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

October 31, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

RAE DAYS

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

OPPOSITION PARTIES

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

BREAST CANCER

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS / ANNIVERSAIRE DES NATIONS UNIES

MURRAY ELSTON

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR51

PUBLIC SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

JOB CREATION

COURT RULING

ONTARIO BUS INDUSTRIES INC

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

SMALL BUSINESS

JOBS ONTARIO

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILLS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

HAEMODIALYSIS

LADY EVELYN-SMOOTHWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

AMALGAMATION OF HOSPITALS

LAP DANCING

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

HEALTH INSURANCE

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

GAMING REGISTRATION

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMUNITY NETWORK OF CHILD CARE PROGRAMS (WILLOWDALE) ACT, 1994

YORK ST. PETER'S EVANGELISTIC ORGANIZATION ACT, 1994

PEACE BRIDGE AREA UNITED FUND INC. ACT, 1994

BRAMPTON BRAMALEA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP ACT, 1994

FRANCHISES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES FRANCHISES

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (STREET VENDING), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO (VENTE DANS LA RUE)

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX PRATIQUES DE GESTION ET AUX SERVICES DU GOUVERNEMENT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RAE DAYS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Scary stories are appropriate for Hallowe'en. This new book, entitled Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP, provides Ontarians with a scary but true look at the incompetence, ignorance and arrogance of Bob Rae's New Democratic government. The stories are really scary.

On page 126 we have Jenny Carter, the former Minister of Energy, advising the cabinet not to provide aid to Elliot Lake uranium workers, saying: "Why bother?...They'll all be dead of cancer soon anyway." I tell you, that is scary.

On page 68, Bud Wildman tells the Premier that the best thing about his appointment as the new Minister of Environment and Energy is that he'll be able to reverse Ruth Grier's decision not to allow Toronto's garbage to be shipped to Kirkland Lake. So what happened? That's scary.

In one of the most important and I think incompetent moves in political history, Ruth Grier described on page 179 her failure to read the social contract simply because she was in a rush to go on vacation. Very scary.

But the scariest comment of all that I think sums up Bob Rae's incompetence and his government's incompetence is what David Reville says on page 49. To remind you, David Reville is the man who, until accepting a patronage appointment last month, held one of the most senior posts in the Premier's office. This close friend and trusted adviser of Bob Rae summed up the NDP government as a group that had good intentions but didn't have any idea how to make things work -- and they still don't.

This goes on to point out what a scary government we have as we begin this session on Hallowe'en, and what he says is that their leader, Bob Rae, doesn't know who or what he stands for any more. That's scary.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns her long-term care bill, Bill 173, which is a misguided attempt at revamping care for seniors and disabled citizens.

The Health minister and her government have embarked on a campaign to stamp out many of the 1,200 volunteer groups, charitable organizations and businesses, such as the Canadian Red Cross and the Victorian Order of Nurses, that provide seniors and disabled citizens with services. This would mean that an agency like the Canadian Red Cross, which provides 97% of homemaking services and 100% of all home-based, non-medical support services in Simcoe county, except Orillia, would be shut down in favour of a government-mandated multiservice agency.

In Huronia, more than 280 volunteers complement the home support service program that employs eight people for the nearly 300 frail elderly clients in the region. Red Cross homemakers in Huronia employs nearly 50 staff and services a range of clients who also number about 300.

Officials with the Canadian Red Cross, the VON and the Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association of Ontario estimate as many as 11,900 of their employees would face layoffs if Bill 173 passes.

The Red Cross and the VON support initiatives to improve the quality of service. In fact, both groups have developed an MSA model that builds on existing strengths and eliminates any perceived problems without dismantling the existing structure.

I say, withdraw the bill; amend it properly.

OPPOSITION PARTIES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's Hallowe'en night, and there's going to be a lot of knocking on doors all over Ontario. I wonder if the leaders of the opposition and third party have thought about sending their caucus members out for some practice.

Both the Liberals and the Tories are good at disguising themselves, but once they get in your door, they cart away all the goodies they can carry. Liberal leader Lyn McLeod could go out as the Invisible Woman: Knock, knock; flip-flop. Who's there? Lyn. Lyn who? Now you see her, now you don't. The Conservative leader's clown suit is tiresome with the electorate this year, so he's going out as the Grim Reaper, or should I say the Grim Ripper. Slash, slash, slash. Mike the Knife has gone so far to the right that his own party members are scared. No matter what you put in his bag, he's going to be asking for more.

But if Ontarians really stopped and thought about what they were opening the door to, I think they'd be scared silly. We've seen the horrors caused by the Liberals' vague policies and window-display spending and by the Tories slash-and-burn policies. They're the ones who littered the streets and soaped Ontario's windows in a fright night that lasted for decades. We're the government that cleaned up the mess, and we're the ones who cut spending more than any other ruling party in Ontario's history. We're the ones who got people back to work and companies investing again. We're the ones who are managing.

And at last the Liberals and Tories have agreed on something. They'd like to throw about 85,000 Ontarians out of work. They'd like to dismantle Jobs Ontario, the most successful job creation program in North America. The Tories and the Liberals want to dismantle it, but both parties promise to create jobs if elected. I'd like to see how they do that on this scary night.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The government has stated that in two months' time, new laws governing advocacy, substitute decisions and consent to treatment will be proclaimed. Those laws will mean that advocates and rights advisers will be able to intervene when a person requires medical care, when a person needs consent for medical care given by someone else and when a person wishes to exercise a power of attorney for property or for personal care.

From the beginning, we have insisted that the advocacy legislation will hurt people who require care by creating unnecessary delays and by pitting the patient against the practitioner. The government plowed ahead and brought some 400 amendments to the table, many of them ill thought out, confusing and contradictory.

Where are we now, two years later, two months from the start date? Are the rights advisers in place and trained? No. In fact, there are no trained rights advisers because there's no training program and no training manual is being written and no trainers are available.

Will the rights advisers be in place to ensure that the law's applied equally everywhere in Ontario? No. Not one trained rights adviser's in place in Toronto for its 44 hospitals, let alone in Red Lake or Sudbury or Cornwall or any other place.

Once again, this government has shown its incompetence and once again people will be hurt, because its words and its music are once again in a serious mismatch.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the first words I uttered in this chamber in November 1990, I called upon the Minister of Transportation to proceed with improvements to Highway 6 in Wellington county. Part of that work is nearing completion, the stretch of Highway 6 between Guelph and Fergus. The resurfacing and the addition of passing lanes will improve the flow of traffic and improve safety in that area.

I want to extend my thanks to the municipal councils in Wellington and to ministry officials who supported my efforts and encouraged the provincial government to start work on Highway 6.

Today, as the new minister assumes the Transportation portfolio, I would like to draw to his attention the need for further improvements to Highway 6, including more passing lanes in the stretch north of Fergus to Mount Forest.

Highway 6 is a major north-south transportation corridor for all of Wellington, and it's our main access to Highway 401. The construction of passing lanes for this stretch of highway is particularly necessary in order to help us attract new industries to Wellington.

We have ambitious and aggressive industrial development plans under way in Wellington county. Our area offers many benefits to industries that are seeking an Ontario location. Wellington county is centrally located and has the most loyal, hardworking and cooperative workforce in the province. Industrial land is available at a very competitive rate, and local governments in Wellington are very supportive of industrial growth. The county's proximity to Highway 1 is also an important consideration for many companies that are looking for a location that will allow for efficient movement of their goods to market.

The continuation of improvements to Highway 6 north of Fergus to Mount Forest is an investment in the area's infrastructure which will pay handsome dividends in terms of industrial growth, prosperity and job creation in Wellington, as well as improved safety for all motorists who use it. I urge the new minister to act promptly and give high priority towards needed improvements to Highway 6 through Wellington county.

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Prince Edward Heights is a

schedule 1 facility for people with developmental disabilities. A staffing review recently completed indicated that there should be a reduction of about 66 staff. As stated in the review, the purpose of the direct care staffing review was to ensure that the staffing responses required by the residents of Prince Edward Heights were sufficient and were organized effectively and efficiently to meet the needs of the residents.

I understand that the staffing reduction, if necessary, would be accomplished over time and mostly through attrition.

The administrator, John Hewitt, has indicated that no decisions have been made as yet and has asked for responses to the review by those affected. I believe all staff should have had input throughout the review process in a genuine, cooperative partnership to thoroughly examine the need for all services within the context of existing resources.

Prince Edward Heights has for 24 years been an integral part of the town of Picton and the major employer in Prince Edward county. The viability of Picton and the county depend on the existence of Prince Edward Heights. Prince Edward Heights complex is a well-maintained community, a place where people live and, most importantly, a place that special people call home.

Before I was elected to this office, I fought to maintain the excellent services provided by Prince Edward Heights. I have continued this determination throughout my tenure and will continue to do so. Let there be no doubt I am extremely concerned about client care and supervision, the potential reduction of 66 staff positions and the continuing existence of Prince Edward Heights as the province of Ontario's finest facility/community for people with developmental disabilities.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On this October 31, I would like to award Mike Harris a prize for the best costume for his impersonation of Doug Henning and his yogic flyers dressed in Preston Manning's new taxpayer-funded suits.

You remember the Common Sense Revolution, don't you? That's where PC Mike Harris says he'll make magic by cutting $6 billion out of the budget without touching a penny of health, education or police spending.

Over the weekend, we heard more from that financial wizard and author of the Common Sense Revolution, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. It seems that Progressive Conservative Mike Harris was addressing a group of tourist operators last weekend when not only did he promise that he would not cut the budget for the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation; he also promised a separate Tourism ministry and increased Tourism spending.

Funny, a couple of months ago when Mike was in Sudbury he promised that the budget for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines would not be cut. There seems to be a pattern developing here. When speaking to farmers, presto, Mike Harris promises not to cut agricultural funding. When speaking to women's groups, he promises to increase child care funding.

PC Harris is trying to be all things to all people. He is an old-style politician who tells people what they want to hear in order to get votes. He hopes that if he closes his eyes, waves a magic wand and says, "Abracadabra," everyone will forget his promises. I am here to tell him that we won't. What we see is nothing more than just some tired Tory promises.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): October was Breast Cancer Awareness Month and I would like to remind all members of the importance of this issue. Unfortunately, one in nine women can expect to develop breast cancer during her lifetime, and 6,000 women in Ontario will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, while 2,100 will die.

Given these shocking statistics, I am concerned about recent reports that the government is limiting women's access to new and innovative drugs which can help them. For example, many women are being denied access to Taxol, a drug which has been described as the most promising anti-cancer drug in decades, because hospitals are unable to cover the costs of this drug without assistance from the provincial government. Many women are not even being offered the chance for treatment with this drug because the hospitals must cover the cost and they cannot afford to do so.

This problem goes beyond simply providing access to this one specific drug. As new drugs and treatments are introduced, women will be denied access to them because of this government's mismanagement of the health care system. It is imperative that the government recognize the importance of providing women with the best possible treatment when they are stricken with breast cancer. I urge the Minister of Health to take immediate action to ensure that women do have access to the drugs and the treatment that they need and deserve.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Last week, Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, along with the member for Ottawa-Rideau and Liberal hopeful Chris Ward, stormed St Joseph's Villa, our senior citizens' facility in Dundas, supporting claims that Bill 173 and long-term health care will eliminate thousands of volunteers and staff positions, create a huge government bureaucracy, and even went so far as to claim that less funding was going towards health care. Those claims are absolutely ludicrous and they know it.

In our local paper, the Dundas Star, on the third page the headline reads, "Liberals Will Try to Stall Long-Term Care." There it is, right there. The first paragraph says, "Ontario Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod, says her party will do what it can to prevent an NDP plan to overhaul long-term health care from becoming a reality."

Are the leader of the Liberal Party and her members that much out of touch that they don't realize that long-term care reform is an issue that people in Ontario have been asking for for at least 10 years? When the Liberals were in power, they promised reform and they did not deliver.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Abel: You did not deliver, plain and simple.

I find their tactics nothing more than fearmongering, instilling fear in the minds of our senior citizens in Dundas all for the sake of obtaining votes. Their behaviour is shameful and inexcusable.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that we are beginning the fall session of Parliament and given the fact that there have been so many cabinet changes over the past few weeks, I wonder if I might ask that all of the cabinet ministers stand up and identify themselves and tell us what portfolio they're responsible for over the next week or two.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, I appreciate his interest, but unfortunately he does not have a point of order.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I ask all members to join me in welcoming the 19th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament:

Jessica Arsenault, Hastings-Peterborough; Jennifer Balez, Nickel Belt; Lisa Carty, York South; John Chapman, York Centre; Julia Croome, Mississauga East; Lesley Grieve, Oxford; Geoffrey Hamilton, Durham Centre; Jonathan Hooper, Timiskaming; James Istchenko, Victoria-Haliburton; Brian-Jason Lackan, Scarborough Centre; Brady Laska, Renfrew North; Mark Lewis, Huron; Shelley Manuliak, Halton Centre; Angus McLean-Wilson, Elgin; Kimberley Misner, Brampton South; Elora Moreau, High Park-Swansea; Ianjai Mounsey, Durham West; David Petheram, Norfolk; Kenneth Schott, Bruce; Gerry Thibert, Windsor-Walkerville; Tiiu Vail, Nipissing; Tara Voros, Chatham-Kent; Lise Watson, S-D-G & East Grenville; and Graeme Whitty, Beaches-Woodbine.

Please welcome our latest group of pages.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite the members to join me in welcoming to our assembly this afternoon, and indeed our country, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, members of the Lower House Parliament of the state of Bihar, India, headed by the Speaker, the Honourable Ram Vilas Paswan. Welcome.

We have other special guests also seated in the Speaker's gallery, and I would invite all members to join me in welcoming Ms Gillian Sorensen, the undersecretary general of the United Nations; the Honourable Walter McLean, former member of the House of Commons, Canada, and the United Nations 50th Anniversary Committee chair; as well as Ambassador Dean Brown, secretary of the United Nations 50th Anniversary Committee. Please welcome these people to our gallery.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that during the recess, vacancies have occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignations of Zanana Akande as member for the electoral district of St Andrew-St Patrick, effective Wednesday, August 31; Donald Cousens as member for the electoral district of Markham, effective September 30; Murray Elston as member for the electoral district of Bruce, effective October 15; and Will Ferguson, member for the electoral district of Kitchener, effective October 8. Accordingly, I have issued my warrants to the chief election officer for the issue of writs for by-elections.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I understand there is unanimous consent from all members to recognize the countdown to the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS / ANNIVERSAIRE DES NATIONS UNIES

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Today I had the pleasure of participating in the celebration of the countdown of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, together with His Honour the Lieutenant Governor; the Speaker of the Legislature; Ms Gillian Martin Sorensen, the undersecretary general for the United Nations; the Burlington Teen Tour Band; the Orde Street school choir; and youth representatives from UNICEF.

Today's events at Queen's Park were part of an effort across Canada and around the world to reflect on the achievements of the United Nations and to look towards renewal and reform of the UN to prepare it for the challenges of the 21st century.

On October 24, 1945, a group of 51 countries, including Canada, formally became the United Nations. Now, 186 nations send representatives to the UN. Canada has played a role in the United Nations that we can all be proud of. In 1956, Prime Minister Lester Pearson delivered a historic address to the United Nations proposing that military forces should be used for peace, and thus the first UN peacekeeping force was sent to the Sinai. Prime Minister Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the resolution of the Suez crisis.

Some 50,000 Canadians have worn the blue beret of the United Nations, more than from any other nation. I would like to take the time today to recognize members of this House who are former members of Canada's peacekeeping efforts: Mr Gilles Morin, the Deputy Speaker of the House, and Mr Gordon Mills, the MPP for Durham East.

Not only have Canadians committed their energies to peacekeeping forces, but thousands of civilians have devoted their lives to UN service. A former member of this Legislature and the former leader of my party was the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and now works for UNICEF. Maurice Strong, the chair of Hydro, was involved in early UN relief efforts in Ethiopia. He's headed two historic UN world environment conferences and is the founding director of the UN environment program.

The current director of the UN environment program is also a Canadian, Elizabeth Dowdeswell. Dr Brock Chisholm, a famous Canadian, was the first director of the World Health Organization established by the United Nations, and William O'Neil, current secretary general of the UN International Maritime Organization, is also a Canadian.

Ontario too has a proud history of involvement with the UN. L'Ontario a également une fière histoire pour ce qui est de sa participation aux activités de l'ONU. La collecte d'Halloween de l'UNICEF est maintenant une tradition vieille de 39 ans qui a commencé en Ontario. L'année dernière, des enfants canadiens ont amassé plus de 3,4 millions de dollars pour l'UNICEF et pour les enfants qui bénéficient du programme dans les pays en voie de développement. Un peu moins de 1 million de dollars a été amassé par des enfants ontariens.

As I'm sure you know, Mr Speaker, in 1994 the United Nations declared Toronto the most multicultural city in the world. In a sense, Ontario is very much like the United Nations. Like the United Nations, the government of Ontario sees health, education and the environment as top priorities, and so the Ontario government's involvement in the celebration of the United Nations' anniversary for this year will focus on these central issues.

In the forthcoming year, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health will all highlight programs with United Nations themes. I am particularly proud that this government and this House, together with the people of Ontario, have had this opportunity to demonstrate our support for the United Nations.

If I could just speak personally for one moment, I grew up in a family in which work and support for the United Nations was second nature. I am looking across to the member for York-Mackenzie, whose uncle was also one of my father's closest colleagues and dearest friends. He was, I believe, present at the San Francisco conference in 1945, while my father was at the Paris peace conference in the same year.

If I can just say personally, for me it is a moment of reconciliation with our history and with our best international traditions to recognize that Canadians from all walks of life have been the key and critical supporters of this magnificent international institution, which needs our support and our understanding at this time as at no other, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to say these things to the House.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My colleagues and I would also like to pay tribute to a world organization that has now become a world institution on its own. As we look at 1995, when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, we know we have to re-examine what it was formed about. It has grown to a very large institution now. As it's stated, it was then put in place to promote social progress and better standards of life and larger freedom and to employ international machinery to the promotion of the economy and the social development of all peoples.

I recall too that when the United Nations was formed -- when I say "recall," it is through history and looking at the books -- there was great hope in the world; that when we saw a lot of violence and war, we hoped we could come together as one people in order to realize that we fight for freedom and fight for some sort of peace and tranquility in this world.

But there are other issues that the United Nations has been noted for. Canadians, of course, have played a very, very important role and have made their mark in this great institution, this great organization. Their accomplishments have been remarkable. But as we look back at the last 50 years, we realize that there are many other things which we must address.

We talk about reform now in the time when we are looking at issues of hunger and starvation and housing, many of these issues that plague many of the developing countries. I recall too that in 1986, when I visited Kenya in my portfolio as the Minister of Housing, in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless that was put on by the United Nations, Canada itself was struggling to acknowledge the fact that it too has a problem of homelessness. The fact is, in getting together with many of my colleagues across the world, we realized that we have a struggle that we must get together in order to resolve.

Over 50% of the children of Africa are still being malnourished. The fact is that we have to come together in a world where we have more food than could feed all the world, but still yet we have hunger. We have more materials to build houses, yet again we find we are unable to house the people of this world. Also, of course, people are dying from the lack of good health plans and still yet we are unable to distribute effectively, to resolve some of the diseases, although the record of the United Nations stands very, very strong in eliminating many of those diseases.

One of the things very close to my heart and which is painful in a way, is the matter of illiteracy. Illiteracy has plagued this world, especially the developing world. I know the United Nations can be charged in the sense of addressing that issue, and with that could come many other things: good health, good housing and many other things that need to be addressed. Women in our society, across the world, have not yet been addressed in the proper way in where they can assert themselves with equal rights within this world.

As we stand today and celebrate the coming of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, and as we stand today and see almost 1,000 people now are part of the United Nations, we still have many of the challenges there. So in the reform of the United Nations -- and I'm glad that those who are present here were very much part of the reorganization, the reform -- to look very much so that we are one people suffering in many ways, from lack of income, lack of food, lack of good health care, that this can be redistributed in a proper way.

Canada, yes, has played a very important role. We can play more. Many of the people of this world are still reaching out and wondering, why is it that they still cannot assert themselves in a world that has such great abundance?

The environment itself is something that must be addressed with more vigour. Of course, as the Premier stated, that his government has asserted itself in that direction, I would say that all members here in the Parliament feel so strongly about the environment that it also must find in a nonpartisan way that this in itself must be addressed, because as they say, the chicken will come back home to roost. If we don't look after the environment itself, we ourselves will suffer from that.

I look forward in the 50th year, as it comes forward, that poverty itself, hunger, the ill health of thousands of people and illiteracy itself could be wiped away from this wonderful earth of ours.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too want to speak to the Legislature briefly on the very important issue of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Today we are joined by hundreds of representatives of Ontario's schools, UNICEF, in a dedication to global peace and to the children of the world.

Ontario is beginning a year of planning and of celebrations to commemorate the founding of the United Nations, and indeed it is a celebration at the same time as it is a wish and a desire to go forward, always with some fear and some trepidation, but always with a desire to go forward as the role of the United Nations, we hope, changes. It's a particularly important celebration here in Canada, because since 1945 we as Canadians, certainly per capita or per wealth, have contributed so much to the United Nations and to its mandate to prevent war and to maintain peace.

Back in the mid-1960s Canada played a leading role in the UN by coordinating the first international UN peacekeeping force. Since, we've sent peacekeepers to Cyprus, Mozambique, Egypt, Somalia, Bosnia, recently to Haiti.

Recently I was in the Israel airport in Tel Aviv and there were a number of young Canadian peacekeepers. I chatted with one, a young woman who was getting ready to head to the northern border as part of the Canadian role. I had my Canadian flag on, and we had quite a nice chat. I was impressed with the pride and the sense of doing something meaningful for Canada and for the world that this peacekeeper felt. Perhaps showing my age, I also was a little surprised that this young woman, to me, didn't look old enough to be there and ought to have been back in school.

Over the past 30, years Canada has been both a leading financial supporter and a leading military contributor to United Nations peacekeeping efforts. But I want to say that we've also played a most important role through UN's affiliate organizations such as the World Health Organization. Canada has sent delegations to every major World Health Organization conference and been involved in special projects in Third World countries to provide our less fortunate brothers and sisters with vaccinations, clean water and medical care.

We've served as an outstanding role model for other nations. We've maintained the world's longest unprotected border, I think an example that we and the United States should be proud of to show the rest of the world. It's in that spirit that I believe Ontario will make a significant contribution to the celebration.

I particularly today think of the children, the musical featuring the renowned Scarborough Children's Concert Choir, made up of children from 40 ethnic backgrounds; as the Premier said, very much a reflection of multicultural Ontario, very much, of course, a reflection of the multicultural diversity of the United Nations. The Burlington Teen Tour Band, Canada's premier tour band, acknowledged as such, is off in May to Holland to represent Canada. Sometimes we're too close to our own, as the member for Burlington South has said, to appreciate the excellence of so many of our youth. Of course, the Scarborough children's choir is off to tour North America in June.

We indeed can rise with some pride -- not perfect, of course, but pride -- in goals that have been universally accepted by us all in Canada, and indeed Ontario played a major role in this. I might add that we, in celebrating, ought to look to the future, ought to look to children of the world, to the more vulnerable of the world.

If I might make a pitch for something we could do in a very non-partisan way in 1995 here in Ontario, for whichever 130 or 99 of us are here, for whichever party is governing at that particular point in time, I might add that during this 50th anniversary of the United Nations one of the leading global concerns of the United Nations has been for victims' rights. Perhaps here in Ontario we can find within us the ability to move forward. Here in Ontario, where Professor Irving Laller, an Ontario professor, drafted the UN resolution on victims' rights, we could lead the way in this province in having legislation protecting victims' rights in our own province.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to make a few comments about Murray Elston, the former member for Bruce, who has joined us this afternoon in the opposition gallery.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

MURRAY ELSTON

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): As I said a few moments ago, Murray has joined us this afternoon in the opposition gallery. I'm not sure, as this would have been his first day absent from this place as a result of his resignation, whether Murray's quite fully made up his mind to leave or not.

Murray Elston was first elected in 1981, just four years after I was elected to this Legislature, and in the early 1980s Murray and I got to work together, both of us at that time in opposition, around some environment and energy issues. That was our first exchange of ideas, I guess is the best way to put it, and our first growing to know each other and beginning to understand each other.

Since that time, though, in many respects our careers have been quite parallel. After the 1985 election, Murray was appointed to cabinet as Minister of Health and then two years later moved to Management Board and then into Financial Institutions. As you know, those are both portfolios which I have held during this term of office; Health Murray had, and I had Energy in addition to that. But although our careers have been quite parallel, it would appear that Murray's has ended slightly before mine.

I'll leave it to Murray's caucus colleagues to perhaps reveal some of the anecdotes about life in the Liberal caucus with Murray, but I'd like to take a few moments to speak about my relationship with Murray as a House leader. As you know, Mr Speaker, in addition to his cabinet responsibilities in the late 1980s, he spent a good piece of the last four years as the opposition House leader.

He was out of that role for a short time while he played interim leader and then while he participated in the leadership race but has been a very, very able and I think effective House leader for the official opposition. Especially when you take into account the range and variety of different viewpoints in that caucus, the member for Bruce did I think a very magnificent job of pulling that together from time to time and playing a very effective role on behalf of the official opposition party as House leader.

Murray is also one of those people who I think it can be fairly said was very sincere about his support of the legislative process here in this chamber. There have been some who have spent time in this House who have been committed to the parliamentary legislative process that is reflected in both the current day and the traditions of this Legislature and a number of others around the world. Murray was one of those and is one of those who was very committed to the operation of this place and to the adherence to the rules of the Legislative Assembly, unlike some others who have been much less reverent about our day-to-day business here.

That was constantly reflected in how Murray operated as the House leader for the official opposition. It was reflected in how he challenged the government around the use of the rules. It was also reflected in how he dealt with the government and with the third party in the House leaders' discussions around the process of business in this place.

Murray I think added a very important dimension, and I guess in the same mouthful I should say that the current House leader for the third party is of the same ilk, which to some extent has helped us in terms of the role that House leaders have in terms of from time to time lowering the level of emotion in this place and bringing the orderly operation of this place back to some kind of momentum that was useful.

Murray Elston I think is an example of a public servant in this province, someone who gave of himself in political life, who left a law practice to get himself elected here and who left his family in rural Ontario and I think felt some significant pressures as a result of that with very young children and so on, to serve in what you know, Mr Speaker, is a very difficult setting away from home. In the roles he took on I think his commitment is reflected, not only because of their importance but because of the hours that we know those roles demanded.

The kind of commitment that people like Murray Elston and others in this Legislature bring to this job I think is a wonderful credit to a system that sometimes is criticized and abused from outside somewhat unfairly. Murray, for me, is one of those parliamentarians and elected representatives who in fact took of all his responsibilities here seriously and I think carried them out extremely well.

The Legislature will miss Murray and I personally in many respects will miss him as well in terms of our personal relationship as House leaders. I know his predecessor will be different to work with, but --

Interjection: Successor.

Hon Mr Charlton: Isn't that what I said, "successor"?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You said "predecessor."

Hon Mr Charlton: Oh, I'm sorry. His successor will be different to work with but I think appropriate.

But I will miss Murray. I wish him well in his new job and I hope that his family will be much happier with him much closer to home. I honestly hope he doesn't get the urge to return here.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I welcome the opportunity to say some things about the member for Bruce, but I'm going to save my best material for the Rotary person of the year roast that I'm sure is coming up to honour Murray once everything gets settled at the Bruce Energy Centre with sustainable development and what not. Let me confine my remarks today to a few anecdotes and a few words that I believe reflect the esteem that the member was held in by all members of the Legislature.

It was interesting that the member for Hamilton Mountain indicated that the member for Parry Sound was of the same ilk.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: I thought they were of the same ilk. They were elected together, as I was, in 1985.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: You're right, they weren't cut from the same cloth or the same silk; we didn't hear that. But the member for Parry Sound, beside me, said: "No, we're not of the same ilk at all. We're very different." Yet in many ways both left one profession, which I was just reminded of, the profession of law, and went on to the profession of politician, so you choose between which of those two the public deems to be of the highest esteem these days; I'm not sure. Both, though, sought to serve people: their constituents, indeed the people of Ontario. In that sense, I agree they're of the same ilk.

The only other comment I want to make about the member for Parry Sound was that in 1981, when we were elected together -- Ernie, Murray and I -- a long time ago, 1981, the only person I think who won with fewer votes than did Murray -- I think it was 220-odd votes -- was landslide Eves from Parry Sound. Both of them came in the great landslide election. Of course, they went on from there, after Murray's constituents saw the work he did on their behalf, to get elected with bigger and bigger pluralities, regardless of the provincial trends.

When Murray was leaving for the private sector, I wasn't surprised that he didn't go with the Ontario Medical Association, as I reflected on a number of the achievements over the years. Some have suggested that maybe there would be opportunities in the insurance industry; I'm not sure. But isn't it fitting that with all the years of service that he put into his constituency, he took a job that he felt was going to provide the maximum benefits, the success of the endeavour so crucial to the people whom he represented for those 13 years? I believe that says something about Murray as well.

We've served together in opposition and in government, and in this we were unanimous in agreement: We preferred being in government to being in opposition. We were of like mind on that. We've travelled together. We fought acid rain battles together in the sulphur-laden coalfields of Michigan. I don't think I've ever put on the record how disgusted I was with the senator -- I can't even remember his name -- of Michigan.

Interjection: Byrd.

Mr Harris: Byrd, who tried to hijack a conference on acid rain emissions, suggesting that the best thing that could happen to the world would be to continue to burn, virtually unabated, heavy sulphur-laden Michigan coal.

Perhaps these comments can get back to him at some particular time, how insignificant I thought his contribution was to that particular conference, paling in comparison to that of a very non-partisan representation that was made by the House leader from the New Democratic Party, along with the government and with Mr Elston. At that particular point in time, it was a Progressive Conservative government, but it was a united Legislature fighting for what we believed in for Ontario and Canada against, at that particular time, a US policy.

I indicated when Murray stepped down that throughout the opposition, working together, the friendships, I felt his character through these common bonds certainly left me -- and I say on behalf of my caucus and party that Ontarians are losing certainly one of the ablest of their legislators. The integrity, the dedication, his experience, the memory of government and its workings are a loss to us all regardless of party, and indeed his good humour and his intelligence served his constituents and his children well -- sorry, his constituents and Ontario well.

I was getting ahead of myself to his children, because we share something else in common, and that is raising young children at a time when we are in Toronto and around the province living in smaller towns is very difficult.

I know if there is a winner, and there are always winners and losers in decisions, in this one we're the losers, Ontario is the loser, the Legislature is the loser. The winners are indeed Trudy and Jeannine and Erin and James and Gillian and Sean, who will see a little more of their father than they have seen in the past 13 years.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It is with considerable appreciation and equally with considerable regret that I join in the tribute that's being paid to Murray Elston today. My regret of course is that Murray will no longer be with us in the Legislature or in our caucus. Without any question at all, we will miss him.

My appreciation is probably equally clear, and that's for the absolutely enormous contribution that Murray has made and that the government House leader and the leader of the third party have touched on, an enormous contribution, certainly to our caucus, to the Legislature, to the Ontario Liberal Party, to the people of Bruce and I believe to the people of the province of Ontario.

When I arrived in government in 1987, Murray Elston had already established his reputation for competence in dealing with the very tough issues that faced the Minister of Health. In the government of 1987 he was stickhandling the equally tough internal issues that face the Management Board chair, and I can tell you that I appreciated, as a colleague, as a new minister in that government of 1987, the approach Murray brought to his role.

I think I can best describe it as saying that Murray Elston has a capacity to see the essential issues clearly and that he is always ready, has always been ready, to provide support for a case that he felt was a sound one. I consider those qualities to be absolutely essential in a trusted colleague and I think that was true of Murray Elston's approach to any issue, that he combined a grasp of the essence of what was involved with a commitment to support what he believed was the right direction.

We all recall, of course, that Financial Institutions was added to the responsibilities that Murray had as the Chair of Management Board, and in the interest of a totally non-partisan tribute today, I am not going to dwell on one of the significant issues of his tenure in that particular portfolio. We've leave the auto insurance recollections for another day and another place.

Murray has made an outstanding contribution to our caucus, I believe, in his work as our House leader over the past two and a half years, and that is one of the reasons why we'll miss him, although I agree with the government House leader that the member for St Catharines will bring equal measures of experience and determination to carrying out that role.

I can share with you also that I will personally miss the advice and the support which Murray Elston has always so generously provided and which I have valued so highly.

I know that Murray's constituents in Bruce county are going to miss him, because Murray, whatever his responsibilities in government or in opposition, stayed very close to the constituents of Bruce county. He cared about them, he understood what mattered to them and he was always ready to voice their concerns. There is no doubt at all that through Murray Elston, the grass roots had a very real and a very direct influence on policy and direction in this place.

Fortunately, the people of Bruce are not going to lose Murray Elston. In his new job, which he has already begun, he will be kept closer to home, and I am sure we are going to continue to hear Murray speaking out on the issues that matter in Bruce county.

As the government House leader has said, Murray Elston has always had a very strong commitment to public service and to the importance of the work that we do here as elected representatives in serving the public. But you do pay a personal price to make your contribution in this business, and for Murray, without question, it was time away from family when the children were very young. So we wish him the joy of spending more time with his family now.

I know that Murray is not going to miss the three-hour-plus drive at least twice weekly to Bruce county. I was always impressed by the fact that it took Murray longer to get home to Bruce county than it takes me to get home to Thunder Bay.

We will miss Murray but we wish him well in what will be a challenging new role. I am confident that Murray will approach that new role with the same kind of competence, the same kind of commitment and the same kind of concern that he has always brought to his role in politics, and that is a guaranteed formula for success.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought you should be aware that I have today tabled a resolution and I have also ordered a request to the government House leader that the government table a motion.

In view of the fact that the Legislature of Ontario has not been in session since June 23, over four months, and in view of the fact that we'll be sitting for only one week before the constituency week, according to the parliamentary calendar, I have asked the government to reconsider its position.

Seeing as how we're only going to have five weeks in this session and we've already lost five weeks due to a unilateral decision of the government, surely they would now like to change their minds and table a motion, which I know everybody on this side of the House would support, to sit next week.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Parry Sound will know that he does not have a point of order.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR51

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary. Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Over the past months all of us have become increasingly alarmed about incidents of violence in our communities. It seems that every week, in fact lately it has seemed almost every day, we are confronted with a new incidence of violence.

It was less than two weeks ago that on the same day in two very different communities two shooting incidents occurred, one here in Toronto and one in Port Perry. Last night a man in Etobicoke was stabbed to death defending his girlfriend. This past weekend a 19-year-old woman who was pregnant with her second child was shot and killed outside an after-hours club in London. This was the second incidence of a shooting in an after-hours club in less than a month.

We all agree that there are no magic solutions to the growing concerns about the safety of our communities, but we all agree too that we have to do everything that we possibly can to prevent these kinds of horrendous crimes from occurring. I believe that controlling after-hours clubs is a place where we can start and I have called for a bill that would allow greater control over after-hours clubs to be brought forward and passed in this session of the Legislature.

I ask the Premier whether he will support my call to see such a bill passed in this session.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Let's regulate what's already out there.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me say to the minister and to the member opposite that all of us share this concern. It's a concern that affects every citizen in the province. It's not confined to any one political party; it's not confined to any part of the province. I look forward to having an opportunity to see the bill which stands in the member's name.

I would say to the member that there is a lot of discussion with the municipalities as well as with the police on what additional enforcement powers are necessary, both with respect to municipal bylaws as well as with respect to various provincial statutes as well as federal Criminal Code matters, and I would hope that together the municipal, provincial and federal governments can come up with solutions.

The Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I as Premier are very concerned to make sure that there is adequate enforcement power where that enforcement power is required and expected. We have to recognize that there were certain changes made in the laws in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s by various governments in this province and it may be the time for us to look hard at what additional powers are now necessary for municipalities as well as for the province, as well as for the federal government, to deal with this question of ensuring safety in our communities.

I don't think it's inappropriate for us to do so; I think it's quite appropriate for us to do so.

I can't give a blanket endorsement to the bill which stands in the name of the member for Fort William, but I will certainly have a look at it, ask our staffs to have a look at it, and consider, in cooperation with all the agencies involved, just what more we can do.

Mrs McLeod: I'm pleased to hear that the Premier is prepared at least to consider the type of bill which we've called for. I should indicate that the bill that has been put forward that is before the Legislature as a private member's bill is a bill that stands in the name of the member for Fort York, a member of your own caucus.

I would hope that the government, recognizing the seriousness of this issue -- in fact, that there have been a number of specific incidents which have heightened concern about after-hours clubs -- would have been looking at this particular bill, considering it and considering its implications. But I also would like to indicate to the Premier that as the incident this past weekend in London has demonstrated, this is not a Toronto-only problem and the bill that stands in the name of the member for Fort York is only looking at giving some greater responsibility to Metropolitan Toronto to deal with this issue.

I would ask the Premier, given his indication that he would like to work cooperatively to determine what can be done, if he would be prepared to move this bill into committee so that together we can look at what might be appropriate and possible in terms of giving municipalities across the province greater power to control after-hours clubs and that we can work with the municipalities to ensure that we can provide the kinds of tools that they need to deal with this very serious problem in their communities.

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I'm aware of the bill that stands in the name of my parliamentary assistant. It's a bill which is of great interest to us. I've discussed it with a number of municipal officials and even this morning I was discussing it with people to see the steps that could be taken. I don't want to fog the issue at all, but I just want to say to the honourable member I agree with her when she says this is not simply a Toronto issue.

The question of places which are illegal and which are operating illegally and which then become the centres for other kinds of trouble is an issue that we have to deal with and we have to make sure that those who are best equipped to deal with it, whether it's the municipalities, whether it's the police, whether it's the other agencies of government, we've got to take the steps to deal with it and to make sure that the enforcement power is there and that neighbourhoods and neighbours and innocent people can be protected.

I just say to the honourable member, it's something we are looking at. It's something we want to address in connection with a number of other things which need to be addressed. I can assure the honourable member that we believe very strongly that the people of this province have a right to live in safe neighbourhoods. They have a right to live in communities which are safe --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- in which their children can walk home safely and in which they can live safely. That commitment to community safety is one which is shared, I know, by all the members of the House.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the fact that the Premier indicates he is not trying to fog the issue. I am equally not trying to deal with this issue with any kind of opposition rhetoric, but I do believe that it is an urgent issue and that it necessitates more action and fewer words. There is an action that can be taken. I'm concerned about how quickly the government is prepared to act.

I am, quite frankly, very well aware that although we were able to act jointly last spring in order to take what I believe is a constructive step in passing the ammunition control bill, it did take a month before we could get that bill into committee and it took two months to pass the bill itself.

Premier, we are only sitting for 20 days in this session. I believe this is a very positive and constructive next step. We're willing to work with you on it. I would ask for at least a commitment today that this issue, this bill, can be moved immediately into committee, that we can begin to work to ensure that a bill that will allow greater control over after-hours clubs can be passed this session.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say that I would hope the House leaders could deal with this matter on an urgent basis this week with respect to the timing and consideration of the bill. The only thing I would say to the member is that I hope the scope of the bill is broad enough, in terms of the issues that are being raised, that in and of itself it will be sufficient. We're right now looking at it in terms of the steps that will be required to have that effect.

I want to repeat for the honourable member that, yes, the House leaders should deal with this on an urgent basis in terms of bringing this forward, if there is a consensus about dealing with the bill and having a discussion about it, but I want to emphasize to the honourable member that these are issues which the House should be prepared to consider. These are issues which all of us should be prepared to consider as we recognize the concern about public safety and about what's happening on the street, what's really taking place, the risks that we're asking many of our police officers to run in terms of the operation of some of these places.

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

Hon Mr Rae: All these are things which are worthy of the highest consideration by every member of the House.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister of Health, for I think the last four years, we in this caucus have been calling on your government to bring forward legislation providing for reform of our long-term care system. There is no question that everybody agrees on the need for reform, but after weeks of hearings on Bill 173, which is your government's bill on long-term care reform, it has become clear that there is almost unanimous disagreement with the approach you're taking to reform.

The main problem people have with your bill is the very centralized, very bureaucratic approach to setting up agencies that you are forcing on the province's seniors and on others who need long-term care and support. This is a one-size-fits-all approach that will be absolutely devastating in its effect on community agencies that have a long history of providing these services in their communities. A lot of people are asking why your government is so determined to shut down these community agencies and replace them with an anonymous government bureaucracy.

I ask you why you feel it is necessary to drum out of business agencies like Saint Elizabeth's, the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses, Meals on Wheels, agencies that are backed by hundreds of committed volunteers and agencies which have provided care in their communities for years.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this question, because I know we're joined today by many people from agencies who have been serving the elderly and the disabled of this province extremely well for many, many years. I come to this responsibility with an enormous respect for those voluntary agencies and with the recognition that we have been blessed here in Ontario by a system that was a combination of voluntary agencies and government-provided services.

But many of the people in those agencies have been in the forefront for a decade in advocating for a better system, for the creation of a system, because they know, because they meet the elderly -- they serve these people daily -- that in fact there are gaps in services, that there is fragmentation and that there has never been a government, until this one, prepared to put the money in place to make long-term care real.

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition in her question perpetuates the myth that voluntary agencies, called multiservice agencies or whatever they end up being called in the different communities across this province, are somehow going to be government bureaucracies. These are voluntary agencies with a board elected by the people they serve in their communities and with a requirement that 30% of that board be consumers of services, something which her party opposes and which the third party opposes. How less bureaucratic can you get?

Mrs McLeod: It's hard for me to believe that this minister really understands what the impact of her own bill will be, and it is certainly clear that she is not hearing what people in communities across this province are saying about this bill.

Go and talk to the Red Cross, Minister. Hear what the Red Cross is saying about whether it can function under the bill that you're putting in place. They can't. They can't work with the bill that you're setting out.

Talk to volunteers. Talk to the volunteers I've talked to in every community I've visited this summer and they'll tell you that they volunteer for the Red Cross or the Victorian Order of Nurses or Saint Elizabeth's because they identify with that. These MSAs, to those people, look like government and they feel like government and they're going to respond to them as if they were government and they will not volunteer, and your bill will destroy the services these agencies have provided for years.

There is nobody who disagrees with the need for coordination. The goal of long-term care reform is to coordinate service to provide it more effectively to people in our communities. But I happen to believe that you can have coordination without sacrificing the host of community service agencies that are providing service.

I am also absolutely convinced, by talking to people in those agencies across the province, that they are ready to work with you to provide the coordination and make sure they're offering services to people in the most cost-effective way. I think you can work with these people without destroying the organizations and I ask you --

The Speaker: Would the leader pose a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- after four years of study, do you not believe it's possible to find a way to achieve coordination without simply gutting all of these organizations?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know that the Liberal Party supports coordination of services. That was the proposal they had made before the last election, for service-coordinating agencies appointed by the government.

We listened to the seniors and the disabled and said no, we agree with the people whose services are to be provided that what they want is a consumer-centred program where the consumers decide who shall deliver the services and where the consumers have a say in the services.

But it is the myth about the destruction of volunteers that troubles me most about the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has characterized this issue. Volunteers are the key to providing many services in communities around this province. Volunteers volunteer for hospitals. Are they non-bureaucratic organizations? Volunteers volunteer for sports organizations, for everything.

Volunteers are doing the planning for long-term care, volunteers will be on the boards of long-term care and in fact one volunteer who wrote to me -- and the member says we should listen to volunteers -- says, "I've read in the newspapers that organizations like VON and Red Cross are predicting there will be a loss of volunteers once MSAs come into effect. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, volunteers in my community are advocating and willing a local MSA because that will provide better services." That's what volunteers are saying.

Mrs McLeod: What consumers in the province of Ontario want is a community-based approach to delivering care. They want the flexibility to be able to develop the models that work for them in their community. They do not want, they do not need this top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that your government is bringing in with this legislation. They will lose that flexibility and that choice under this bill.

Perhaps I can get the minister to focus on one specific concern, and that's the fact that there is surely no question that there is going to be dislocation and layoffs and disruption of services if this bill proceeds. You have already brought forward an amendment which says that if people are laid off or displaced by Bill 173, your government is prepared to pay for the severance packages. I believe that is an acknowledgement that the bill will cause layoffs and the dismantling of community organizations.

You intend to replace these community organizations with what I believe to be a nameless and a faceless bureaucracy, and you are already planning for layoffs from the community organizations.

Can you just tell us why any government would pass a bill which already foresees the layoff of dedicated employees and which tells volunteers that they're no longer wanted, to boot?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): What a terrible thing to say. What a terrible suggestion.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: The kind of fearmongering, the kind of scaremongering which the Leader of the Opposition has bought into is even more troubling than the distortion of what this reform is all about.

We are spending in this province now $300 million more on community-based long-term care than we were in 1990. Does that mean layoffs? That means jobs. We have increased home care by 53%, integrated homemakers by 65%, home support services by 37% and attendant care programs by 36%; that, in tough times. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that that degree of spending involves layoffs shows that she does not know about what she's talking.

JOB CREATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Tonight, Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Premier, tonight perhaps you'll be heading out trick or treating with your kids. I know I will be out with my kids. I know you're a busy man, Premier, so I thought I'd help you with your trick-or-treat bags. I have trick-or-treat bags here for you.

In the trick bag, Premier, what we have is your best effort to create jobs: giving people their own tax dollars to create jobs that they were going to create anyway, a million and a half dollars --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I bring to your attention the rules and regulations that prohibit props to be had in this House to support --

Interjections.

The Speaker: There is nothing in the standing orders. We have always dissuaded members from using props in the House. I would ask that the honourable leader of the third party place his question and then, of course, remove the props.

Mr Harris: Here are all the tricks: trying to buy jobs with taxpayer dollars, a million and a half dollars of advertising on a program that businesses tell us is an unmitigated failure, jobs they were going to create anyway. Anyone who wants it, free cash that you're giving out, trying to trick voters with all this money.

Premier, then in the treat bag what we have is a commonsense plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm the only one with a costume. The honourable leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Harris: What we have here is a $4-billion tax cut to create jobs in this province. What I would like to ask you, Premier, is: Do you really believe that hiking taxes to give out taxpayer grants and money is still a better way to create jobs than cutting taxes is? Do you still honestly believe that?

The Speaker: Before the Premier responds, there's a point of order from the member for York East.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the Common Sense Revolution includes the laying off of disabled people, and that's hurting disabled people. That's not a treat; that's a trick.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Interjections.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There are all sorts of jokes I could make about the member's intervention. I've never actually heard a pumpkin ask a question before. But I would say to the honourable member, with great respect, that if he's asking for a serious comparison between a proposition that he is singlehandedly going to cut taxes by $4 billion, if that's the proposition, that's the biggest joke of all.

When you look at the reality of the economy today, there are now tens of thousands of people working today who are working as a result of a variety of approaches that have been taken, including Jobs Ontario Training. There are parents today who are going to be in a better position to spend time with their families and go out for Hallowe'en and who are going to be able to afford to buy candy for those kids that are coming to their door thanks to the fact that the economy is improving and that more jobs are being created every day.

I would think that sensible people out there, commonsense people out there -- and anyone who claims that he has a monopoly on common sense, as the honourable member does, has in fact neither; he hasn't got a monopoly, and he hasn't got any common sense. That's the position the leader of the third party has now put himself in with his preposterous proposition. There's no government in Canada which is putting forward the kind of nonsensical proposal that's coming forward from the honourable member.

We need a focus on jobs, not on gimmicks; not on gimmicks and not on goodies and not on treats and not on candies, not on something for nothing, which has been the position now of the Conservative Party.

So I can say to the honourable member, in all due seriousness --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- when I compare the record of this government with respect to job creation and look at the series of fanciful fantasies that are being put forward, in costume, by the leader of the third party, I much prefer the approach being taken by this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: The Premier's quite right. Nobody has a monopoly on common sense. It's available for anybody to use and we're suggesting you start to use it, that's all: suggesting you start to use it.

Premier, the question dealt with whether government giving out cash or government cutting taxes created more jobs. Now let me quote from your budget of 1994.

In the spring budget, the Treasurer of Ontario told us that government spending to create jobs averaged about $32,000 per job through what we call Bob's Ontario. Also in the budget, under "Cutting Taxes to Create Jobs," the minister told us his teeny little tax cut would create jobs at a cost of about $16,000 a job. In other words, Premier, by the Minister of Finance's own numbers in his spring budget, by cutting taxes, he says you can create twice as many jobs as by hiking taxes or collecting those dollars and you running around the province giving it out.

I would ask you this, Premier: In light of that, why do you continue to advocate policies of giving out government money that business doesn't want, when even your Treasurer acknowledges that if you would cut taxes, you'd create two jobs for every one you're creating?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is on record as saying that he would abolish Jobs Ontario. That's fine. Let him fill the SkyDome with the people who are now working as a result of Jobs Ontario. Let him talk to the 20,000-plus businesses that are involved in Jobs Ontario and let him tell them. I've had people come to me from all walks of life. There are women who are working who were not working before. There are people who are now --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- expanding their businesses who would not otherwise have done that, and yes, I'm delighted.

I'm delighted that the member has finally recognized that in our last budget the Treasurer did in fact give a holiday with respect to the employer health tax on new hires. I think that was a very good idea. I strongly supported that. I'm delighted with that approach and I can tell the honourable member we are going to continue with that approach, but not with the fanciful nonsense of 30% tax cuts, and 20% this cut and 90% that cut. Will you please get real? Will the member opposite get real and understand that these are decisions that have to be made in a balanced, sensible, careful way and not like some sort of Hallowe'en game, which is the game he's playing?

Mr Harris: According to the business community -- small business, large business, chamber of commerce, federal, Ontario, CFIB and your own Treasurer -- not only could we fill one SkyDome, but we could fill two SkyDomes full of people working with a tax cut versus your silly giveaway programs.

Premier, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association all have passed resolutions asking you to stop giving out taxpayers' dollars. They don't want them. What they want instead is to cut taxes by the equivalent amount, and they're telling us they'll create twice as many jobs doing that.

Why, other than running around the province getting your little photo ops all across the province, actually reminding people how silly your proposals are, do you insist, against every job creator, every business large and small, with your nonsense of giving out taxpayers' dollars, on doing that instead of simply to stop spending our money and stop collecting those taxes?

Hon Mr Rae: I was at Queen's University on Friday. We've just opened a library, which is going to be a world-class library, with Jobs Ontario funding. I was at Chrysler where, together with Chrysler and the federal government, we are now sponsoring more research and development at the University of Windsor than ever before. We have people being hired across the province now.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Did Chrysler send back the cheque?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I know it's hard for the opposition. There are 157,000 more people working today than there were in February 1994. It's hard for the members of the opposition to come to terms with the fact that things are getting better.

I would say directly to the honourable member: I think there is a real difference between him and me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Rae: The difference between the leader of the third party and me is that he's running to be the governor of the 51st state as the Republican candidate and I'm running to be the Premier of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, the honourable leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: The difference between you and me is that I'm fighting so we have enough prosperity and wealth and jobs and opportunities here that Ontario can be restored to its rightful place.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his second question, please.

Mr Harris: The other difference is that under our proposals we'd have 350,000 new jobs.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. Is there a second leadoff question?

COURT RULING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. At the end of last month, the Supreme Court of Canada brought down a ruling that disturbed many Canadians and I think every Ontarian. They ruled that extreme drunkenness can be used as a defence against rape. Premier, I think most of us in this House were shocked and upset by that decision. Can you tell me what action you as Premier and your government have taken on behalf of all Ontarians to express our outrage at this decision and to take whatever action we can to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Indeed, I think people were very upset at the decision as it was reported in the press, and it's very important that members be aware that what we mostly heard in the press was the dissenting view of the minority of the court. It is important to read the whole ruling because the intention of the majority was clearly that this not be able to be used as the kind of precedent that people fear.

However, whatever the intention of the court, it's very clear to us, and very much a concern to the crown system in Ontario, that we may see that kind of defence coming forward in cases. The member is well aware that this government, as well as the previous governments, took a very strong stance that drunkenness ought not to be an excuse for criminal activity.

We are supporting the study that the federal Minister of Justice has undertaken to look at how this particular ruling may in fact change some of the very concerted efforts that have gone on to make people accept responsibility for their actions whether or not they have indulged in mood-altering drugs, including alcohol.

The minister is well aware that he has our full support, that in all of the discussions around what changes might be made in the Criminal Code and what changes might be made in guidelines to crown attorneys around the prosecution of cases where that defence is attempted to be used they will have our full cooperation and indeed our full commitment.

Mr Harris: So far we've supported the study; I understand that. One approach that has been advanced to counter the effects of this decision is to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that those who become voluntarily intoxicated are responsible for whatever actions they commit.

I support that move and I would like to ask you if you as Attorney General, on behalf of the government of Ontario, have expressed that support or if you support immediately amending the Criminal Code so that we don't have to wait for another decision, and if you have expressed that support to the federal government that we would facilitate, in any way that we possibly could, immediate passage of amendments to the Criminal Code so that this cannot even be hinted at being used as a defence. Have you done that, Minister?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have indicated publicly and through officials to the Department of Justice that we support the Minister of Justice in looking at the implications of such changes to the Criminal Code. At this point in time, the federal minister has not brought forward amendments that we can look at so that we can study their effect and how effective they might be, but we have certainly indicated that we would be supportive of an effort to find the right solution to this.

I can assure the member that I'm on record many times as saying that those who voluntarily consume mood-altering drugs as an excuse for violent behaviour, as a way of letting go of their inhibitions, ought not to be sanctioned in that as an excuse for behaviour. That has been a very great focus of the actions that this government and previous governments in Ontario have taken. We fully support the fact that people must accept responsibility for their actions, including taking that first drink or imbibing that mood-altering drug.

Mr Harris: So far nothing's happening. We've seen so many cases where outrage has been expressed and concerns expressed and a study takes over and nothing happens.

I believe, Minister, you would be expressing the will of 10 million Ontarians, I believe certainly you would be expressing the will of 130 members of the Legislature, even those who may not be in the Legislature today or those who aspire to be in the Legislature, if you would begin to publicly and vigorously pressure the federal government to immediately amend the Criminal Code before Christmas, as soon as possible, so that not one rape victim is denied justice as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. Will you do that? Because that is what I believe the people of Ontario want you to do.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I, along with the other attorneys general and the Minister of Justice, have a responsibility to ensure that every time there is a concern expressed, we are very clearly studying the effects of any change to the Criminal Code and whether or not that is going to be prosecutable. It does take some study. The member may like to wave his magic wand and make changes, but his government, when it was in power, didn't do that, any more than any other government. There are a number of considerations that have to be taken into account.

I have already indicated to the minister that I am supportive, and I am sure this Legislature is supportive, of the Department of Justice making every effort to ensure that if Criminal Code changes are required in order to prevent the effect he is saying, that is taken into account. But I would also caution the member that if he would read the full decision of the Supreme Court, he might have some question in his mind as to whether such a facile solution is in fact the answer to the concerns that all of us share.

ONTARIO BUS INDUSTRIES INC

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade on the government's operation of Ontario Bus Industries. I want, Minister, for you to tell us the following: How much money do Ontario taxpayers owe in total to all the OBI creditors as a result of your government's decision to take over the company?

Specifically, can the minister tell us how much money is owed to tradespeople and to other creditors, how much money in deposits has at this point been returned to Ontario municipalities because of buses which have not been delivered, and how much money is owed to transit authorities in the United States cities in late delivery charges because buses have not been delivered on schedule?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite will know that some of the numbers she has asked for are in fact subject to negotiations. With suppliers, for example, the outstanding amounts that are currently owed to suppliers will be taken into account as we gear production back up, and as we place further orders we will negotiate the repayment

schedule with those suppliers. Certainly, the member does know that there is currently about $66.5 million invested in loans. Those are interest-bearing loans, secured by assets of the company, that the province has invested in taking over OBI.

May I say that I appreciate that the leader of the official opposition is showing concern with respect to this file. We as a government are concerned as well. This restructuring is a very long and difficult process. We are committed to working through this with the company in trying to resolve this situation. There are over 600 jobs directly in Mississauga that we are dedicated to trying to save, and certainly all of the spinoffs, hundreds of employees employed by the suppliers.

I want to assure you that we are looking at this carefully. OBI has a strong potential. It has a very strong order book. There are over 900 buses on order that, as we gear up production, we plan to deliver. It's a market leader, with 20% to 25% of the market share in North America, a proven product, innovative in terms of the low-floor bus --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- clean environmentally in terms of compressed natural gas. It's an important and strategic firm with respect to Ontario, and I hope the member will be supportive of working through with us in trying to save this company.

Mrs McLeod: It has now been almost 11 months since the government took over this particular company, and took it over, clearly, without any plan for the management of the company. Our concern certainly is with the level of indebtedness that has been incurred over the past 11 months and it's with the continued financial risk that the government is taking with taxpayers' money.

I also have a concern that any attempt to avoid responsibility for debts that have been incurred will simply further erode confidence in Ontario Bus Industries' ability to continue its operations, and it could in fact threaten the existence of the dozens of supplier firms that are owed perhaps millions of dollars by OBI.

It's our understanding that there are indeed several hundred buses on back order to clients in the United States. These buses obviously have not been delivered, and our understanding is that so far the late delivery charges on these buses total tens of millions of dollars. It's also our understanding that late delivery charges on the buses can range up to $200 per day per bus. That's tens of thousands of dollars per day that Ontario taxpayers will have to pay because of this government's quickness to take over a company without a plan and without being able to provide a plan for management in the past 11 months.

I ask if the minister will confirm that these debts are indeed being incurred on a daily basis and to tell us quite frankly, will these buses be delivered, in what time frame, and at what cost?

Hon Ms Lankin: May I say first of all to the member opposite that when the Ontario government took over OBI in February of this year, it was as a result of the default of the previous owner with respect to a loan to the Ontario government, and in fact the owner at that point in time was unable to complete a recapitalization of the company. It was a company in transition from craft development of buses, craft assembly, to mass assembly, and that recapitalization and transformation didn't take place.

At that point in time, there was a huge debt owed to the suppliers. When we took it over, I negotiated and made arrangements with the suppliers to begin repayment. In fact they have done better as a result of the government taking over than they would have under the former situation when the company was facing bankruptcy at that point in time.

The order books are very strong, as I indicated. There are over 900 buses that are on order. Those are not all back orders. Those are ordered out into the upcoming years.

We are currently in a situation where we have brought in new leadership to undertake the financial restructuring that was necessary. We have uncovered problems in production. We have shut down production while at this point in time we are proceeding to address those problems. We've brought consultants in, and we are currently engaged in discussions with strategic partners who we believe will bring the production strength that will be needed to ramp up that operation again. I'm very hopeful that those discussions will be concluded in the very near future, in the next few days, and then I'll be able to report progress to the member at that time.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Since the Minister of Health has today indicated and her cronies on the social development committee have indicated that they won't budge on Bill 173, my question is to the Premier, and I would ask if he's available at all for this question.

Interjection.

Mr Jim Wilson: In the absence of the Premier, I'll ask my question to the Minister of Health. Minister, the stated purposes of Bill 173, as you know, include ensuring that a wide range of community health and related services are available to people in their own homes, improving access to these services, improving the quality of these services, promoting the efficient management of service delivery, and encouraging local involvement in the planning and delivery of these services.

I want to tell the minister for the record today, because she knows and she keeps misrepresenting this point, the PC Party in this House and in this province agrees with those stated purposes of the act. In fact, we worked very hard to strengthen the purpose clause during committee hearings last week.

However, Bill 173 in its present form ignores your own fundamental principles and the purposes stated in the first part of the bill, and the bill in its present form will ensure that the new multiservice agency model will wipe out organizations like the Red Cross, the VON, Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, organizations that have been delivering long-term care services --

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

Mr Jim Wilson: -- in this province for close to a century, long before your government ever got its paws on long-term care --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Jim Wilson: -- long before you were ever in existence. I ask the minister, what have you got against the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses, and Saint Elizabeth --

The Speaker: The member has placed his question. Would the member please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Simcoe West please take his seat.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): He's lost his Prozac.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Just one more reason why we have to protect the health care system in this province, so it will be there when the member needs it.

Let me say to him, as I've said already today, that what long-term care is about is the seniors and the disabled in this province, who have been served magnificently by voluntary organizations, but in a patchwork way. What we are doing and what seniors have called for is a reorganization of long-term care in a way that makes sure --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that no matter where you live in this province, you get the care you need to help you stay in your own home and in your own community, and that you get that care from a voluntary agency. The agencies you mention have been here in this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat. Supplementary?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): One of the major concerns being expressed by the several hundred people who are in the gallery today, many of them seniors and workers who provide support services to seniors, and several hundred who couldn't get into the chamber today, is that you are imposing one specific model from the government of Ontario and trying to suggest that this somehow is going to respond to local decision-making concerns.

The concerns they're expressing are that across this province there are several agencies that are doing an outstanding job: They're coordinated, they're providing cost-effective services, they've rationalized and they've cooperated within regional units. They're doing everything you say you want done within your legislation.

What we're saying is that the bill lacks flexibility. They, along with the Conservative Party, want to see

section 13 amended, not so it's all of one approach or another, but that it's flexible for both approaches. We're asking you, Minister, will you not consider writing into the legislation, because we believe, such as in Simcoe county, for example, that to have the 80-20 rule imposed -- 100% of all the homemaker services are provided by the Red Cross in that community; by your own legislation, you'll wipe out 80% of the work they're currently doing. We're only pleading with you, Minister: Will you not accept a motion from the Tories that allows for that flexibility so that you can say, "I'll impose my model somewhere else" --

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- but in Simcoe or in Halton, where there is that level of cooperation, you'll preserve those good elements of what's been done in long-term care in this province without throwing out with the bathwater an excellent program where it exists currently in this province? Will you not consider those amendments?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it's important that I explain to the member yet again the history of this legislation. There was a proposal from the previous government --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- for the kind of service coordination that he is suggesting, and as a result --

Mr Jim Wilson: The 80-20 wasn't in the history. You made that up. That's a socialist twist.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Mr Jim Wilson: A point of order.

The Speaker: No. Will the member take his seat. His colleague the member for Burlington South posed a serious question. The minister should be allowed an opportunity to respond.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member said there were several hundred people here today. I know there have been 50 or 60, and I hope, for those who are here, they understand the difficulty of having a constructive discussion around a piece of legislation that is critical to the seniors and the disabled of this province.

The kind of distortion, the kind of misinformation and the kind of blinkers prevent the member opposite from recognizing that what we are talking about is a reorganization of the provision of care by communities for communities and for the seniors they serve in a way that is very clear, that the funding and the principles about the equity of services across this province are there and are part of the government's proposal.

But as part of the design of multiservice agencies, the election of the boards of those multiservice agencies, the determination of the ethnic, cultural, religious preferences of the groups that will be providing service, will differ from one end of this province to the other to serve the diversity and the needs of the people of this province.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Some three years ago, the small business committee of this government, under the capable leadership of my colleague Norm Jamison, pursued a mandate to reduce the amount of red tape faced by small business across this province. More efficiencies were demanded. We insisted that the seven to 10 different ministries and bureaucracies work together on this.

Minister, last Wednesday I addressed the chamber of commerce in our city of Niagara Falls. Our business people want to know what the government is doing to help reduce this burden of paper and to eliminate the obstacles to starting a small business.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I have to say that the small business committee did a great job. We know that the business community for many years has been telling governments of all stripes that red tape is one of the major obstacles to business growth.

This government has listened. We now have introduced Clearing the Path for business access, and this is a plan to streamline and simplify the registration and reporting requirements of Ontario businesses. It's a very exciting project. We now have 15 business registration access workshops up across the province, and more to come. What it means, in just a few sentences, is that people can now go into a workstation, sit down in front of a computer, with somebody there to help them if they need help, and within a half-hour complete four forms, the most commonly used forms today.

There are more, but the four most commonly used ones can be completed on a computer within a half-hour. That's just the beginning of this program.

Ms Harrington: The businesses in Niagara Falls are very concerned about the excess cost of the paper burden -- that's in time, in effort and in money -- of their staff. What can we expect in the way of more efficiencies over the next year? What is going to be done?

Hon Ms Churley: There is a station in St Catharines existing right now which the member might want to know about. The expansion of this program will bring, by the spring of 1995, more workstations in communities across Ontario.

We are also working with the federal government to adopt the single business registration number, and that will apply to Ontario businesses to identify businesses at both the provincial and federal levels.

Also, by 1995 we'll be moving to a complete electronic registration process and introducing unified reporting. This is an incredible step forward for businesses. These services will eliminate paper and will allow businesses to remit all their taxes at once.

Over time, this government, having started the process now, has put in place an incredible system to start, finally, after years of protest by small business, the process to really streamline the process in Ontario.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, your government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed millions, on TV and print ads extolling the alleged virtues of Jobs Ontario, trying to induce employers to hire people based on a wage subsidy. But I think that promise is a sham. We've heard reports from many employers who have been unable to penetrate the bureaucratic muck at Jobs Ontario Training to get their money.

In my riding, I've received many complaints. In fact, the most recent one involved a company which had to wait 18 months to get paid for people it hired in April 1993. In fact, the delay was so long it wrote off the expense as a bad debt. The money only got paid when a collection agency consultant got involved, but the price was 50% of the money that Jobs Ontario was supposed to pay to employees. Instead, it went to a consultant.

Minister, I want you to explain why an employer should have to hire a collection agency to get money from the administrative abyss at Jobs Ontario Training; how you can justify a delay of this length in getting that money, which is an experience many employers have had to face; and I want to know what your policy is relating to spending money in this way, whether it's appropriate that Jobs Ontario money be siphoned off by a consultant instead of going to employees.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): We can't deal with a complaint that has been raised by a member when he puts out a press release, refuses to name the company, refuses to give any details about the company that's involved. If you're interested in a particular problem that's been raised with one company, then come clean and come and talk to us and show us the name of the company and we'll take a look at it. But don't play politics with a program that is working by getting thousands of people off social assistance and into the workplace.

The game you played last Friday was absolutely ridiculous. You're not interested in trying to point out any areas where the program can be improved. You're simply interested in playing politics, and as far as I'm concerned, that's despicable when it comes to this program that's helping thousands of people.

Mr Murphy: That minister should be embarrassed. I've given him the name of the consultant, who owns it, who's operating it. I in fact was asked not to reveal the name of the company that was involved in it, because they were afraid of the backlash from the people involved in your program. Eighteen months they spent, and they couldn't get a penny from you. Finally, because it's such a sham, someone who had access to inside information from your bureaucrats was the one who got them the money, and that's why.

The police have been phoned about this, and I'm more than happy to talk to that employer to see if they're prepared to talk to you, but frankly they have been afraid to to date because of the sham that's involved in your program.

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

Mr Murphy: I'll be glad to place a question, Mr Speaker, as soon as I get an answer from this minister to the first question. So I'll repeat it: What is his policy? Is it his policy to permit 50% of the Jobs Ontario money, in a particular situation, to be siphoned off by a consultant, or not? I want to hear the answer.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, I don't know that that's even taken place, because the member has presented no information, nothing to back it up at all, no facts at all, and based on the kind of research you've done in the past, why should I believe you this time? If you want an investigation, if you want a policy, then give us the name of the company. But don't play these kinds of silly, stupid games.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My petition deals with some of the people who were here today petitioning the government concerning Bill 173, and it comes from many of those concerned in the Quinte area with this particular bill. It reads:

"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 the value of 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."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Stop the clock, please. I neglected to call for motions, so we must revert, according to our standing orders, to motions. The Chair's mistake. Are there motions?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have three motions that I believe we should attempt to deal with today.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The first motion deals with all three caucuses, with changes to committees' makeup, members replacing members on committees.

I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

On the standing committee on estimates, Mr Bradley for Mr Elston.

On the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr Abel for Ms Mathyssen.

On the standing committee on general government, Mr Hope for Mr Mills.

On the standing committee on government agencies, Mr Crozier for Mr Bradley and Ms Gigantes for Mr Ferguson.

On the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr Rizzo for Ms Mathyssen.

On the standing committee on public accounts, Ms Martel for Mr Owens.

On the standing committee on resources development, Ms Martel for Mr Huget and Mr Mills for Mr Ferguson.

On the standing committee on social development, Ms Gigantes for Mr Hope and Mr Jamison for Mr Owens.

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

WITHDRAWAL OF BILLS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the orders for second reading of Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code; second reading of Bill 67,

An Act to require the Minister of Environment and Energy to direct an Investigation into the deleterious human health effects of exposure to Radon in indoor air; second reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act with respect to golf courses; and for committee of the whole House on Bill 126,

An Act respecting Water Extraction Agreements, be discharged and the bills be withdrawn. These are bills that were submitted in the names of members, whose names you read earlier, who have resigned from this place.

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This is the last one. I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 67, 68, 69 and 70.

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

PETITIONS (CONTINUED)

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We resume with petitions and it's the member for Burlington South.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition 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 said 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 allow 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 that care."

I have several hundreds of these signed petitions, including names of Mae Radford from Burlington, Margaret Warriner, Linda Sutton, Barb Henderson. There's a whole host of Burlingtonians who have expressed concern. I have signed it and it has my support as well.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene;

"Controlled studies show a significant reduction in the number of childhood deaths by long-term treatment with penicillin to such a degree that it must be considered an essential drug;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Ministry of Health to implement routine newborn testing for the disease and to make penicillin available without charge to all affected children."

I have appended my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by a number of people from my riding and around my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will mean less service, more costly service, a decrease in volunteers and the inability of local communities to ensure the long-term care system meets their needs."

I've signed this petition as well.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition 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-efficient 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 have also signed this.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of copies of a petition to begin, and there are going to be over 23,000 signatures that I'll be presenting to the House. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the provincial government for a haemodialysis unit to be placed in one of Chatham's hospitals for the use of Chatham-Kent kidney dialysis patients. This will enable these patients to have treatment in the city of Chatham instead of travelling to London three times a week."

It's signed by a number of people from the city of Chatham, from Florence and places throughout Kent county such as Bothwell, Dresden, Ridgetown, Highgate and Dover Centre. Again, this is the beginning of over 20,000 that will be brought forward to this Legislature for consideration.

LADY EVELYN-SMOOTHWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here signed by 1,139 constituents in the riding of Timiskaming. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the comprehensive planning committee is developing a park plan for Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater designated wilderness park and land management plan for surrounding area;

"Whereas there has not been a social or economic impact study carried out that would explain the impact on the surrounding area's economy;

"Whereas there are concerns for safety and security of users of such a proposed massive wilderness park system;

"Whereas the draft date of January 1995 does not leave time to complete such studies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require the Ministry of Natural Resources and the comprehensive planning committee to develop both an economic and social impact study and a plan that would ensure the safety of park users. Therefore, an extension of the draft date of January 1995 is required."

I have affixed my signature to this.

AMALGAMATION OF HOSPITALS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the board of directors of the Great War Memorial Hospital of Perth and District and the board of directors of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital have agreed to merge operations; and

"Whereas this merger is progressing in various stages without the final approval by the Minister of Health; and

"Whereas the health and safety of the community is at risk by certain departments being periodically closed;

"We, the undersigned residents of our community, urge the government of Ontario to investigate this matter immediately and direct the boards of directors of both hospitals to abide by all provisions of the Public Hospitals Act and include all stakeholders in a cooperative manner."

This petition was signed by 99 constituents, and I affix my signature.

LAP DANCING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition today with 817 names on it. It is a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and rather than reading out all the words of it, I'll just summarize it. Basically it is a petition that is opposing the court decision of Judge Hachborn in the crown versus Mara and East, which is the decision that legalizes lap dancing.

This petition was presented to me by Councillor Pauline Brown, who is a member of the Woodstock city council and a member of the congregation at Chalmers United Church. Most of the signatures on the petition are either members of the congregation or friends of that church or of two other churches, First Baptist and Calvary Pentecostal Church in Woodstock in my riding of Oxford.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, and the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of Health, the province of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will mean less service, more costly service, a decrease in volunteers and the inability of local communities to ensure the long-term care system meets their needs."

This is signed by a large number of people who reside in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I've 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 Ontario government must recognize the value of the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly 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 agree with the petition and have signed it.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas comprehensive health insurance is essential to everyone and the inability of temporary residents, including students and academics, to obtain adequate, affordable insurance is causing hardship and will deter others from entering Ontario's universities, and exclusions by insurers for pregnancy, HIV, psychiatric disorders and other serious conditions are unacceptable;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to make OHIP coverage available to all temporary residents on payment of a reasonable premium."

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition 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 the value of 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."

This petition is signed by a number of residents of the region of York.

GAMING REGISTRATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My petition is directed to the Premier and to the Honourable Marilyn Churley. It says:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully protest the intention of the registrar under the Gaming Services Act, 1992, c 24, who has given notice that she intends not to renew the registration of Raymond Shilling, resident of the city of Orillia, as a gaming assistant under the act and who has thereby stripped him of his employment and only source of income;

"We respectfully submit that the might of the Ontario government should not be arbitrarily used to deprive a private citizen of his or her livelihood;

"Furthermore, we protest any added burden which the registrar's decision may consequently place on the social assistance of the region of Simcoe and the taxpayers thereof in order to compensate for Mr Shilling's loss of income.

"We therefore petition the Honourable the Premier of Ontario and the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to prevail upon the said registrar in the strongest possible manner to continue the registration of Mr Shilling so that he might return to his role in the community as a contributing and gainfully employed person."

That's signed by approximately 300 people, and I've added my name to it.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition sponsored by the Victorian Order of Nurses, Hastings-Northumberland-Prince Edward branch, signed by a number of people from Trenton, and the petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will result in less service, more costly service, a decreased number in volunteers and less flexibility for communities to develop a model that works for them."

It's signed by many people from Trenton.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will mean less service, more costly service, a decrease in volunteers and the inability of local communities to ensure the long-term care system meets their needs.

"Please build on the current strengths of the system and don't eliminate organizations like VON and Red Cross."

This petition comes from people in Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton, Hamilton and Toronto. I agree with it completely and I have affixed my name to it and I heartily recommend the sentiments that are contained in it.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition:

"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 local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

Signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario, and I affix my signature.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models called 'supersport' bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of the motorcyclists and snowmobile operators,

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

"That the Ontario government should study the feasibility of launching a public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance program."

I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 23, 1994, Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report on Children at Risk / Les enfants à risque and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Just briefly, I wish to commend all the groups who work in this province with children who came before the committee and the members for coming up with the unanimous report. We hope very much that the actions we have set out will be accepted by the House for action.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Beer moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB