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

March 24, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

BRIAN YAM

KIMBERMOUNT VILLAGE

NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

SENIORS' DENTAL CARE

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH PROJECT

ONTARIO HYDRO

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

LORING DEER YARD

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY WIDENING

HAEMODIALYSIS

USE OF EDWARDSBURGH LAND

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

VISITOR

CORRECTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

TUITION FEES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

RETAIL SALES TAX

SALE OF LAND

HAEMODIALYSIS

LAP DANCING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRIAN YAM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I want to take this opportunity to introduce to you and the other members of the assembly a young gentleman named Brian Yam, who is in the members' gallery. He is an MPP for a day. He is a grade 11 student at Jarvis Collegiate in my riding and is part of a program of a number of other students. I do want to thank also his teacher, Elizabeth Finlay, who has chosen him to be the MPP for a day.

I think he is a fine representative of his school. Some of what he's involved in: He's a senator in his student council, a member of the cross-country team, a member of the darkroom staff for the school yearbook, a multicultural editor of the school newspaper, a junior vice-president of the business club, assistant coach for the girls' hockey team and involved in the track and baseball teams. He is spending the day with me as an MPP for a day.

He did, however, ask me to pass on one concern that he has in general about the quality of education. He said if he had an opportunity to ask a question as MPP for a day, he would ask a question about making sure that the quality in our schools is maintained and enhanced. His experience is that year to year it's been getting slightly worse. He, however, is doing very well as a grade A student and as a fine and upstanding representative of both the riding and his school.

KIMBERMOUNT VILLAGE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am pleased to congratulate the Affordable Housing Action Association, AHAA, in Mississauga for its innovative new concept in affordable housing.

In partnership with Daniels Development Group Inc, the AHAA is building Kimbermount Village, 30 apartments that cost between $78,000 and $130,000. Persons with incomes as low as $22,000 will be able to own their own homes in Kimbermount Village, without non-profit housing subsidies or rent supplements. This may sound like a miracle, but it is the result of creative thinking and cooperation among several organizations.

A shared equity arrangement between the purchasers of the AHAA allows people who lack the income or savings for traditional financing to buy a home. The Jet Power Credit Union of Mississauga will provide first mortgages because the AHAA has obtained funds for second mortgages from the Canadian Alternative Investment Cooperative, a social investment fund of Roman Catholic priests and nuns.

I wish the partners in Kimbermount Village every success in this exciting endeavour. When 64,000 Ontarians are on waiting lists for affordable housing and non-profit housing subsidies exceed $1,000 a month in urban areas, a project that provides affordable home ownership without government assistance is a reason to celebrate. Again, congratulations to all involved.

NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): March is nutrition month. The focus of the 1994 National Nutrition Month campaign is children's nutrition and some of the special challenges facing parents and care givers of four- to 12-year-olds. In this, the International Year of the Family, the Canadian Dietetic Association is asking all Canadians to help "nourish our children's future."

Children are our most valuable resource. Childhood is a time of rapid growth and constant change. It is a time of development, physically, emotionally, sexually and socially. It is a time when the very foundations for adulthood are being shaped. Their nutritional health and wellbeing during childhood has a major bearing on whether they reach their full potential.

In my riding, the Perth district public health unit celebrated nutrition month in many ways. One of the most popular events was a fishing competition held in our local mall. The youngsters fished for good nutrition. They hooked cardboard models of food which they matched to sections of a rainbow-coloured Canada Food Guide.

In Canada today there are approximately three million children between the ages of four and 12, and 20% of Canadian children under age 18 live in poverty. Getting adequate amounts of nutritional food can be a challenge.

Regardless of economic status, parents and other care givers are eager but often unsure of how to give their children the best and healthiest start on life. In Stratford through the corporate sponsorship of the Lori-Jo grocery store, the health unit provides a shop-smart supermarket tour for consumers. They promote healthy eating by helping shoppers read and better understand product labels, make wise use of their grocery dollars and buy nutritional products.

Eating well, being active and feeling good about themselves are just about the most important messages we can give our children. When we nourish our children's future, we also consolidate our own.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am directing this statement to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and asking the minister to amend the Municipal Act in order to ensure that the physically challenged in Mississauga have reasonable transportation.

Currently, Transhelp in Mississauga contracts for specially equipped taxi service to provide assistance for the physically challenged. I have been informed that the use of specially equipped taxis gives Transhelp a flexibility in improving service while at the same time reducing costs.

However, under the present wording of the Municipal Act, the city of Toronto can prohibit within its borders the pickup of the physically challenged by Mississauga cabs. This results in a situation where specially equipped cabs in Mississauga can transport the physically challenged from their homes in Mississauga to a point in Toronto such as their doctors' offices but those same cabs cannot pick them up in Toronto.

Therefore, the person who is physically challenged and has a doctor's appointment in Toronto must be picked up by a transportation service in Toronto, transported to the Toronto-Mississauga border, dropped off at the border and then picked up, if you can believe it, by Mississauga transportation and taken to their home.

This is wrong. It is inefficient, it is cumbersome and it must be stopped. I believe this has resulted in a major inconvenience for those residents in Mississauga who are physically challenged.

It is necessary for the minister to amend the Ontario Municipal Act to prevent the city of Toronto from unilaterally acting in a way which hinders the physically challenged in Mississauga.

SENIORS' DENTAL CARE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Many senior citizens in Ontario, like Mr Harold LeGard of Orillia, have high levels of unmet dental needs because they're on fixed incomes and are not covered by private dental plans.

Mr LeGard and many other senior citizens are frustrated because dental plans for the elderly were highly publicized during the last two provincial election campaigns, but the implementation of such a plan has been a low priority with the former Liberal and current NDP governments.

I know Ontario is experiencing tough fiscal restraints, but I believe that if the government managed its existing resources more effectively and efficiently, we could provide the free dental care targeted to all Canadians over the age of 65 who are most in need.

This OHIP-registered plan could concentrate on diagnostic, preventive and emergency care similar to that available under current private plans. Dentists could bill the government for services rendered according to the Ontario Dental Association suggested fee

schedule and the ODA could administer the plan as it currently does for the thousands of social assistance recipients who presently receive free dental care.

As I noted earlier, senior citizens like Harold LeGard know that times are tough, but they also know a limited dental care program targeted to seniors most in need could be implemented if the NDP government would only manage its existing resources more efficiently and effectively.

Get your spending priorities in order and put a stop to the costly abuses of our social assistance system.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On March 15 of this year I had the great pleasure of assisting the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, Frances Lankin, in an announcement of an infrastructure grant for Commercial Alcohols Inc. This grant will allow the construction of a $160-million ethanol facility in the city of Chatham.

In October 1993 the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and now Rural Affairs, Elmer Buchanan, announced that Ontario will allow a 14.5-cent excise exemption for ethanol fuel. The final hurdle for the project to begin is to guarantee that the federal excise exemption will be extended for 10 years.

It would appear that the federal Liberal caucus is being influenced by a group of oil company lobbyists who are worried about the competition.

This project will create 1,150 person-years of construction jobs, 90 permanent high-skilled jobs at the facility, 400 spinoff jobs in the agricultural community and a market for 20 million bushels of Ontario-grown corn.

The people of Chatham-Kent are trying to encourage the Liberal government to act on this exemption and to help the local economy. My constituents are sending letters supplied by the Chatham Daily News to Ottawa.

I am sure that since I hear daily from my friends across the floor that they are committed to job creation, they will support the people of Chatham-Kent and the agricultural economy of Ontario by signing one of these letters, which we will collect and send along to the federal cabinet.

I would ask that a page distribute these letters to the members opposite to sign them, and have the page return them back to me so I can forward them to Ottawa. May I have a page, please?

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A president of the United States in years gone by, Abraham Lincoln, once said that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I can tell you that it's not for lack of trying, that this government is attempting to achieve that fooling. As I picked up the news clips today, I saw that a freeze which was really a 2% cut was accepted as a freeze, because it says here: "NDP Move Hailed as Good News." "Floyd Stands Pat." "Ontario Backs Off Austerity Moves."

Of course, they were using the old Larry Grossman trick with the Conservative budget of 1983 -- the Speaker will remember that well -- where he paints a very dismal picture, where they let out hints that there might be a lot of cuts, where they say that welfare might even be chopped, where they in effect say to the transfer agencies, "Well, we're going to kick you in the face," and then, when they kick them in the shins, they're supposed to say, "Thank you."

I can assure you that university and college students across this province have not been fooled. Here we have a government which has pleased management -- the presidents -- and of course the people who are the victims are left behind by an NDP government that claims to be a government of social justice.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I am extremely concerned about the edict by the board of directors of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency demanding that the Tourism and Hospitality Industry Health and Safety Education Program, the College, University and School Safety Council of Ontario and the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association merge under the control of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

When these three organizations presented a joint counter-proposal under which they would merge, but not under the control of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, the WHSA board responded by ignoring this proposal and issuing a threatening letter on January 28 demanding that they merge under the board's plan by March 31 or have their funding withdrawn. The letter went on to say that these agencies, if they challenged this edict, would receive an immediate withdrawal of their funding.

This dictatorial approach is a serious abuse of power and will not achieve the aim of making workplaces safer. It is imperative that the Minister of Labour take immediate action to mediate a compromise solution.

The WHSA's authoritarian approach to this issue and its failure to even attempt to negotiate a solution clearly illustrates that this board is out of control. It leaves no room for compromise and makes a complete mockery of the idea that it is a cooperative labour-management agency. I urge the Minister of Labour to take action to accept the counterproposal.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH PROJECT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): On March 2, Premier Bob Rae came to Hamilton to announce the Hamilton-Wentworth plan, a comprehensive plan to deal in part with the controversial Red Hill Creek Expressway. However, this plan is much more than a compromise regarding a road through the Red Hill Creek Valley. It is a creative package that ties together the economy, the environment, our culture and heritage and our transportation networks.

The province will contribute $3.2 billion to help accelerate the development of a comprehensive network of trails to connect the Niagara Escarpment trails all the way down to Lake Ontario.

My constituents will also benefit from the $1.5-million fund which will assist them with energy, waste reduction and water conservation in their homes.

Another $10 million will establish investment funds for new technology in green industries and for the cultural sector.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mr Abel: Well, Mr Speaker, obviously he doesn't think very much of the plan.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre is asked to come to order.

Mr Abel: Many residents in Wentworth North have spoken to me about the Hamilton-Wentworth plan and they're pleased with the proposed package.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. I caution the member for York Centre to please come to order.

Mr Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For your own information, I'd like you to know that I have spoken to many residents in Hamilton-Wentworth and they're pleased with the proposed package. They're interested in new ways to tie together our economic future with the ecological future. This plan is a comprehensive and balanced strategy that will benefit all residents of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Speaker: It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro. As we all know, the clock is ticking and the nuclear power facilities begin an orderly shutdown beginning tomorrow.

Over the last few hours, I've been hearing from a number of municipal electrical utilities across the province, and let me tell you what these deliverers of hydro-electricity are telling me: Never before on the eve of a potential strike or lockout at the giant utility have the municipal electrical utilities heard so little from Hydro. They have truly been kept in the dark as to what the contingency plans are going to be from Hydro and from your government. In fact, general managers from these utilities are telling me that they're hearing nothing.

When they speak to their area and regional Hydro people, who normally know something in this situation, those Hydro officials are saying they know nothing. They only know and can only refer to what's been in the paper.

My question to the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro: What, sir, are you and Ontario Hydro telling the municipal electrical utilities across the province as to how they must plan for a potential shutdown or slowdown of Ontario Hydro next week?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The municipal electrical utilities will know that in the past, historically, in a negotiation between the now Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro, in most cases it's in the last few days of the collective agreement that bargaining reaches a settlement. That has been historically the case.

We are working diligently to ensure that the municipal electrical utilities will continue to receive the power they receive from the grid from Ontario Hydro, because in all likelihood there will be a negotiated settlement.

Mr Conway: We all hope and pray for a negotiated settlement, but the fact of the matter is, as of this moment, we do not have a negotiated settlement. Within a very few days, Ontario Hydro will begin to shut down its nuclear power plant which now provides over two thirds of the juice to the system.

The general managers of the various municipal electric utilities with whom I have spoken in the last few hours are very, very concerned, because they have never been in a situation like this before. They know nothing about your contingency plan. They are hearing absolutely nothing from their Hydro contacts out in the field, contacts who previously were much better informed and who could tell them about the backup plan, the contingency plan.

Minister, I ask you again, in view of the fact that we are now just a very few days from the potential shutdown of two thirds of the electricity supply to the province of Ontario, what are you and Ontario Hydro telling the deliverers of this power to most of us in the province, namely, the municipal electric utilities, as to how they are going to manage a potential and dramatic loss of electricity provided by the giant utility, Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Wildman: I reiterate that we are confident that the municipal electrical utilities will continue to be able to deliver the electrical power to the customers of this province, because the members of the Power Workers' Union and the management of Ontario Hydro are working diligently, along with the staff of my colleague the Minister of Labour, to achieve a collective bargaining agreement prior to the expiration of the current agreement.

Mr Conway: We all of us expect and believe there to be due diligence and goodwill on all sides, but we have watched this process unfold over days and weeks and we still at this hour do not have what we all want, which is the negotiated settlement.

Never before has the Ontario Hydro system been so dependent on its nuclear supply, and that's why this situation is so different than all others. We are this month depending on the nuclear power program to supply 65% to 70% of the electricity to the province.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): And I wonder why that is.

Mr Conway: I hear the caterwauling of the Minister of Health, but the people of the province want to know what the government of Ontario is doing, what steps it is taking to ensure that there will be a continuous supply of this most vital resource, electricity, to the hospitals, to the schools, to the farms, to the homes, to the industries and to all other outlets in Ontario.

Minister, I ask you again at this very late hour, what is your contingency plan? What are you and Ontario Hydro telling, specifically, your very important partners, the municipal electric utilities out there, that they should prepare for and what they might do in the event of a slowdown or a shutdown of Ontario Hydro next week?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member can assure the representatives of municipal utilities to whom he has been speaking that this government is working very hard to ensure that the two sides are able to achieve an agreement prior to the end of the current agreement.

I met this morning with Paul Gardner, the director of mediation services in the Ministry of Labour, who reported to me that the parties worked into the small hours of this morning, diligently, on the major issues to try to reach an agreement and to avoid a disruption. He pointed out to me that in the past in these negotiations, seldom has there ever been an agreement reached prior to March 25. He is working along with his colleague John Mather to assist the parties.

It is true that the union and the management are taking very seriously the health and safety of the people of this province and, in compliance with the AECL's requirements, will take whatever measures are required to ensure the safety and the integrity of the system.

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A second question to the same gentleman in his capacity as minister of garbage, and my question concerns Toronto garbage.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is the question to the Minister of Environment?

Mr Conway: If I have offended the tender sensibilities of my friend the member for Ottawa Centre I withdraw. I would never, ever want to ruffle the sensibilities of the Minister of Housing.

The Speaker: To whom is your question addressed?

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Environment and it concerns Toronto garbage. There are reports this very day quoting officials very close to your office, sir, that clearly leave open the possibility that there may be a possibility that the garbage from greater Toronto might find its way to Kirkland Lake, Ontario.

Can the minister confirm that there is still a possibility under his government's policy that the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto may, under certain circumstances, find its way to Kirkland Lake, Ontario?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm glad that the member has given me the opportunity to clarify what in fact was a misquote in the media. In fact, my assistant informed the reporter in question that the matter remains, as it always has been, that a proponent could, if a proponent wished, proceed with an environmental assessment on a proposal related to Kirkland Lake and rail-haul, but the Environmental Assessment Board would have to rule and would have to take into account the government policy and the law as it is in place in the province.

Mr Conway: I bet you appreciated the opportunity to make that response. Help me understand your policy. You are in fact then confirming that it is the policy of the Bob Rae government to ensure that Metropolitan Toronto garbage must go to deep holes costing tens of millions of dollars dug into some of the most fertile agricultural land in all of Canada, in the northern riches of York region, and it cannot be exported by rail to Kirkland Lake, though in fact it can be exported to Ohio with all of the attendant employment and economic spinoffs that the Ohio export in fact might produce.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'll confirm that any proponent can carry out or proceed with an environmental assessment in cooperation with the branch on any proposal. The board would have to take into account government policy. In regard to the question of Ohio, I understand, and I don't want to misquote anyone else, that in media reports today Ohio officials have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to GTA waste. I don't think that's very likely. However, I'm not sure what their processes are for approvals.

As a matter of fact, as was indicated in the House yesterday, I've expressed to the federal minister my desire for her to take action to close the border to ensure that the IWA process will be maintained in its integrity and that we will proceed to proper environmental assessments and that only those sites that are environmentally sound, as the Environmental Assessment Board finds them, could be approved.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I regret profoundly that the official from my friend's office apparently was misquoted, because it was the first breath of fresh air in this crisis that we've experienced over the course of the past three years since Bill 143 was passed.

Let's just set out where we are. The minister's predecessor arbitrarily established that Metro's garbage was going to be dumped in York region and now in the city of Vaughan. Metropolitan Toronto rejects that solution. The people of York region reject that solution. The people of Vaughan reject that solution. A number of other proposals have been put on the table. The position of Metropolitan Toronto is that it will have to wait for the defeat of the NDP government before it gets on with it.

Yesterday, we were given to understand by the minister's officials that the Earth was changing a bit and that Metro could urgently get on with a consideration of the Kirkland Lake proposal.

I ask the minister simply to acknowledge and accede to Metropolitan Toronto's request, which would be supported throughout York region, and allow that environmental assessment to take place to determine whether or not the Kirkland Lake proposal is a viable one. Is that too much to ask of the minister? Is it too much to ask that this proposal --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- be assessed by the best scientists and the best environmentalists in the world to determine whether it is better than digging a hole in the best farm land --

The Speaker: Would the member please conclude his question.

Mr Sorbara: -- in Ontario and dumping Metro's garbage there? Is that too much to ask?

Hon Mr Wildman: If I can work through the member's verbiage about garbage, I will simply say to him what I've said for the last year and what my predecessor said before me, that if Metropolitan Toronto wishes to proceed as a proponent with an environmental assessment on a proposal to haul waste outside of the GTA, it may do so, but the Environmental Assessment Board will of course take into account government policy and the law.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to follow up with the Minister of Environment on this whole issue of garbage and Metro's garbage and the eligibility of shipping to Ohio and maybe the eligibility of Kirkland Lake or not and the confusion that exists now in the minds of many people in Ontario.

Minister, can you confirm to me that there is nothing in your government policy or illegal about Orangeville shipping its garbage to the United States as it is doing today?

Hon Mr Wildman: Unfortunately, since the federal government opened the border, that is the case.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Orangeville can do it, but Metro can't. What a policy.

Mr Harris: Can you explain --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You're dead wrong.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Can you explain to me why it is okay for Orangeville to have its garbage finally deposited in the United States but it's not okay for Metro?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't think it's okay, and apparently, through media reports, neither do the people in Ohio, at least.

Mr Harris: Then, Minister, if you don't think it's okay, why don't you stop it?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member will know, I mentioned in the House yesterday that I've written to the current minister and suggested an interim approach that might make it economically less viable to ship to the United States. I requested the current minister as well to close the border. I requested the previous two ministers as well to close the border.

Mr Stockwell: Orangeville garbage doesn't smell as much.

Hon Mr Wildman: I wish that the members across the way would join me in taking a responsible approach and encouraging their federal colleagues to ensure that we deal with our waste here --

Mr Stockwell: Oh sure, what about Orangeville?

Hon Mr Wildman: -- responsibly in this province rather than shipping it to neighbours elsewhere.

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

Mr Harris: There is absolutely nothing about your approach to Metro's garbage that anybody of a sound mind could call responsible or consistent or fair or the best possible --

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

Mr Harris: -- for the environment. You have no policy.

LORING DEER YARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources and just about everybody else in the government, my question --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Hey, take that back.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Elmer's there.

Mr Harris: I said "just about everybody else." My question is to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day.

On Little River Road near North Bay there is a deer viewing station that's been built by volunteers and government dollars. The deer viewing station is there so that the public, parents with their children, can come in and view the largest deer yard, I believe, in North America, certainly the largest concentration of deer in the province.

Approximately 12,000 deer winter in the Loring yards. The Ministry of Natural Resources and other groups for a period of years, with volunteers and government dollars, have, when there are winters that are extreme, been feeding the deer. This year, they have been feeding these deer, which are suffering from starvation because of the very harsh winter.

Madam Deputy Deputy Premier, 15 of these deer have been shot so far this winter, yet the Ministry of Natural Resources is refusing to lay charges. How long does your government intend to allow the slaughter of these baited deer, coming to find food because they're starving, to go on?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I hope the member will understand that I don't have full information with respect to this item and that I would hope the Minister of Natural Resources on his return could provide you with a fuller answer.

My understanding of the issue, and this is only from personal knowledge in reading the newspaper articles up in the Almaguin news area, is that a number of deer were shot by members of the aboriginal community in that area and that in fact, unless it is in violation of policy after investigation of waste or whatever, there is an entitlement to take deer, although it is a practice with respect to the feeding station in this area that has been deplored by the chiefs of the aboriginal communities there.

I can't tell you at this time whether or not the Ministry of Natural Resources has concluded any investigation as to whether there were any improprieties. I would reference that question to the Minister of Natural Resources and undertake to get you a full answer from him.

Mr Harris: Madam Minister, the Ministry of Natural Resources admits there is a safety risk. At an area where they used to encourage parents to bring children in to view the deer they are now posting that the public and their children may be in danger. Earlier this month a deer was shot less than 500 metres from where a man and his 15-year-old son were watching the deer. Families can no longer safely take their children to the viewing station. Yet the Ministry of Natural Resources and your government have made no move, either out of safety to humans or to the deer, to stop the slaughter.

I ask you this: Does something serious have to happen here to public health, as well as the violation of all principles of wildlife management, before you're going to take action to stop this?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am aware, certainly, that there have been signs posted in the area and of the most unfortunate situation of the deer that was killed in very close proximity to a person who was there. In fact last weekend I had intended to go to the Loring yards and decided, with the friends I was with, not to take that visit because of the shooting activity that had gone on in the area. So I am very aware of this.

What I'm unfortunately unable to provide the leader of the third party with is a response as to whether or not any investigations by the Ministry of Natural Resources have been concluded. It's not that I'm trying not to answer your question; I genuinely don't know the answer to that. As soon as the minister returns, we will undertake to get you that information.

Mr Harris: The Ministry of Natural Resources says it's completed its investigation. They're warning people not to go near because their safety may be in danger. That's the action they say they are going to take, or can take, at this point. Our offices, both myself and the member for Parry Sound, have been contacted by natives who are as upset at these shootings as we are. Two members of the Dokis first nations have said, and I read a quote from the North Bay Nugget:

"We are absolutely appalled at the thought that possibly someone from an aboriginal community is responsible for this reprehensible act. We, as aboriginals, applaud the efforts of those involved for their humane efforts to sustain the deer yard. Many aboriginals who believe in the interconnectedness of nature know full well the value of the efforts of the MNR staff and the volunteers."

I would ask you this, Minister: As the one in charge today, will you personally investigate and put a stop to the slaughter of defenceless deer, many of them pregnant, many of them starving, that are seeking food to get through this winter, and will you do it immediately?

Hon Ms Lankin: As I indicated in my response to the member's first question, I fully acknowledge the leadership position taken by the chiefs of the aboriginal communities in that area, who have deplored the action of these individuals, whoever they may be. It is very gratifying, the commitment that there is to the protection of deer and to building the herds and the conservation approach that exists in all communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in that area.

I reiterate the commitment I have made in the responses to the first two questions, to undertake to raise this issue with the Minister of Natural Resources and ask him to respond directly to the member opposite.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and in my mind it gets perhaps right at the heart of the credibility of the Rae government. Yesterday, Minister, you will be aware that in the House the message was that the grants to municipalities and other of our partners were going to remain the same next year as this year. That was the message.

Today, as we make phone calls to ministry officials, we find that is not the case. We find that actually the grants are going to be reduced by 2%. The message we got yesterday was completely incorrect. The ministry officials and the Minister of Education say they were misquoted. It came straight out of the Ministry of Finance that the grants are being reduced by 2%. As I say, it gets right at the heart of the credibility, because I think most municipalities across this province breathed a sigh of relief yesterday.

Can the minister confirm that this is in fact what is happening, that you are not holding the grants at the level they were last year into next year, but that you actually are reducing the grants to municipalities by 2%?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can tell you that we're holding them at the 1993 level, which is what we told them last year. The Treasurer and I met with AMO representatives this morning. They're very happy in fact with the announcement we made yesterday and I can confirm that they went away quite pleased at the responsible way in which this government is handling things under tough times.

Mr Phillips: I go back to the credibility issue because, as I say, we took at face value the message you had yesterday, and that was that the grants to municipalities and school boards would remain the same next year as this year. The numbers we have would indicate that the school board grants are being reduced by 2%, that they aren't being held the same. The grants to municipalities, to use the language that the minister would use, the unconditional grants, are $700 million in this fiscal year. In the next year, the year that's just coming up, they will be $660 million, partially as the result of a 2% reduction in the grants.

What we want is a clear, straightforward answer from the government, because the answer we got this morning from ministry officials specifically was that there has somehow or other been a misinterpretation and that the grants are actually being reduced by 2%, that they're not being held even. I wonder if the minister might clarify that because it's right at the heart of credibility for the government. Are you holding the grants at the same level or are you reducing them by 2%? Can you give us a clear, unequivocal answer on that?

Hon Mr Philip: We're honouring our commitments. Last year we gave a one-time-only 2% grant, which they clearly understood. They understood it. You may not have understood it, but they understood it. They understood it this morning. They understood it last year.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, since your government took office in 1990 you have reduced accountability in Ontario's welfare system, and you've expanded eligibility over the course of the last three and a half years. One example is the removal of home visits and expanded eligibility criteria and others.

The Ontario PC caucus, under the leadership of Mike Harris, has pleaded with you and your government in this House to better monitor a system which is growing too quickly, without the fiscal integrity the taxpayers expect of a $6.4-billion expenditure for 1.4 million citizens on social assistance.

Last year, I shared with you an eight-point plan from our caucus to improve integrity in that system, but faced with the lack of leadership from your government, municipalities have had to go it primarily on their own to develop systems of increased integrity for our social assistance system. Communities from across the province are reporting millions of dollars of savings based on those initiatives.

My question is simply this: A year ago I tabled in this House a report from the province of Quebec that indicates changes in provincial legislation which provide for an almost 75% ability to catch fraud and overpayment in the system when eligibility officers are empowered with this legislation.

After a year of sharing this with you, can you report to this House if you're prepared to make legislative amendments to assist the eligibility review officers in municipalities all across Ontario so that they can catch the fraud and return the taxpayer dollars to the provincial treasury?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): What I can tell the honourable member is that we take the issue of dealing and having to deal with abuse in the system quite seriously, and rather than spend our time bringing legislation as he's called for to help us deal with this issue, we have been working away at dealing with it within the existing guidelines we have and the existing powers, which are significant, to address the issues of abuse, eligibility and overpayment in the system. Already we have managed to make some significant improvements in the system.

He quite correctly points out that there is a dual responsibility in the system, both by the provincial government and by the municipalities, which run about half of our system, to do likewise. I'm glad to see that many municipalities have in fact built upon the initiatives we have undertaken, which have already saved hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of tighter eligibility and tightening up of the rules and making sure, therefore, that the people who receive the benefits are the people who are eligible.

I've been saying that we are working on further initiatives, which I hope to outline as early as next week, which will position us well to add to the steps we have taken to ensure that the system is much freer of abuse than it has been so far.

Mr Jackson: Minister, you're quoted in today's press as saying that with all these announcements that we've been waiting for for over a year and a half, you hope to save about $50 million. That's in this morning's press. The fact is that the savings that could be achieved in the greater Toronto area alone could be well in excess of $100 million to $150 million if some of these legislative changes were implemented in concert with an expansion of the number of eligibility review officers in municipalities across Ontario.

I want to remind you of some of these numbers. In Halton, for an investment of $75,000, they report savings to taxpayers of $800,000. In the city of Hamilton, just on pure fraud alone, for a lesser investment they are saving nearly a full $1 million, and that's on top of the other savings they have initiated in their municipality that are not being initiated in other municipalities because your government hasn't shown the initiative.

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

Mr Jackson: One more example, in Brockville --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Jackson: My question is: Why is it that in the community of Brockville, with 21,000 people, after investing $30,000 in one review officer they can save that municipality a quarter of a million dollars? Minister, when will you stand in the House and provide strengthened legislation to allow the municipalities to do the job they're asking you to let them do?

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't think the member wants to hear what I've said, but I'll try to repeat it for him. We are doing exactly those things. The instances he has quoted are not happening because municipalities have just decided on their own that they should do them; they're also happening because we're cofunding them to do exactly those things he has mentioned.

I can tell him that we are going to be doing more of that. There are going to be more funds provided to municipalities for them to do their part of the job in ensuring that we do appropriate investigations, that we do appropriate reviews to ensure that only those people who are eligible to receive social assistance benefits are receiving them. I will be very happy to stand in this House next week and outline in greater detail for the member and for the public some further steps we are taking in this respect.

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many of my constituents have asked me about the status of the Queen Elizabeth Way widening project that runs through my riding. Many feel that winter's bitter cold has stopped the shovel going into the ground to complete the project. You have to understand that the Queen E was built close to 55 years ago in that particular section, which is a bottleneck to the residents of Niagara, and here we've got the traffic of the 1990s going on a 55-year-old highway. Can the minister update this House and my constituency on the status of this very important project?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): A very timely question vis-à-vis a catalytic order when it comes to exports and imports in this special part of Ontario. Suffice it by way of an opportunity to give a brief update or broadly summarize what's happening out there: The contracts that were let out, the submissions that came in two years ago, will be completed on time, within budget, this spring. The submissions of 1993, last year, are also on time and within budget and shall be completed in 1995. Simply put, the big picture: total widening of the Queen Elizabeth Way by the year of Our Lord 2000, not a day after. We're on time, we're on

schedule and we welcome the opportunity and of course the question and the interest.

Mr Hansen: The other part of it, and this is a concern in the Niagara area, is the number of jobs that have been created to date on this

section of the highway and the number that will be hired for the completion of this project.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We've been through difficult times. The reason why Premier Rae and this government are focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs -- and we mean what we say, 400 jobs so far; 500 to 600 jobs this year again in 1994 to be added to the 400 jobs, and a total -- hear me, with the highest of respect -- of 5,000 jobs. We have the diversity, shovel in the ground. The multiplier at Transportation is 2.5: For every dollar that is being spent, $2.50 is to be augmented, supplemented.

This is a win-win-win situation. The taxpayers are getting their money back. It's putting people to work when they need it the most. Like most good things in life, it starts in the spring and it doesn't leave you when you need it the most. This is year-round work.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health, if she resumes her seat. The minister will know that there is a critical shortage of dialysis service across Ontario and a particular dialysis crisis in Toronto. Last month, the minister received a letter from the Toronto Dialysis Committee which charged that the Ministry of Health had behaved in an irresponsible way in failing to provide adequate dialysis service for the people of Ontario. A year ago, you were told that all dialysis programs are saturated to a dangerous level.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Health what she intends to do to ensure that people with kidney disease who require dialysis don't die.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member is right that in fact the demand and the need for dialysis is increasing very greatly, and hospitals and facilities, as well as the ministry, are struggling with how to both meet the current demand and ensure that as we plan for the future we are able to accommodate that growing need. I know the member for Simcoe West has certainly raised the issue with me with respect to his particular area.

I'm pleased to be able to say to the member that the three-year expansion which we began in 1991 and which will be completed in March 1994 means that we have opened a new haemodialysis unit in Mississauga. We've provided one-time funding to the Toronto Hospital to provide services for 18 patients on an interim basis until the Mississauga unit is open. We have expanded with new facilities in Orillia so that people from Simcoe county no longer have to come to Toronto and the pressure is lessened in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and the funding for haemodialysis has been increased significantly over the past five years.

There is, I recognize, more to be done, but I can assure her that it is an issue which we and the hospitals are working constructively to resolve.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister will know, by example, that the funding that was shifted from the Sussex Centre to the Toronto hospitals has expired this month. Patients are being required to stay in hospital for up to two and a half months because there are no outpatient facilities for them. The planning that's being done doesn't take into account that there will be 200 more patients in Toronto. The decisions that have been made mean that the number of new machines that are coming on stream won't even cover the backlog, let alone the number of new cases.

Once again, I'm asking the Minister of Health what specifically she is going to do and what urgent action she is going to take to ensure that people with kidney disease who need dialysis will get it and do not have to face the choice of death.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member says that the planning we are doing does not take into account the need. I regret to have to say to her that she is in fact quite wrong about that. The six district health councils in the central region were funded some months ago to do an urgent report about the need, taking into account that there has been a 10% increase in need. Their report, which is expected within the next couple of months, will provide the basis for the planning that must be done.

Having completed the first phase of our expansion, we expand in a way that anticipates the growth and provides those services in the most flexible way possible. It is not merely an extension of facilities in-hospital; it's whether we can expand in-home dialysis or whether we can provide satellites so that people can find the service as close as possible to where they live so that they can maintain as much as possible of their independence and normal lives despite kidney failure.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is also to the Minister of Health. Minister, you'd be aware, and all members would be aware, that on December 9 this Legislature passed my private member's resolution which called upon your government to establish haemodialysis satellites in the towns of Collingwood and New Tecumseth in my riding of Simcoe West. You are also aware that many patients outside the greater Toronto area have to travel long distances, often over treacherous road conditions. They have to go to either Orillia or Toronto to receive this life-sustaining treatment.

I want to make sure you understand the effect your foot-dragging is having on the haemodialysis patients. Last month, more than 200 people attended a meeting in Alliston to discuss the government's inaction on the resolution that was passed by this Legislature in December. At that meeting, the most astonishing thing happened, and I didn't think I'd ever see this sort of thing happen at a public meeting in my lifetime. I want to read to you a line from the local paper reporting on that public meeting.

It says: "The most telling moment came from a member of the audience who faced trips to Toronto or faced losing his life. Mr Alvin Hiltz said 'I can't do it any longer. I'm going to quit.'" At a public meeting with 200 people, Mr Hiltz told us that he wasn't going to go back to Toronto, that he can't stand three days a week of having to get on a bus in Alliston at 8 in the morning, travel two and a half hours by bus to Toronto --

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

Mr Jim Wilson: -- and take a taxi to his hospital. On the round trip, he's not back to Alliston by 8 at night. The days he's not required to drive to Toronto, he sits in front of the window in the wintertime wondering --

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- whether the weather is good enough that he gets to Toronto tomorrow to save his life.

Minister, your foot-dragging has gone on long enough. What are you going to do for the dialysis patients in my riding, and for those outside of Toronto, who have to face this sort of life which is no life at all?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm sorry that the member characterizes as foot-dragging what I believe has been a very real and timely response to the needs he has advocated for so well on behalf of his constituents. I don't know whether both of my critics are teaming up on questions, but, as I said in response to the question just before, we have expanded. In fact, it was the expansion of the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital which was designed to meet the needs of people in Simcoe county who could more easily, we believed and many of them believed, get to Orillia as opposed to having to come to Toronto, which I recognize can be exceptionally onerous.

The $23-million expansion that has occurred over the last three years has included the Orillia expansion, and the study I spoke about earlier that is looking at the future needs of the central Ontario region will address the issues the member has raised and the additional needs there may be in the future in Simcoe County.

Mr Jim Wilson: I don't think that's a good enough or compassionate enough answer coming from this government, in particular during the month of March, Kidney Foundation Month.

Minister, we first heard about this central Ontario dialysis study last September, and I was told at that time, and we were told publicly, that that study would take six months to complete. In October, you put out a press release announcing this $100,000 study all over again, and again we were told six months to complete.

Some seven months later, you're only getting around this week to having the first full-fledged meeting of that study committee, and not all of the appointees are yet assigned to the committee. So your study is going nowhere, and the people of my riding and in central Ontario and those outside of the GTA have no faith in this study.

Between your government and the government before you, you've closed 6,000 hospital beds and laid off thousands of hospital workers and nurses. You sold this initiative to the public by saying you were going to beef up community-based services. With the social contract, we've seen a decline in community-based services.

My dialysis resolution calls upon you --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- to embrace a community-based solution to establish dialysis satellites so these people don't have to face the inhumane treatment you're forcing them to undergo.

Minister, why will you not embrace our community-based solution and set up dialysis satellites in my riding and across central Ontario? Why will you not do that?

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon Mrs Grier: It is precisely to determine the need and, for example, the locations in which satellites might be located that the study is being undertaken.

Let me remind the member that the expansion of Soldiers' Memorial in Orillia provided for 16 more haemodialysis units, many of them from Collingwood, to go to Orillia. Two patients who are unable to travel to Orillia are being treated in their own homes with the help of a paid attendant, another Alliston area resident receives haemodialysis at home with the assistance of a home helper, and some others, yes, are still travelling to Toronto.

I know of the member's interest, and I know of the interest in the community that he has generated through his petition campaign. I hope all of that interest will be translated into documentation of very real need that can be part of the study that is costing $100,000, in order that we have a plan and a direction for the future and meet the very real needs we can identify and plan for.

USE OF EDWARDSBURGH LAND

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have one single, succinct question I'd like to place to the Chair of Management Board.

A recent

article in the Brockville Recorder and Times insinuates that the government has left 10,500 acres of land in Edwardsburgh township, acquired for a planned industrial park, virtually undeveloped for the last two decades. As successive provincial governments have spent a total of $15 million on this development, what are the current plans for these specific properties?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question. It points to some of the kinds of issues this government has found itself confronted with and trying to deal with.

The member is correct. The land assembly in Edwardsburgh was one of several land banks in the province of Ontario acquired in the mid-1970s, during the previous Tory administration of William Davis. The kinds of things that some had visions of developing on land banks like this have long since evaporated in the minds of not only those who dreamed them up but those who understand the reality of modern-day Ontario. In that respect, we are presently looking at making those lands available for appropriate residential development.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary? New question, the honourable member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): We have a serious problem today, Mr Speaker, inasmuch as almost half the cabinet is not present, including the Premier.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Ruprecht: We have no indication today that the Minister of Citizenship --

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. Our practice is for the member who's recognized to identify to whom he wishes to direct the question.

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question to the Minister of Citizenship, and I hope she arrives or that she is in the back or that she would be here. I've a serious concern: If she's not here and the Premier's not here and half the cabinet is not here --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member is asked to take his seat.

The member has one more opportunity. To whom does he wish to direct his question?

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, I don't see the Minister of Citizenship, so I will pass to my colleague Mr Daigeler.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. You will be, I'm sure, very familiar with the fact that your Premier has tried to spend at least, and that's the minimum, $1 billion to encourage the Metro Toronto area to build four subway lines rather than two. Some people said he went quite a bit further than just to encourage Metro; some people say he even tried to blackmail them. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Premier has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to spend at least $1 billion extra in the Metro Toronto area.

Metro Toronto, as is its right and its responsibility, has said: "No. At this point, we want to build only two subways. It's going to cost us enough. Perhaps later on, we'll build four subways."

If my calculation is right, the Premier and the Treasurer and the cabinet have $1 billion left over, because they wanted and they still want to spend an extra $1 billion in the Metro Toronto area. Minister, we in eastern Ontario have a project ready to go, on which we want to spend not a whole billion dollars, but approximately $200 million, and that project is called Highway 416. In view of the fact that this province is not spending $1 billion, will you redirect some of that money and reinstitute the completion of 416 in eastern Ontario?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): When it comes to infrastructure programs, the presence of the Premier borders on the proverbial. We are committed to our share, the major portion of the cost vis-à-vis the four projects in Metro Toronto. We have an equally important presence, by way of $900 million, on highways across the province of Ontario.

We also have a flagship through the capital corporation vis-à-vis Highway 407 to ease the traffic from Highway 401. It's the largest construction project in North America. More money is being spent on 416 north than ever before. When it comes to 416 south, it would be very nice to have the cooperation from the federal Liberal government.

We're the only province that doesn't get a penny in terms of a national highway program. It leaves us with two highways, a Trans-Canada highway and a trans-Ontario highway.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The motorists of the province of Ontario sent $1.15 billion of their hard-earned dollars to Ottawa and we don't see a dime, a nickel, not a penny --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We want to build the 416. We want to accelerate the 416, but we need help to do so.

Mr Daigeler: Minister, you don't need to go on. I can recognize somebody skating on thin ice when I see it, but I think you have to be careful that you don't break through this ice.

I'm not asking you to spend more money. All I'm saying is that the Premier, according to his own commitment that he wanted to spend in Metro -- Metro doesn't want it, so he's got $1 billion at least that he can spend in other areas of the province.

I'm asking you again. Never mind the federal government. This is money your Premier is ready to spend now. That's what he has said, that he is ready to spend that money now. Metro doesn't want it. Will you spend that money, or at least part of that money, in eastern Ontario for the 416? We in eastern Ontario want the 416 completed.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is very important. Some of his colleagues might judge my good critic and friend with a vengeance, for they will feel the question is parochial; that as the critic for Transportation he has failed to see the big picture and is now preaching for his parish. Well, it's not so. He is very much aware.

I sympathize with the kind of pressure he's under. He has seen the federal government spend millions and millions of dollars from Ottawa to Hull, but only on the Hull side. He's even contemplated, because of the one-way flow of traffic -- but those people have to come back -- maybe enlarging the bridge separating Hull from Ottawa, for ulterior motives. I don't know, but I read papers.

Let me conclude on the very real subject matter which is the 416, a major lifeline, that if we were to be innovative, if we were to be imaginative and have an entrepreneur, maybe a group of entrepreneurs --

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- come up with a proposal, maybe use the transportation corporation to help us in the collective, working as a team in a partnership, we would have to be at least --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- committed to give that proposal consideration. I welcome the inquiry.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Yesterday the minister stated that he had called on the federal government to work with the provinces to develop a system whereby graduates pay back student loans based on their income once they're in the workforce.

I am glad he has New Directions, Volume Two, with him. I am very proud to say that the minister does take the time to read and to follow through where good information and good plans are in place. But yesterday the minister missed a golden opportunity. It had nothing to do with the Blue Jays. He could have at the same time announced income-contingent loan repayment plans, and he didn't do it. The students are very disappointed and not, therefore, supportive.

When are you going to announce the income-contingent loan repayment plans so the students can be 100% behind you in your support of the universities?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's quite simple. Because there is a thing called the Canada student loan program and the Ontario student assistance program, you cannot move forward with an income-contingent repayment program until the two programs are integrated.

In the current federal government, Minister Axworthy has indicated that they have some interest in this and that they're prepared to work with the province to develop some options. We want to do that very much with the federal government. I must say, this is one instance where I am actually saying there might be something positive -- might be -- to say about the federal government.

This government has indicated that it might be interested in doing that, as opposed to the previous government, which was about to privatize the Canada student loan program and rule out any option on income contingencies.

Mrs Cunningham: I want to talk about the future. In fact, it's very important to the future that we support our universities. Yesterday the minister talked about injecting new funds into the universities, sometimes at the expense of the students, so I am going to ask this question now.

Minister, as we work together to get this program moving as quickly as possible, because there are so many young people who just cannot pay back these loans, who in fact can't get them without this kind of plan, how are you going to include the students as part of this whole process of defining this plan and how it will work, along with your consultation with the federal government?

Hon Mr Cooke: We, along with the universities, are pulling together a symposium that will take a look at the various options in terms of income contingency which will involve students, administration, board members and the federal government. The date's been set; it's in the very near future. We intend very much to involve the students in the design of the program.

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I have been very supportive of our government's work on the residents' rights bill, which proposes to extend Landlord and Tenant Act rights to vulnerable residents.

Recently it has come to my attention at the Massey Centre for Women in my riding of York East that it may be adversely affected by this bill. The Massey Centre provides programs for pregnant teenagers and single mothers and their children in the areas of counselling, life skills, day care, education and employment in pre- and post-natal transitional housing.

The Massey Centre has been exempt from the LTA and wishes to continue to have this exemption as it is not in the business of providing permanent housing. Minister, will the Massey Centre continue to be exempted under the LTA?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I welcome the question. The Massey Centre is a very interesting and successful organization and in no way would the government wish to see its operations in any sense undermined. We're very, very supportive of the programs they've been running.

In fact, they are running three programs: The pre-natal counselling service which they provide won't be affected by Bill 120. The second part of their programming, and it's a distinct program, is a program which provides up to six months of accommodation under close supervision and support service for young mothers who've just delivered their babies, and that won't be affected either. It will be exempted under the provision in Bill 120 in which a six-month program does not have the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The third part of the program is the longer-term, second-stage housing, and there the Landlord and Tenant Act will apply to that second-stage housing. We also have made an amendment to Bill 120 which will mean that for a program of that nature, which is under two years, they will be able to ask people to leave once the program has been completed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am preparing my questions on the basis that a certain minister is present. It is common among the House leaders that this is being done under routine proceedings, and everyone is informed if a minister is not present. In this case ministers were not present and they're not listed here. Could you check into this so that in the future this will not happen?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Parkdale, an experienced member, will know that the Chair is not privy to pieces of paper which indicate who may or may not be present in the chamber on any particular day or at any given time and cannot be of any assistance to the member.

I realize the House tries to conduct itself in an orderly way and provide members with names of those who are expected to be present. That is not information which is shared with the Chair, nor should it be. I regret that I'm unable to be of assistance to the member in this instance.

VISITOR

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We have the crime fighter from Cornwall here with us today, His Worship Mayor Ron Martelle from Cornwall.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order, but the mayor of Cornwall is most welcome in our chambers.

CORRECTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wish to correct the record in respect to comments I made during debate on a justice committee report this Monday. In respect to witnesses who appeared before the justice committee, I was critical of the testimony delivered by the East York Tenants' Association, mistakenly. In fact the contribution of the East York Tenants' Association I thought was very positive, unlike some of the other witnesses. I mistakenly criticized the East York Tenants' Association when the comments should have been directed towards Mr Kenneth Hale of the Tenant Advocacy Group.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We appreciate the fact that the honourable member has corrected his own record.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitution be made to the membership of the standing committee on public accounts: Mr Crozier for Mr Murphy.

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): I move that Mr Harris and Mr Cousens exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have two petitions. If you will allow me, they go together. They're both from the congregation, the men and women at the Christ Our King Lutheran Church in Mississauga.

The first is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

The second one, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, with regard to:

"Bill 55 will make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions."

I've affixed my signature to both petitions in agreement.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I wish the member for Mississauga West had been a member when his party put this change in the code.

I have a petition from Christ Our King Lutheran Church. It has a large number of names, and I'm happy to read this petition and present it to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to sign this petition.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliamentary of Ontario as follows in regards to Bill 45."

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Premier and the Legislative Assembly to change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

It is signed by 117 constituents. I affix mine.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that came to me from Sandra Dennis in Kitchener, signed by 50 people.

"To Premier Bob Rae and Health minister Ruth Grier:

"We, the undersigned, residents of a long-term care facility in Ontario, spouses, other family members, friends and interested parties need your help.

"Many couples whose combined income is needed for the spouse in a long-term care facility and the spouse still residing independently in the community will be unable to continue paying the new rates, which were recently increased 41% or $376.18 per month. Single and widowed residents are also affected by increases.

"Also, we are worried about the reduction of the hours of nursing care. We believe the reduction jeopardizes the safety and wellbeing of the residents.

"Consequently, more health care dollars may be spent to cover the cost of any repercussions from the reduction. We are proud Canadians and desperately need your help regarding these two serious matters."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here sent to me by Peter Williamson from the Williamson GM dealer in Uxbridge.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board decision to increase the assessment rates to over 27,000 Ontario employers in excess of 25%, to 90,000 in excess of 10% and to over two thirds of Ontario business in excess of 3% will cost jobs; and

"Whereas the WCB ignored the responsible plan from the business community; and

"Whereas the WCB did not consult with business before making this reckless decision; and

"Whereas the WCB chair, Mr O. Di Santo, cast the deciding vote to allow this irresponsible tax grab,

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

"That the Ontario government roll back WBC assessment rates, accept the business solution and demand the full resignation of WCB chair Mr Di Santo."

There are a lot of people who have problems with the Workers' Compensation Board, including injured workers out there. Something needs to be done.

TUITION FEES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of young people concerned about tuition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP promised throughout many election campaigns to eliminate tuition fees for college and university students; and

"Whereas the NDP broke this election promise in its first year in office; and

"Whereas, since the NDP took office, they have already raised tuition fees by 22% and are planning to raise tuition fees by an additional 14% over the next two years" -- that turned out to be 20%, by the way -- "and

"Whereas the NDP government has cut over $250 million in funding to colleges and universities, forcing many institutions to raise non-tuition student fees to make up for the missing revenue; and

"Whereas the government has cut the student grants program for post-secondary students and replaced it with a smaller loans program; and

"Whereas everyone agrees that we need to encourage students to become more highly trained and skilled through post-secondary education to ensure that our province can compete in the changing economy; and

"Whereas student unemployment is at an all-time high, double-digit levels already, leaving further education as the only hope for real jobs for our young people,

I agree with these young people and I affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have two similar petitions from different areas of my riding. I'll only read the one into the record.

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

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

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

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

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Liberal Bill 45.

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

I'm affixing my signature to both petitions.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition here signed by the owner, staff and patrons of Main West Brew in Hamilton expressing their opposition to the tax on beer and wine produced at brew-your-own premises.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP promised during the election campaign to protect agricultural areas surrounding Metropolitan Toronto for future development; and

"Whereas the NDP demanded during the last provincial election campaign that provincially owned land in the Pickering area known as Seaton should be used only to build affordable housing;" and I remember that, "and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to sell land in the Pickering area for private development because of its sagging revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to stop its sale of the Pickering lands or call an election," which I much favour, "to measure the public's opinion of this mismanaged revenue scheme."

I affix my signature to this in full agreement.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

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

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

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

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

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

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

I've signed this petition.

LAP DANCING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which has been signed by a number of residents in my riding and it states:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the ruling on lap dancing in strip bars. We feel it's a violation of any code of morality or decency. We want steps taken to overturn this decision."

I present the petition on behalf of my constituents.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my name.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Premier, Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The federation wishes to indicate its objection to the decision by the province not to grandfather firearms acquisition certificates and safety courses. The federation requests that only first-time gun purchasers be required to take the federal firearms safety course and examination.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Premier, Bob Rae, the Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by 97 people from Orillia, Oro Station, Coldwater, Washago and Port Severn.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

On motion by Mrs Marland, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 145,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act / Projet de loi 145, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Mississauga South: short comments.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This bill prevents the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto from passing a bylaw which would prevent cabs licensed by municipalities outside of the Metropolitan area from conveying physically, emotionally or mentally handicapped people from a point in the Metropolitan area to any point outside the Metropolitan area.

The bill is a response to the decision of Metro Toronto council to terminate its exemption for accessible taxis in the Metro bylaw which prohibits taxis which are licensed by municipalities outside Metro Toronto from picking up passengers in Metro. The exemption for accessible taxis is needed to ensure safe and timely transit services for disabled people who live outside Metropolitan Toronto but work, attend school or require services in Metro.

Accessible taxis supplement the accessible buses operated by regional paratransit services such as Transhelp in Peel region. Disabled residents of Peel make 30% of their trips to and from Metro in accessible taxis rather than Transhelp buses. There is a shortage of accessible taxis within Metropolitan Toronto,

whereas some municipalities such as the regional municipality of Peel have made excellent progress in the acquisition of accessible taxis.

Metro's accessible taxis will not be able to provide the services needed by the disabled persons from other municipalities. Moreover, with the need and demand for more accessible taxis in Metro, the bylaw exemption did not pose any risk to the business success of Metro Toronto's cab companies.

I hope the government will give my private member's bill a high priority in order to avoid the impending transit crisis for disabled residents of the municipalities surrounding Metro Toronto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Government House Leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The 36th order.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The 36th order: second reading, Bill 143,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards. Mr Philip.

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order regarding Bill 143, which is formally entitled "An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards."

The government, as you know, just introduced this bill on Tuesday of this week, two days ago, to replace Bill 77 which was originally introduced for first reading on July 22, 1993.

The major difference between these two bills is that Bill 143 also deals with a totally separate and different matter, and that is that it amends the Education Act in relation to French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton.

My concern is with the form of Bill 143. I feel this bill goes beyond the generally accepted form for legislation and is using an omnibus format that is inconsistent with the practice of omnibus bills.

The sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states that, "Speakers have expressed deep concern about the use of omnibus bills." Omnibus bills are generally accepted to be bills that demand a decision on a number of quite different although related subjects. However, the only thing the Education Act and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act have in common is that they affect the same geographical area. Otherwise, these two statutes are not related subjects. One deals with restructuring of municipal and local government in Ottawa-Carleton; the other deals with the restructuring of the French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton.

School boards are autonomous from municipalities and as such these two issues should be separated in two different issues.

I also want to read from a debate which took place in the House of Commons in 1988 over the Canada free trade agreement. At that particular time, this same point of order was raised by several members. I want to refer to certain portions of that, which referred back to Mr Speaker Lamoureux, who on January 26, 1971, said:

"However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the honourable member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital 'O' and a capital 'B.' But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint."

Mr Speaker, in this particular instance, as you may know, over the past half-year since Bill 77 was introduced, the varying political parties of this Legislature have talked about their acceptance of Bill 77. Some speculate that there may be closure moved on this particular bill, and I believe that is a reasonable expectation for the government to assume may be required of it in order to carry this bill through.

If that is the case and we combine the concern of previous British parliamentary institutions with our now standing orders, which were changed, as you may remember, two years ago, where it allows the government under standing order 46(

c) to move a time allocation motion after three sessional days on second reading have been considered, that means that we could in effect have the government move an omnibus bill for the good of the government of Ontario and include everything from A to Z within that bill and allow this Legislature three days to debate all of those matters and vote for them in one lot. It may be of advantage to members of the Legislature, because quite frankly we'd probably only get a week or two of sittings, and that might be acceptable to a lot of us. Notwithstanding that, this bill does not go to that extent, obviously, but it does introduce two very different matters which we are to consider there.

Another parliamentary principle which you would not have to rule on at this point in time if in fact you found against my particular argument would be a request which I may make at a later date that the two issues be separated on second reading so that we could have a vote on these two very important matters, ie, one on the general thrust of the legislation which is being put forward by this government to restructure the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton, and on the other hand the very different matter of the restructuring of the French-language school boards in Ottawa-Carleton.

There are approximately 18,000 students who will be affected by the restructuring of the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school boards. In a meeting which I had yesterday with officials of the Ministry of Education and Training, they indicated to me that this

section of the bill was not an urgent matter to deal with. That was their message to me.

It appears to me that adding together the repartee that has existed between the opposition parties and the government party over the past six months with regard to this bill along with the fact that the Education Act amendments which deal with French-language school boards have been introduced only two days ago, which gives neither me nor my colleagues in the opposition the opportunity to go back to our constituencies and allow us enough time to talk to those 18,000 parents or their representatives, not only the trustees but the other people in the community, the parents of those 18,000 students, quite frankly we are left in a conundrum, in terms of knowing the arguments which may be put forward, as to whether or not we should vote for this particular bill on second reading.

I am talking about the French-language school board part of the bill.

I think that the pacing of this legislation is disastrous. It is unfair to the people that are involved in it to ask members of this Legislature to decide on the outcome of these particular school boards in a period of two days and expect us to come back in the Legislature in two days and be able to make our decision on second reading.

I also want to say that the Speaker, as I understand the parliamentary rules, has the option of dividing issues on second reading. I must add, though, Mr Speaker, in fairness to you, that no Speaker to my knowledge in Canada has taken that option to date. But I encourage you to consider that if in fact you rule against me in terms of allowing this bill to proceed as it has been presented to the Legislature today.

I believe it would have been much better for the government to continue on with Bill 77 and not proceed with Bill 143 and then introduce another bill to deal with the separation of the two French-language school boards away from the amalgamated school board, as they have it now. That would permit proper hearings, proper consultation etc to deal with that. Quite frankly, as I now stand I am probably in favour of the separation of those school boards because it's not working at the present time.

The issue is also complicated by the fact that one of the two school boards is under trusteeship at the present time, although there is a hope by the Ministry of Education and Training that this problem will be resolved in the very near future.

I would hope that through our parliamentary process, if in fact I am ruled against in terms of Bill 143, we will have the opportunity to travel to Ottawa in order to hear various people talk about these two bills.

If we go at the present time on the French-language school boards issue, we will hear people talking about the trusteeship. We will not be hearing them talk about whether or not these two boards should be under an umbrella French-language school board for Ottawa-Carleton or a Catholic school board and a public school board under the French sector in Ottawa-Carleton.

So I think the timing is ill in a political sense, but I also believe that the government should be restricted to stay to its course which it had previously put forward on July 22. I believe that their notice to the francophone community in Ottawa-Carleton is inadequate in terms of allowing them time to contact me, my other colleagues from the Ottawa-Carleton area, the other members of this Legislature, to let them know what their feelings are about this very important issue for 18,000 students in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the member for Carleton. He brings a very interesting perspective. Does the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs want to react to the same point of order?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): On the same point of order, and I'll be brief, the bill that we have before us deals with the restructuring of Ottawa-Carleton. It's based on the Kirby report and on other studies that have gone on before, to find ways in which the Ottawa-Carleton region could be managed in a more efficient way and a more representative way.

In Kirby, what we have is a clear call for a study to look at the governance, if you want, of school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As a result of Kirby, the Minister of Education took Mr Kirby's recommendation and in fact acceded to that recommendation. The Minister of Education and Training requested that a study be taken and indeed Mr Bourns of Peat Marwick Thorne had been appointed on May 10, 1993, to undertake that study, the study again coming from the recommendation on which this bill is based.

Mr Bourns released his final report in November 1993, and in his report he recommended that the existing Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board be dissolved and that the two existing sectors become individual boards at the earliest possible time. That is precisely what has been done.

The Ministry of Education consulted extensively. Mr Bourns consulted extensively in Ottawa-Carleton. Indeed, as you know, the rationale for including this amendment in Bill 77 is that, first of all, Mr Bourns did this in response to the Kirby recommendations. But also, ward boundaries for school boards must follow municipal wards, and the municipal wards won't be established until royal assent of this bill. It makes absolutely logical and common sense to combine these two issues, the issues of the restructuring of both the municipal and the educational system under one bill.

They come from the same report that was commissioned by the government, and I urge, Mr Speaker, that you rule that this bill is in order.

The Acting Speaker: We have a number of points of view here. I would beg the House to have a five-minute recess to look over the potential aspects of this bill. This House will now stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1524 to 1534.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the member for Carleton for bringing his concerns to the Speaker. I also want to thank the minister for his participation in debating the particular point of order. We find, however, with all due consideration, that it is an omnibus bill that indeed is in order and we will be proceeding with Bill 143 as it is provided by the minister. We do not feel, and I do not feel, the Chair should dictate to any cabinet member what should be in an omnibus bill.

Mr Philip moved second reading of the following bill:

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The minister now has the floor to debate Bill 143.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I rise to present our views, the views of the government, on second reading of Bill 143,

an act which will reform the regional government and French-language school boards in the region of Ottawa-Carleton.

Among the main features of the legislation are direct election of a regional council, to be in place in time for the 1994 civic elections; regional responsibility for policing under a regional police services board; a new role for a regional council in acquiring land for economic development purposes.

Resolution of the regional policing issue is long overdue. A large region such as Ottawa-Carleton needs and deserves a more coordinated approach to policing. It is also a question of fairness. This bill will help ensure that policing costs are fairly distributed across the tax base of the entire region and that all taxpayers contribute.

In addition, this bill will give the region an enhanced new role in economic development. Specifically, the region will have exclusive authority to acquire industrial, commercial and institutional lands for economic development purposes. The assignment of this authority to regional council is based on the recognition that Ottawa-Carleton is one economic community of interest.

One part of the legislation which has caused considerable concern is that local mayors will no longer sit on regional council. I've received letters and suggestions from the area mayors and I congratulate them on trying to find solutions to this issue.

However, this regional council is responsible for over $1 billion a year in expenditures and we feel that electors are entitled to a regional governing structure comprised entirely of representatives who are directly accountable to them. Because there is a great disparity in the size of the municipalities in this area and because there are 11 mayors in the region, unlike other regions, representation by population can only be achieved when mayors no longer sit on this body.

There are many supporters of this approach, including Dave Bartlett, the author of the previous study on the future of Ottawa-Carleton; Claude Bennett, the former Progressive Conservative Minister of Municipal Affairs; the former and current chairs of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade; the mayor and council of the city of Ottawa; the Ottawa Citizen; and the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Citizens' Associations, not to mention numerous business people in the various communities who I've heard from.

This bill replaces Bill 77 which was introduced in the last session of the Legislature. This bill is being reintroduced because we have a number of additions to it. Some of these were necessary because the passage of the original bill was delayed. Because of this delay, we've been able to incorporate some of the education recommendations of the Bourns study which was originally proposed by Graeme Kirby in his final report on Ottawa-Carleton.

New provisions have been introduced to deal with the operation of Ottawa-Carleton's French-language school board. The existing regulatory power to dissolve and create French-language school boards is being clarified and a few minor additions are being made in order to deal with the special circumstances of Ottawa-Carleton.

There are provisions for the transfer of trustees, property, employees and assets and any other matters which may arise as a result of the creation of the new boards.

We have added to the existing police-related provisions the establishment of a regional police planning committee which is intended to begin work shortly on integrating the local municipal forces. We have extended the date for amalgamation of the three existing police forces to take place on or by January 1, 1997, and we've clarified the region's authority to phase in any changes in costs for policing.

I'm pleased to announce today that the regional municipality will receive, and I've just signed it this morning, a $70,000 special assistance grant from the province to assist in a study to determine the present and future communication system needs of the regional police service established by this bill.

My staff informed the regional chair's office of this grant earlier today, since I wasn't able to reach him personally. This grant is intended to assist in only the first step of the amalgamation process, and other assistance, I can assure you, will be provided once further costs are known.

Provisions have been added to the bill which will ensure that the 1994 municipal and school board elections run smoothly. The Ontario Municipal Board is being given authority to make changes to the electoral areas of wards of school boards as a result of the changes to local, municipal or regional wards.

Finally, the street vending provisions from the previous bill have been corrected.

The popular sentiment in Ottawa-Carleton is that the region is vastly overgoverned, and streamlining is urgently needed.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton have waited a long time for this legislation. In the past several years, there have been three separate studies on the future of regional government in this area, most recently the Kirby commission, and the time has now come to act.

I ask that members of the House approve this legislation and allow it to pass expeditiously so that the new regional government is in effect for the 1994 civic elections. Delay of this legislation is already creating some difficulties for the region's clerks in terms of deadlines. Candidates for regional positions have already been inconvenienced by the delays in registration. The bottom line is that the time is here to end the uncertainty in Ottawa-Carleton and allow the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton to participate equally with other citizens in this province in the 1994 civic elections.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and members of the House for any contributions they will be making to this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Questions or comments?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I guess what we're dealing with here today is a vision of municipal government. The provincial government has a certain vision of municipal government, and I think through this debate today and next week and hopefully through committee meetings -- I don't know exactly what the minister has in mind. I'm not sure if he made any comments in that regard, but I do hope that at the end of the day, at the end of second reading, there will be an opportunity to have this bill debated in committee, because certainly there are a great number of people who have an interest in the vision of municipal government, particularly in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

I must say that this is being watched right across Ontario because this is viewed, I think, as being a bit of a forerunner of certainly this government's idea of municipal government, not only in Ottawa-Carleton but perhaps in Metropolitan Toronto, perhaps in the Hamilton region, perhaps in London, perhaps right across this province.

The vision this government has is of a regional government that is distinct from the local councils, an entirely distinct level of government -- if you will, a fourth level of government -- so that the region is quite distinct from the local municipal councils and there's no linkage between the two of them.

This is not a new model. This is a model that was attempted some time ago in the city of Winnipeg. It failed, and it failed miserably. It resulted in all sorts of problems, disputes between the local council and the regional council, and ultimately led to the demise of the local council so that now in the city of Winnipeg there's just one council, period. That's the route we're going with this particular government's proposal and I think that's what should be debated in the committee.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I too would implore the minister to have hearings on this matter, because local government is a very important affair to local people. It's awfully important to proceed with changes that are accepted by the local people or you proceed to have situations, conflicts, that are never forgotten. I think we have that situation in Haldimand-Norfolk. The minister has just recently visited there and agreed to a review to give people the opportunity to voice their opinions and make suggestions on changes that are perceived to be needed by many, many people, and perhaps a majority in that particular region.

It's so important to have acceptance of changes. The previous speaker mentioned that the system had been tried before, but I want to point out that in the county system of government the government changed the system, had direct election and had the counties divided into districts for electoral purposes with no membership from the local councils.

From 1898 to 1906 it did not work. It was a complete and dismal failure. It caused tremendous conflict between the local councils and the upper tier, and it was changed. It was a very needed and improved change when they went back to the old system. I agree that a combination of direct election with representation from area councils is needed for liaison back to the councils for a reminder of the important services. That's based on the fact that services at the upper tier are indeed municipal services rendered on behalf of area municipalities.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to clarify one point. The minister talked about delay with regard to this legislation. Everybody in Ontario should understand that there hasn't been one minute of delay on the part of any of the opposition parties to date. This bill was introduced for first reading on July 22 and took all of a period of about two minutes to pass on July 22, 1993.

This government chose not to debate this bill during the fall session, even though we sat for 60 or 70 days. The allegation that there's been delay may be true, but all of that delay must lie at the feet of the government at this point in time. I was anxious to debate this in the fall; I was ready to debate it in the fall; I was ready to debate it in December. The government did not see fit that this was a priority to debate until today.

I am further chagrined that they would introduce at the very last moment a brand-new concept into this bill, and that is the creation of the French-language public school board and the French-language Catholic school board. As I said in my point of order, I am very, very sorry that the people who use those systems, the parents of the 18,000 students who use those systems, will not have an adequate time to respond to this bill and will be grouped in with another agenda which has been deemed, on the government's part, to be urgent.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to say to the minister with regard to his introductory comments to the bill that I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of people around the Ottawa area especially with regard to the educational component of this bill, and I can say that most of the people I met with, actually all, are very much in agreement with trying to deal with this. I think most of us recognize that there is a very difficult situation in terms of the public and separate portion of the French-language school boards in Ottawa, where you had a board structured in such a way that you basically had three boards.

The people I've dealt with in the Ottawa community, the students, some teachers I happen to know there, as well as the people in administration and some of the people concerned, have been looking to the government, not only our government but actually to the government before us, the Peterson government, to move on this, because it's really quite a difficult situation they find themselves in.

I just want to say to the minister, on behalf of the people I spoke to in the Ottawa-Carleton area, that they're very much in favour of moving ahead in the direction we're going right now with this bill, to deal with that particular component, the educational component of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs has two minutes in response.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Don Mills was quite correct. This does show, and the debate will show, a vision. We do have a vision for municipal government in this province, namely, as my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand has mentioned, that we recognize that each municipality is unique. That is why I was with my honourable opposition critic from the Liberal Party in the Haldimand-Norfolk area to see if we could come up with some solutions of governance that apply to that area. I'm sure he would agree that the solutions that will come out of there will be quite different probably than the solutions proposed by the various studies in Ottawa-Carleton.

It's also a vision that in a democratic process you have to have some connection between representation and population. In Ottawa-Carleton, unlike any other region, you have municipalities that range in size from half a million people to some 1,200 people. To have one vote per one mayor for each of those is simply undemocratic. There's no other region that is quite like that, and therefore this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances, a unique solution stemming from a series of studies looking at that particular situation.

There is a vision. There's a vision that each region is different, that each part of the province is different, and I think the members will see that as we bring in our legislation based on the Sewell commission.

There's also a vision that municipalities have a role in economic development. That is why the board of trade and members of the board of trade in Ottawa-Carleton have been so supportive of this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 143?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'm disappointed that the point of order from my honourable friend from Carleton was ruled out of order, for the simple reason that this very important bill we are about to discuss not only encompasses municipal government restructuring but is also affecting school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Not being an expert in the education field, our party's critic for Education, the member for York North, will be addressing the education part of this bill.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): York-Mackenzie.

Mr Grandmaître: It's been changed to York-Mackenzie.

The minister talked about the vision of local government, not only in Ottawa-Carleton but right across this province. He was saying that we have 817 unique governments in Ontario, that everybody is unique. The people of Ottawa-Carleton were asking the ministry for a simple government, understandable by the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton, and what we are faced with today is a major omnibus bill amending the Education Act and also the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

The minister talked about democracy. I would like to tell the minister that if we live in a real democracy in the province of Ontario, he will adhere to the point of order from the member for Carleton and split this bill in two.

I would ask that this very important bill be addressed by the Liberal Education critic and that he should be given 90 minutes to discuss the education part of this bill. I would ask the consent of this House that the Liberal critic be given 90 minutes to address the education part of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Is the honourable member making a formal request? Do we have unanimous consent that the Education critic be given 90 minutes? Agreed? No, we don't have unanimous consent.

Mr Grandmaître: The minister was the first one to say no, and he calls it democracy in the province of Ontario. With what the minister just did, he will force members of this House who agree with a number of sections of this bill pertaining to the municipal part of it, also the education part of it, to vote against Bill 143 as a whole. It's very unfair on your part, Minister, not to split the bill in two parts -- very unfair.

If I can go back to last November and December, when the minister paid thousands and thousands of dollars to advertise in our local newspapers, blaming the opposition for stalling Bill 77, it's very unfair. It proves today, with Bill 143, that the government wasn't ready to move on Bill 77.

That's the stalling tactic they use: They blame the opposition. This is the first time in 10 years that I've seen a majority government blaming the opposition, a majority government that has the power to -- and it used that power with Bill 100, and Bill 40, if I'm not mistaken: It put a time allocation. If the minister had been serious back in November or December, I'm sure he would have moved on it, because people in Ottawa-Carleton are as anxious as the minister is to have some changes at the regional level.

We are the only municipality, as it was pointed out by the minister, without a regional police force. I happen to believe we need a regional police force, but I will be forced to vote against it because he's removing the mayors. I'll be getting into the details of the different sections of the bill.

As pointed out by the minister, Ottawa-Carleton is unique. You've got to go back to 1968, when Ottawa-Carleton was created by the then Conservative government under the leadership of Darcy McKeough. We were unique, and he recognized that he couldn't put in place a regional police force, for a number of reasons.

At that time, we had 17 municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton, which was scaled down to 11 municipalities. Some 75% of our population was receiving police services from the OPP -- mind you, free of charge. That's one of the reasons regional police weren't instituted back in 1969.

In the Ottawa-Carleton regional act, there was a little clause that said, "This government has to be reviewed after five years," so in 1975, Dr Henry Mayo was asked to conduct an evaluation of the services in Ottawa-Carleton. Dr Mayo came out with 27 different recommendations. Not one of those recommendations was ever implemented. I shouldn't say ever implemented; some of them are in Bill 143 and also in the former Bill 178.

Back in 1987, we decided, a new government, that we should have another study, because our 11 municipalities were on side that regional government in the Ottawa-Carleton area needed to be revamped. We went on with David Bartlett, and David Bartlett did a reasonably good job, I would say a good job. In 1990, to complete the David Bartlett report, Katherine Graham looked at the possibility of creating regional wards, which was a good report.

The intention of the government in 1989 was to put these two reports together and have people from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and local people from Ottawa-Carleton look at them and come up with a reasonable approach. I think it would have been much more appreciated and successful if the results of the Bartlett and the Graham report, not the Kirby report but the Katherine Graham report, had been put together to reach a consensus.

But while we were talking about Bill 32, the bill that permitted the regional chair to be elected at large in Ottawa-Carleton, a rat came out, and that was one-tier government. There was only one municipality in Ottawa-Carleton interested in one-tier government, and that was the city of Ottawa, which I represent part of. I represent three mayors in this bill, and those three mayors don't see eye to eye, so it's very difficult for me to stand and say, "I'm in favour of this for Nepean or Kanata or Ottawa or Vanier." I look at my region globally and I want to try to be as reasonable as possible.

But when Kirby, a well-respected citizen of Ottawa-Carleton, was appointed, his mandate was to look at one-tier government, and we spent $500,000 to say no to one-tier government. I think we've spent close to $2 million in the last 18 or 20 years in Ottawa-Carleton to look at reviews, and very few things were completed or accomplished.

Talking about democracy and talking about the great support for this bill, as pointed out by the minister in his opening remarks -- he was talking about the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade with great respect. Naturally they want economic development in Ottawa-Carleton, and I support this. I support that

section of the bill. Ottawa-Carleton should have the responsibility for economic development. I support this, but at the same time I don't support other sections of the bill.

Let me talk about the