid that was leaked in any way, shape or form to the commercial building, and every subcontractor that 183 was concerned about and which laid charges and sued for compensation under the commercial liens act, that has all been paid. The subcontractors have been paid. This is a project that is coming in under budget and everything is in order.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I would like you to explain to the taxpayers of this province, if everything is so perfect in non-profit housing and government housing in this province, why the taxpayers in this province are paying $800 million in a bill to KPMG for investigating a scandal and mismanagement of funds.

Minister, in terms of the situations that I've brought to your attention this afternoon, an audit revealed that Local 183 tampered with a receipt to try to hide the real use of supplies. Metro Toronto's fraud squad has been called in to investigate. I'm sure that as Minister of Housing you can agree with me that given these serious allegations, there is good reason to investigate Local 183's non-profit housing in Ajax. I ask you simply, will you ensure that a full inquiry, including a forensic audit into the failure of Unity Village, takes place?

Hon Mr Allen: First of all, with regard to accuracy, it might be useful to correct the sum that KPMG was paid in order to do the investigation. It was not $800 million; it was $800,000. It was 10 times smaller than the member alleges.

It was a very wide-scale investigation into a housing project that has 130,000 persons housed in it, 30,000 units of housing, an administration that is very, very large with many, many facets and a very complex series of problems. We wanted to get to the bottom of that and we were determined to spend the money to get the answers that we needed in order to fix the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, which we are now doing, as the member knows.

Mrs Marland: Obviously, I did mean $800,000, but the point is, if this minister is standing in the House saying everything's fine, then why would we need to spend one single dollar if everything was so perfect? That kind of answer is a little interesting, especially when the minister is avoiding the real issue of the question that I'm asking today, and I would like to tell this House that Local 183 of the Labourers' International Union is not the only union group with a questionable involvement in non-profit housing.

Local 793 of the International Union of Operating Engineers has had its assets signed over to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Among those assets is a $32-million mortgage on the local's non-profit apartment building on Don Mills Road.

Curiously enough, this apartment building is next door to another Local 183 cooperative housing project on Don Mills Road. Last Friday, again, James Wallace, in the Toronto Sun, reported that members of Local 793 are calling for a police investigation of their own local.

If what we see here is just the tip of the iceberg, we have to know what is below the water line. Last summer, when my leader called for a full investigation into the provincial --

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

Mrs Marland: -- non-profit housing program, we said that this was necessary because we needed a similar investigation to the one in the Metro Toronto Housing Authority.

I ask you today, will you agree to expand the terms of the investigation by KPMG to include the provincial non-profit housing program?

Hon Mr Allen: I do not propose investigations into anything on the basis of stories that are written in the Sun and repeated in this place by the third party's critic for Housing, so anything that I do will obviously be based on more substantial grounds than that. I'd only say to the member that when she brings internal matters from a union operation onto the floor of this House, and that members are alleging this and alleging that and asking for investigations, that is not something that principally involves you or me, but it's important, of course, to the union members and they should pursue it.

What I'm saying to you, however, is it's rather strange for you to be standing up and criticizing us for spending even $800,000 on an investigation on one aspect of public social housing and then to turn around and ask me to spend an equivalent amount of money to investigate something else which is based on pure allegation and on no foundational evidence that you've been able to allege. When you've got some evidence to give me, tell me about it and I'll look into it and take the appropriate measures.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The Minister of Health is not present in the chamber.

Mrs Sullivan: Perhaps I could address the question to the junior Minister of Health. My question once again relates to Bill 173 and the impact on workers who will be put out of work as a result of that bill and workers who will be affected in every single part of Ontario. The Minister of Health will know the impact on their lives will be substantial, whether or not they are employed by her new multiservice agencies.

We want to know, and we believe those workers want to know, what this government intends to do, what steps it will take and what steps it is already taking in terms of planning for dealing with the pension plans of those workers who will either no longer have jobs or who will be employed by a new agency or who are now employed by an agency which is forced to wind down its pension plan as a result of being put out of business as a result of Bill 173.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member, as usual, makes a number of assumptions about long-term care, most of which I disagree with, and I predominantly disagree with her contention that there will be a loss of employment under our expansions of long-term care. In fact, she's the only person I ever met who believes that by investing a further $400 million a year in a service, it will somehow mean less employment and not more employment.

But let me assure her that it is precisely because of our concern for the patients, because it is the seniors and the disabled that this legislation is for, and for them continuity of service and, if possible, continuity of caregiver is very important, it is precisely because of our understanding of that that we have included in the legislation amendments to protect the rights of workers and make sure that workers will not lose as a result of a shift, if they in fact shift to a multiservice agency, and that we have built in a period of transition so that over the next four years, as multiservice agencies are planned and come into being, precisely the kinds of adjustments she's talking about can be negotiated and dealt with.

Mrs Sullivan: The protection of the rights of workers that the minister speaks to is not on. The legislation itself provides a clear priority for protection of workers when they belong to a union before they're transferred. There is no recognition, no equivalent recognition, of fairness or equity for those people who work in organizations now which are non-union shops.

As well, multiservice agencies may well be able to deal with some of the pension issues related to transfer of work, but only if this government assures those multiservice agencies that it will transfer the money to set up actuarially sound plans that match the provisions and benefits of the old ones.

But the problem is even more serious. The Victorian Order of Nurses' pension plan is a national one, and when the VON closes its doors in Ontario, which it is going to do, the national Victorian Order of Nurses' pension plan will be forced to wind down.

Minister, how do you justify legislation that strips workers of their pension rights, not only in Ontario but in every province of Canada? How can you do this?

Hon Mrs Grier: I said in response to the first question that the

preambles were so often wrong and that I disagreed with them, and one of the things I should point out to the member is that the percentage of workers in the long-term-care system who have now the security of a pension plan is not very high and that for those who are part of a pension plan for a national agency like the VON, I can assure her that I believe --

Mrs Sullivan: What are you going to do for those people who work for VON in Alberta and Saskatchewan?

The Speaker: Will the member for Halton Centre please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- we can discuss how in fact the transfer will occur. Let me also say to her that her contention that the VON is going to close its doors in Ontario is again something that I think is absolutely dead wrong.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They are the ones who said they are going to close. Don't you read your mail?

The Speaker: Order. New question. Is there a new question?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance, who is just arriving on the scene. Mr Minister, I have been receiving a number of complaints from individuals, and I suspect each of us in this House has received a number of complaints from individuals, with regard to auto insurance premiums.

As you know, it's not uncommon for auto insurance premiums to be going up by 15% to 20%. Minister, the motorists in Ontario have been subjected to the 5% personal sales tax increase that you implemented a year ago.

They're also being subjected and have been subjected to the Liberal OMPP plan, which up until very recently has accounted for just about all of the premium increases. In fact, what the insurance companies and what the brokers tell me is that Bill 164, your plan, has barely made its way into the pricing at all, and they tell me that unfortunately here in the province of Ontario we can look forward to another two or three years of double-digit auto insurance premiums when Bill 164 takes effect. By the way, the public won't stand for that. There's going to be outrage.

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

Mr David Johnson: My question to the minister is, what plans do you have to bring control to the auto insurance premiums so that auto insurance will again be affordable to the people of Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate very much the call from the Conservative Party for more government intervention in the marketplace. The member is correct as well --

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): We are not listening to Mel Swart.

Hon Mr Laughren: There are limits.

The member is correct in that the increases that so far have found their way into the system have largely been due to the impact of legislation prior to Bill 164. I should tell the member opposite, though, that I disagree with him fundamentally that we're looking towards double-digit increases in insurance rates. That's simply not the case. There are cost controls built into the system that will prevent that.

As well, if I could be as candid as possible with the member, when we changed the legislation, going back to Liberal legislation as well as changes that we made, it did take a lot of the cost out of the court system and put it on to benefits that motorists received, injured people received, and in particular those who are seriously injured. So there's no question that there have been some increases, but at the end of the day there's less money going to lawyers and the court system and more money going to people who are injured on our highways in this province.

Mr David Johnson: That may all be true, but there is more money coming out of the pockets of motorists to pay for their insurance, and there's no disputing that. Increases are going up by 15% to 20% in an era when the rate of inflation is 1% to 2%. People can no longer afford their auto insurance.

Let me explain to the minister why the increases are going to take place. Number one, the no-fault system that you have attracts fraud; there will be more fraud. Number two, the rehabilitation costs under your program are not in control. Number three, there will be increases starting in 1996 when the indexed lifetime pensions kick in for those people who cannot be fully rehabilitated to fully pursue the employment they had before. The insurance industry has no way to know how to fund that particular component or how much it's going to cost the automobile insurance premium holder to pay for it.

My question to the minister is, the pot is bubbling on auto insurance, the lid is about to explode; do you not have any suggestions today to tell us as to how your government is going to control these costs, or are you simply going to leave this whole débâcle to the next government?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would just say to the member for Don Mills that if he wants to see it blow up and the lid come off, we need only step back and let the marketplace determine the rates. We're not going to allow that to happen. We have cost controls built in, so we disagree with your approach to controlling auto insurance rates in this province.

I would say to the member, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that a no-fault system has more fraud in it than a fault system. It's true that under any system you're going to have some people abusing it. That's always been the case and, I regret to say, probably always will be, but there's no evidence that the no-fault aspect of this insurance is leading to any more fraud.

As a matter of fact, I would venture the opposite, that there's less fraud in the system now, and there's certainly a discouragement of frivolous claims that eat up the dollars and go only into the pockets of the legal profession. That surely was of no benefit to injured motorists whatsoever, and I apologize to the legal profession in the assembly, because I know that they're not ambulance chasers.

But I would say to the member for Don Mills that we do believe that the costs are under control, and it's true; I would not deny that the 5% imposition of tax on the premiums had an impact on rates. There's no question about that, but I would say in conclusion that costs are under control in the auto insurance system.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, last week in response to the minister's financial Economic Outlook, the Leader of the Opposition, who continues to stand on her soapbox looking as she does for bad news, pointed out that Ontario's trade deficit has increased and it does not reflect the actual economic growth.

I went to the Liberal research department today and I notice that "Ontario's 'Secret' Boom Belt" is in the paper.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Theirs is the Sun.

Mr Hope: So I would ask the minister, tell me and other members of this Legislature, especially my constituents, is our trade deficit increasing?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I found it quite amazing last week after the Minister of Finance's economic statement that the leader of the official opposition could come out with a press release that had four or five -- so negative, their comments; so negative. She had to dig and separate and pull out statistics to be able to create this picture of gloom.

Let me be very clear: In terms of an international trade deficit, the leader of the official opposition says it's increased. In fact, she's right on that point, but I've got to put this in some context. Does that mean there's no economic growth? Absolutely not.

First of all, if the trade deficit is going up, we're only talking about international trade and on goods. We've had a trade deficit for the last 10 years, and in fact the biggest trade deficit that existed was in 1987, 1988 and 1989. So I guess the members opposite reigned over the darkest, gloomiest days in the province of Ontario.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: We have record exports. Exports are higher than ever this year. The reason the deficit has gone up is that there are more inputs on business machinery and inputs. So the member takes good economic news --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- and turns it around. It is typical of her style of naysaying on everything that comes forward.

Mr Hope: As my colleague from Essex-Kent indicated, the Liberal research is the Sun and I have the Globe and Mail, and I apologize for that error. But as a supplementary to the minister, the Leader of the Opposition stated that the trade deficit does not reflect economic growth -- and I know you have to be careful on this -- is the Leader of the Opposition right or wrong?

Hon Ms Lankin: As I was pointing out, she was talking about one subset of figures on international trade and with respect to goods, and as I pointed out, our exports are at all-time highs. She didn't include services; she didn't include interprovincial trade. On interprovincial trade alone, we have a $21-billion surplus. She reached very, very hard to paint this gloomy picture.

Let's take a look at the last four or five days in the newspapers. Look at all of the stats about unemployment. November: Ontario's unemployment at 8.7%. The member comes from southwestern Ontario, Windsor. I can quote from the Globe and Mail. It says, "Perhaps no place demonstrates the revival of the economy better than Windsor, where the jobless rate hit 14% two years ago, and now it's down to 7.3%." Put that beside 5.3% in London, 5.5% in Kitchener: Things are truly turning around.

Now, in your region of the province, legislative member --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- there could be more economic growth. If the member opposite would stop being a naysayer, would in fact go after her federal colleagues to support ethanol tax changes that need to be made, we could have an ethanol plant in Chatham. Then we could have more jobs.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: Maybe that's how the Leader of the Opposition could do something real for economic development in this province.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Unlike the former questioner, my question was not written by a member of the cabinet. My question, actually, I figured out by myself.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom?

Mr Mahoney: My question would be to the Minister of Labour. Over the weekend, my leader Lyn McLeod and I --

Interjection: Who?

Mr Mahoney: Lyn McLeod -- took

part in a meeting in the town of Orillia with a number of businesses and people from those businesses, concerned citizens and municipal leaders -- it was actually quite a well-attended meeting -- concerned about losing their local branch rail line. This is a separate line from the Meaford-Collingwood branch line that we've discussed previously in this House, but it is also in jeopardy of being lost to the local businesses as a result of your Bill 40.

The residents told us that interested short-line operators say that the line is not viable if they have to hire all the different classifications of employees required under the successor rights provisions of Bill 40.

My question, Minister: Why will you not support our request to save this rail line by exempting short-line rail from the successor rights provisions of your Bill 40?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I refer the question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I find this amazing for a lot of reasons, given who it is that in fact is abandoning the rail lines in this province. It isn't this government, but we'll come back to that. Let me say to the member opposite that I have met with people in that whole region of the province. I've met with municipalities, I've met with the shippers, with the plants there who are worried about this. I've met with potential investors who are interested in the short line and with the unions.

This is just nonsense to continue to try and hang this on one provision in one piece of legislation. The shippers know that. The municipalities know that. They've all agreed with me. We're working together to try and solve the problem. There is a creative solution: You could be of help, and I think you know how.

Mr Mahoney: I'm quite fascinated, first of all, by the lateral from the Minister of Labour, who obviously is not aware of the seriousness of this problem, and particularly from the minister of apparently everything else in this government and the kind of flippant response to simply suggest that this is somehow the responsibility of the federal government.

The reality is this: You claim, Minister, that the municipalities know. Why were the mayors of all of Orillia and surrounding municipalities at that meeting on Saturday demanding action by your government? Are they telling you one thing and us another? Are you calling the local municipalities liars in this case?

Minister, your Bill 40, the successor rights, let me be very clear about this. There is a time and a place for successor rights. Absolutely. There's a legitimate reason to protect workers' laws from corporate manipulation. That is not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with short lines going from one small community to another. They cannot function if they have to assume all of the labour contracts that apply to the national railroad. They need your help. You cannot wash your hands of this and pretend that Bill 40 is not the problem. You can grant a simple exemption to allow them to negotiate fairly to save those rail lines. Don't try to pass --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Mahoney: -- the buck. Deal with the exemption in your Bill 40. Will you do that today?

Hon Ms Lankin: I have to ask the member where he has been. His comments just now about the Minister of Labour are totally uncalled for. He knows well, as do other members who've been working on this issue, that the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade have been coordinating their efforts on this initiative and that I have been given the lead. So it appropriately comes to me, and that is an inappropriate comment on his part.

Let's get down to the facts of this here. If this member was following what has been going on -- I have been meeting with these communities. We have been trying to prevent --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You have been meeting with them for a year.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- VIA from abandoning these rail lines --

Mr Stockwell: All you do is meet.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- in the first place. Let me say to the member, look at Exeter. Look at a line that was abandoned and where a short line has come in before this legislation. They've now been certified with the rail union and they're negotiating a collective agreement. We have in writing from the unions that they are prepared to sit down and negotiate a new collective agreement suitable to a short line and not bring their successor rights. There is no problem there.

I want to say to this member, if he talks about passing the buck in here, it is not this Ontario government which is ripping up the rail lines in this province; CN is. It's not this government which is abandoning parts of the communities and isolating them; CN is, and CN has one shareholder, the federal Liberal government. If you want to do something about it, talk to your counterparts.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour, and I hope she'll come to the defence this time.

Minister, our opposition to Bill 40 was based on the fact that it not only destroyed the delicate balance between unions and employers, but it did nothing to enhance the workplace relationships and communication. However, most importantly, what it did do was to diminish the rights of individual workers. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to say that it trampled all over the rights of individual workers.

Let me ask you about one of the changes in which you denied workers their rights. Bill 40 removed the right of workers who have signed union cards during a certification drive to change their minds and rescind their support for the unions. Further, your party rejected my proposal for giving workers the right to a secret ballot vote for certification as well as for strike decisions and collective agreement approval.

Minister, will you tell me why your government does not respect the rights of individuals to change their minds about joining a union? Will you tell us why you refuse to allow workers the right to a secret ballot vote for all certification applications?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): If there was any piece of legislation that has ever brought workers and management together, it has been Bill 40. Prior to Bill 40, the adversary system that we had in this province was not working: long strikes, fights on the picket line, delays. It was only hurting business and it was hurting the working people. At least now, with a piece of legislation such as Bill 40, we're bringing all people to the table to negotiate.

When we talk about the certification, members have a long time to prepare and make their decision whether they want to join the union or not. Once the certification is signed, then we go on with the vote.

At no time will I ever speak against Bill 40. It is the best piece of legislation that working people have ever had in this province -- well, maybe number two, after we get Bill 165, the workers' compensation.

Mrs Witmer: It's obvious, Minister, that you do not understand the modern-day workplace. There is a tremendous need for communication and cooperation, and that has been totally eliminated.

Minister, what you did was you enhanced the power of the union and the union leader but you stripped away the rights of the individuals, and one of the areas of concern for employees is certification. This process is confusing. There is no obligation for a union organizer to inform a worker of the rules for certification or the significance of signing a union card. Employers cannot discuss this process with their workers for fear of being accused of unfair labour practices and thus subject to automatic certification. And the labour relations board refuses to answer any inquiries.

Our party has listened to workers, and we believe their rights must be protected --

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

Mrs Witmer: -- and adequate information about the certification process provided. In order to do so, we are prepared to ensure that information is made available --

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mrs Witmer: -- through the creation of a neutral office of the employee adviser. Minister, if you are as sincerely interested as you pretend to be about protecting the rights of workers, why have you not established a neutral office of the employee adviser?

Hon Mrs Coppen: I don't think the other member really has got it together what happened with labour and management in this province for over 90 years at least. The adversary system was not working, where there was intimidation for the worker --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, come on. Why don't you have a secret vote?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mrs Coppen: To build a better economy in Ontario, to build a better Ontario, we have to have these labour disputes stopped. We have to give rights to workers, and Bill 40 confirms those rights.

But also, as Minister of Labour, I have to work with the business community and we want that level playing field, and that's what Bill 40 accomplishes in this province: bringing labour and management together, making sure that the workplace does function, that we don't have long labour disputes. Bill 40 is going to be looked upon by other jurisdictions as the best piece of labour legislation.

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In northern Ontario, there is no one issue that rises to the top more often when we discuss challenges to the way that we live and work and do things in northern Ontario than transportation, than the condition of our roads. Whether it's health care or whether it's getting the goods to market or whether it's driving our kids to school or whether it's recreating, we use our roads. Our roads are important.

But the problem is, our roads are also used by those who transport goods across Canada. We are a corridor from one end of the country to the other, so local needs and the safety of roads re local needs are often in conflict with the needs of the huge trucks that travel back and forth between Vancouver and Toronto, for example, on our highways. It's important that something be done about the condition of those highways, and my question today for the Minister of Transportation is, what is going on, Mr Minister, between your ministry and the federal government on a national transportation policy?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): The federal transportation policy is something that we will be a willing participant in. It will cost the Ontario government some $7.34 billion over the next 10 years, but the Bob Rae government is prepared to meet our federal counterparts dollar for dollar, because we believe in meeting the needs of the people of northern Ontario and providing them with the best transportation system possible.

Mr Martin: That's great, Mr Minister. I was wondering in light of that just how we in Ontario are going to raise that $7.34 billion to meet our commitment in that proposed scenario.

Hon Mr Farnan: Clearly the Ontario government's 50% will be budgeted through the normal budget allocations. The remainder will have to come from the federal government. One idea that has been put forward by the Liberal government in the province of New Brunswick was to have the federal government raise fuel tax by 0.8% per litre to fund this national program. I, however, remain concerned about this plan because the federal government already collects over $1.5 billion every year from Ontario drivers in the form of fuel taxes.

Interjection: What do we get back?

Hon Mr Farnan: What do we get back? We get back zero dollars on Ontario roads, no money at all, even for the national corridor roads. The Bob Rae government is committed to the people of Ontario, the people of Canada, but the federal government and the 98 Liberal members in Ottawa --

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

Hon Mr Farnan: -- have shown that they are not prepared to give Ontario a fair deal. This is a very similar situation to previous --

The Speaker: Would the minister please take his seat. The question has been answered.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'm going to try and incorporate both the initial question with what I anticipate will be, hopefully, a supplementary.

Minister, you would know that the associate base hospital program at Peel Memorial Hospital has been in operation for some two and a half years. You would also know that the region of Peel has the highest number of emergency calls of any region in the province of Ontario. Considerably more of the prerequisites for a defibrillation program were put in place in Peel than in a number of other jurisdictions which received the program.

In fact, it seems to me that the evidence of the prerequisites having been met was the fact that in early August your ministry allocated funds for a defib program for the associate base hospital that would serve parts of Peel. Two weeks later, however, those funds were frozen.

My question is, why were those funds frozen, and, second, will you commit to reinstating the funding you promised in August? If in point of fact you're prepared to reinstate and commit to that, can we have some assurances that you won't do the process again: allocate the funds and, as you did in August, subsequently freeze them? In short, are you going to reinstate the funding, and, second, can we have some assurance that the moneys won't be frozen if we're to receive a favourable response?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me say to the member that our ministry certainly supports defibrillation and the expansion of that service in centres around the province where there is a base hospital where there is a 911 number, because we believe this service can save lives and is something that needs to be expanded.

As the member knows, we have made considerable progress in reallocating funds within the ministry, in taking that $17 billion that we still spend on health care and spending it more wisely and more effectively so that we can do expansions, not only for emergency health services but for cancer care and for dialysis.

I certainly hope that over the course of the next few months we will be able to continue to do that. I'm well aware that north Peel is one of those communities where the prerequisites are met and where there is a need and where the service could be operated effectively. All I can say to him at this point is that we're looking at north Peel as well as other centres and, as funds permit, the service will be expanded.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition submitted by residents of my constituency which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Christopher Higginbottom is a known homosexual paedophile who has been released into the Burlington community even though he was diagnosed by medical experts as remaining highly at risk of reoffending; and

"Whereas Higginbottom was acquitted of another sexual assault involving a child on the basis of inappropriate and unjustified conclusions drawn by the trial judge in relation to the evidence of the victim, all of which are unjustified in law; and

"Whereas in rendering the decision to acquit Higginbottom, the fact of his breach of probation and the long history of his past sexual attacks on children was not adequately taken into account by the judge;

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

"That the Attorney General, Marion Boyd, undertake an appeal of this case and that she pursue amendments to the Mental Health Act of Ontario and/or support federal high-risk offender legislation to prevent the release of offenders such as Higginbottom into the community; and that the government of Ontario undertake to entrench within law a bill of rights for victims of crime."

I have 2,000 petitions signed, mostly from Burlington and Hamilton communities, and both sets of these petitions I have signed with my support as well.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm proud today to stand in my place to present this petition on behalf of Joe Lessard, a constituent in Pat Hayes's riding of Essex-Kent, who's been out doing his job for what he feels is equity. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP government has stressed that equality of treatment is essential in a modern society; and

"Whereas the former Liberal government chose to exclude thousands of workers in the Pension Benefits Act, 1988, whose employment was terminated prior to January 1, 1988; and

"Whereas workers are being denied access to pension funds that are in fact deferred wages;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact changes to the Pension Benefits Act that will enable workers whose employment was terminated prior to 1988 the option to (

a) purchase a locked-in retirement account, LIRA, or a life-income account, or (

b) transfer the pension moneys to a pension fund of the new employer, and that these workers be allowed the right to begin receiving payment from their pension funds or LIRA at the age of 55."

I support this petition in straightening out the inequities that were created by the Liberal government.

SUDBURY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here from the Sudbury area of 18,000 petitioners. They've asked me to do it because I guess the Sudbury members weren't interested in presenting it. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is the most fiscally responsible health care facility in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is the regional cardiovascular centre for all of the northeastern Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, support maintaining Sudbury Memorial Hospital as an acute care centre."

I will affix my name to this petition.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas 81% of all driving fatalities are alcohol-related;

"Whereas 59%, or 18,000, of the 30,000 total convictions for drunk driving in 1992 involved repeat offenders;

"Whereas the Drinking and Driving in Ontario Statistical Yearbook released by the Ministry of the Attorney General's Drinking/Driving Countermeasures Office confirmed that drunk driving is on the rise;

"Whereas drunk driving is the number one killer of young people;

"Whereas the existing measures and penalties have failed to deter chronic drunk drivers from reoffending;

"Whereas driving is a privilege, not a right, and chronic drunk drivers have failed to take their driving responsibilities seriously;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact Margaret Marland's private member's Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, or similar legislation prior to the recess of the Ontario Legislature on December 8, 1994."

This has 1,000 signatures and I'm happy to support it.

SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition that's just been started, and I understand more are going to be coming in this week. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas snowmobile insurance premiums have increased disproportionately to the economy; and

"Whereas increased premiums have the effect of forcing people to ride smaller machines which may not be suitable for families; and

"Whereas many snowmobiles have been blacklisted; and

"Whereas snowmobiling has over the years become a safer sport through better education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to investigate the needless and unwarranted increases in snowmobile insurance."

I affix my signature to it.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I am introducing this petition on behalf of the member for York-Mackenzie. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by numerous individuals from across Mississauga, Toronto and the surrounding communities:

"Whereas there is a dearth of therapeutic/educational programs for hundreds of children in the province of Ontario who have autism spectrum disorder; and

"Whereas 'Giant Steps Centre' for neuro-integrative disorders will provide the needed treatment and programming for these children and their families; and

"Whereas the 'Giant Steps' model has been presented to the triministry committee, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the Premier's office;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for help in bringing this project to fruition so that the needs of these children can be addressed."

I affix my signature on behalf of myself and that of the member for York-Mackenzie.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173,

An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

I am affixing my signature to this petition signed by 20 residents of Leeds and Grenville.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government has stressed that equality of treatment is essential in a modern society; and

"Whereas the former Liberal government chose to exclude thousands of workers in the Pension Benefits Act, 1988, whose employment was terminated prior to January 1, 1988; and

"Whereas workers are being denied access to pension funds that are in fact deferred wages;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact changes to the Pension Benefits Act that will enable workers whose employment was terminated prior to 1988 the option to (

a) purchase a locked-in retirement account, LIRA, or a life-income account, or (

b) transfer the pension moneys to the pension fund of a new employer, and that these workers be allowed the right to begin receiving payment from their pension fund or LIRA at age 55."

They want this corrected, the errors of the previous Liberal government.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition as a result of the provincial conference of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the proposed long-term-care reform to be implemented in Ontario beginning in 1995 has multiple

interpretations regarding the integration and funding of private and not-for-profit services; and

"Whereas the issue of diverse consumer need and the importance of consumer choice could be significantly affected should subsidies be directed through the proposed multiservice agency; and

"Whereas private facilities and services will no longer be able to compete with the government-subsidized services; and

"Whereas private services are owned, operated and staffed primarily by women, whose future employment is in question; and

"Whereas the government is simultaneously cutting expenditures and reducing services in both the affiliated ministries of Health and Community and Social Services, which reduces the government's capacity to meet the projected increased needs of our aging population; and

"Whereas care giving has traditionally been and is likely to continue to be the responsibility of women, thereby negatively impacting working women's earning power and potential for career advancement;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario strongly urges the government of Ontario to (1) ensure that the range and scope of long-term-care services be maintained and increased, (2) maintain an integrated system of profit and not-for-profit long-term-care delivery which is not controlled by the proposed multiservice agency, and (3) protect consumer choice between profit and not-for-profit service delivery agencies by eliminating the proposed 90% to 10% split." Mr Speaker, that should read 80% to 20%.

This is submitted from the executive of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario, and I've affixed my signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have over 200 petitions signed by approximately 1,050 employees and employers in the province of Ontario who are opposed to Bill 165 and are demanding its withdrawal. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board is in a state of financial crisis; and

"Whereas the future benefits of injured workers are at certain risk; and

"Whereas the Premier ignored advice from his own business advisers on his labour-management advisory committee to eliminate the unfunded liability and to ensure that the WCB does not negatively impact the competitiveness of Ontario business; and

"Whereas Bill 165 increases benefits at a time when the Workers' Compensation Board is experiencing negative cash flow;

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

"That the Ontario government withdraw Bill 165 and accept the responsible business recommendations provided to the Premier to ensure the sustainability of the workers' compensation system."

I hereby affix my signature.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition which should be of considerable interest to Ontarian snowbirds.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Canadians and Americans have been accustomed to travelling freely in North America and the price, availability, conditions and degree of coverage by health insurance, both public and private, are restricting that mobility, thereby jeopardizing the wellbeing of individuals and families as well as destabilizing tourism economies;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario Minister of Health to discuss and arrange with the governor of Florida the establishment of reciprocal health insurance coverage for the residents of their respective jurisdictions."

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

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

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing services in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services even though they are best able to determine local needs;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in agreement with its contents.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have another petition related to Bill 173, the long-term-care legislation. This one was brought to my attention by Mrs Greta Cardiff of Brockville, Ontario: over 200 signatures expressing concern about the destruction of local agencies such as the Red Cross homemakers and the Victorian Order of Nurses if this legislation is passed as currently structured.

I'm affixing my signature to indicate my strong support for their concern.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, I have another petition that reads somewhat the same as the last one.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): It probably was the same one.

Mr Bradley: No, this is a different one. This came from a different group of people.

This is addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control of and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services even though they are best able to determine local needs;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across Ontario."

This has signatures from people from both Metropolitan Toronto and the St Catharines area. I affix my signature to it, as I'm in agreement with it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul R. Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 190,

An Act to amend the Securities Act / Projet de loi 190, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les valeurs mobilières.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 190 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): We started last December and our committee had quite a few other business items on our agenda. But I would like to thank many of the members of the committee, especially Norm Sterling and Murray Elston, who had experience when the report on the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of 1989 was presented and helped the committee on some of the recommendations.

I move to adjourn the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

Mr Hope moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 203,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act / Projet de loi 203, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

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

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): The bill I presented today will correct inequities that were caused by the Liberal government back in 1988. For those who have 10 or more years of service with their pension program, this will now allow those individuals portability.

I'm hoping that we will get support from all three political parties in supporting a number of people in my community. I believe the changes are long overdue and I'm hoping that I can gain the support of the members opposite in putting this legislation forward allowing people portability of their pension plans and to retire early from the workplace.

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1994

Mr Henderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr162,

An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): There are a number of items that we need to deal with before I call the first order. The bill which the member has just introduced from the city of Etobicoke, he has basically talked to, I think, all three caucuses and wishes to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this bill referred to the committee on private bills for deliberations. So I would, on his behalf, seek the consent of the House to proceed in that fashion.

The Acting Speaker: Does this House give its unanimous consent to Mr Henderson's request? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): As I said on Thursday evening, each day at the end of the day I'll be announcing the business for the following day, and each day at the orders I'll be discussing the procedural agreements that the House leaders have reached with respect to that day's sitting.

In that respect, it's our intention to proceed today as we did on Thursday, so that any votes that occur where there is a division after 6 o'clock shall be deferred until the following day at orders of the day; in addition to that, today on Bill 165, which will be the first order I call, if there is a division on that bill, that it be deferred until tomorrow, whether that division would happen before or after 6 o'clock; on the debate on Bill 165, that the government reserve 20 minutes -- five minutes for the parliamentary assistant's opening, 10 minutes for the parliamentary assistant to close the debate and five minutes for one other member of our caucus -- and that the opposition split the remaining time in that debate.

If we have the consent of the House for those procedures for today, then I can call the order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Does the House agree to the handling to Bill 165 in this manner? Agreed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Ms Murdock, on behalf of Mrs Coppen, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): This bill has been out in public hearings and has had four weeks of clause-by-clause and now we're bringing it in for third reading, but it didn't just start this summer, as some people would have us believe.

Actually, this started a long time ago, well over a year ago, with the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, when it first decided that workers' compensation was a problem for all of the stakeholders and that something had to be done about it. As a consequence, there was much debate and much discussion in the PLMAC.

In early spring, they presented to the Premier what they called the reform framework. I just want to go over that and compare it to what is in the bill because I think it's really important, since we heard time and time again during the public hearings that Bill 165 did not in any way reflect the PLMAC agreement, and I want to show in my first five minutes how it did exactly that.

First of all, there was a bipartite board of directors recommended. That is in the bill very clearly because it is felt that both labour and management should take responsibility for the issue of workers' compensation, injuries on the job and health and safety.

It also changes the role of the chair of a board of directors in order to deal with impasses when they occur. Of the advisory committees that were recommended by the PLMAC, some are already in place, and I will cite the construction industry as one.

Thirdly, on the financial responsibility framework agreement, it was decided that business and labour felt that there had to be a framework set up, and I would point out that the unfunded liability has caused much consternation to all parties.

Then, the purpose clause, which we have amended during clause-by-clause, sets it out exactly as the PLMAC would have it, and that does now include financial responsibility and accountability, which both labour and management felt was necessary.

We then go into the return-to-work provisions, and for me this was key. I was especially pleased to see that the return-to-work provisions make it mandatory. I don't think that the language in the existing act was clear enough, and the PLMAC very clearly said that if the language in the act fails to produce that obligation, then it should be clarified, and we did do that.

But there are three other areas where the PLMAC said they agreed that there was a problem but they did not have any agreement as to how to resolve it. One area was special consideration for those people who would be -- survivor independent benefits, 100% pensions, 100% FEL and unemployed workers with disabilities injured prior to 1990. That we have covered with a $200-a-month allotment to those groups.

There was no agreement on the issue of coverage and we passed that on to the royal commission, and then there was the whole issue of the Friedland formula and how that was going to be applied. I would point out that if nothing was done to the workers' compensation unfunded liability right now, then by the year 2014 the unfunded liability coverage would be at 17% and the unfunded liability would be at $32 billion, but with the formula as presented in Bill 165 the coverage will be 55% funded by the year 2014, and today, as I speak, it's 36% funded, so we've already seen an improvement.

I would say to those who are concerned about the indexing that what I think is going to be very, very important in the future is the royal commission and the work they will be doing. It was agreed that they had to study alternatives to the Ontario workers' compensation system and their mandate is extremely broad. It will end up, I'm sure, looking at a whole comprehensive disability area. Both labour and management are looking forward to the day the royal commission will present their findings to the Minister of Labour. We would then be able, as the next government in this province, to act on it.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I wish I could say that I was rising with some sense of pleasure to debate third reading of Bill 165.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Let me first of all establish, I say to the minister of whatever he's minister of now -- I forget -- but I would say to the minister people should understand that this debate we're going into today is a result of closure of this government, because they were unable to really manage their way through the minefield, I guess you could call it, of the parliamentary procedure around here. Well, it's true.

This is just another example of the government's inability to manage their own agenda, so they had to bring in closure to shut it down. While there has been an agreement to leave most of the time with the opposition critics and only limited debate by government members, clearly what has happened here is that the government has said they don't want to listen to the concerns that are being expressed from all different areas, they've heard enough, they've made up their minds and they're simply going to barge ahead.

What's most interesting, I must tell you, about Bill 165 is that there was opposition from every area that you could possibly imagine to this legislation. There was opposition from organized labour. I see some representatives in the audience today. We heard locals coming forward before our committee saying they objected to 17, 18, 19 different sections of the bill, but they wanted the government to go ahead and pass it anyway.

We heard numerous presentations from injured workers who said they -- imagine -- it's hard to believe that a New Democratic government would put forward a piece of legislation to reform workers' compensation that would not be supported wholeheartedly by the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, for example; quite interesting. But it really told me something during the debate during the committee hearings that this is not just an issue for business to express their concern but indeed labour as well. Many -- not all, but many -- facets of the labour community were equally upset with Bill 165.

I will admit that they came at it for different reasons. Their concerns were more around the deindexing of the pensions. Their concerns were more around the fact that the first socialist government in the history of this province is actually reducing benefits to injured workers.

If it appeared in some kind of futuristic book that Bob Rae and Bob Mackenzie would actually draft legislation that would take away benefits from injured workers, you would have to say that that was some kind of cockamamy idea, that it just wouldn't be possible. You just wouldn't believe that someone with the background of the New Democrats would actually do that, and that is why Karl Crevar and many others from the injured worker community came forward in absolute amazement that they were fighting that kind of scenario in this bill.

Although the obvious ability of this government to appear as a chameleon from time to time should not really surprise anyone -- and the interesting thing about it is that the parliamentary assistant --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): It's her bill. She did a good job.

Mr Mahoney: -- who, by the way, I think did a commendable job with a bill that I dare say even she may not totally support, but did a commendable job. I recognize that. I recognize the ability of someone to hold their nose, shall we say, and do the government's bidding. That's a tough can to carry, and I understand the problem of having to carry cans for a majority government very well. So I congratulate her for the effort.

I certainly don't congratulate her for supporting a bill that we find absolutely repugnant in many areas --

Mr Bob Mackenzie (Hamilton East): Oh.