Journal des débats 1993-nov-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): For the information of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, this is the sixth time I have stood in my place calling for the ministry's attention to the need for better cooperation between the St Lawrence Parks Commission, the government and the private sector.

Since the beginning of the summer, I have tried to convince the minister and the Premier to take into consideration proposals to allow individuals to lease the closed parks in the St Lawrence Parks Commission so that tourism within Ontario can be encouraged. The government is not the only party interested in a successful tourism sector. Residents of eastern Ontario are anxious to have the parks reopened.

Last week, I saw the minister proudly urging Ontario residents to vacation in Ontario. Unfortunately, the decision deadline for the Raisin River and the Charlottenburgh parks has now passed, meaning they may be closed again next summer. Eastern Ontario residents and the visitors will not be able to vacation in these parks. This is definitely a missed opportunity.

I have requested that the minister reconsider leasing the parks to interested individuals so that eastern Ontario's economy can be revitalized and jobs for summer students made available. Since community support for these parks is high, I would ask the minister to put aside ideological opinions and do what is in the best interests of tourism in eastern Ontario and reopen the parks.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This past August, a letter was hand-delivered to the Office of the Premier. The letter concerned the government's massive rate increases for individuals in nursing homes and their impact on my constituent, Mr George Grinnell.

Mr Grinnell is a 91-year-old man facing a rate increase of 32%. Mr Grinnell lives in a four-person ward in one of the homes for the aged in my riding. My constituent's annual income is just over $16,000, yet he is being hit with this huge rate increase. With the increase, Mr Grinnell will be left with no disposable income. His entire finances will be forced to be directed towards covering the cost of his nursing home.

The government is taking advantage of those individuals who can least afford the increase and who are powerless to oppose it. Society's most vulnerable should not be forced to pay these horrific rate increases.

I would like to quote the letter that was sent to the Premier: "Is it too much to ask our politicians to use common sense to do something constructive, to listen to the people and to exhibit some decency and integrity?"

I think this is the least the people of Ontario can ask of their government. On behalf of my constituent, I urge the government to revoke these astronomical rate increases and finally for the Premier to answer his mail.

PALLIATIVE AT-HOME CARE TEAM

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Dr Julian Tudor Hart is a prominent British physician who has written papers in which he says that consumers should also become the producers of health care.

At this time of deficits and restraints, we should examine all possible ways of making such a change. In fact, it has always existed to some extent. Witness the example of diabetes, where the patient and his or her family should understand the management of insulin, in that particular case, even better than the doctor.

I'd like to mention palliative care at home as another example. With a supportive team of doctors and nurses, families gain confidence and skills in caring for their loved ones with terminal illnesses such as cancer. The management of pain control drugs and chemotherapy makes it possible to keep patients at home. It's gratifying that cost savings actually accompany more humane care.

In Scarborough, we are very proud of the Palliative At-home Care Team, a group of family physicians and nurses who have successfully brought palliative care to the community. Although the work is demanding -- six patients per full-time family physician is the optimum caseload -- there is considerable professional satisfaction, and working in a multidisciplinary team must be the way of the future. The fact that 60% of their cases die at home is actually a tribute to their effectiveness.

We trust that the Ministry of Health recognizes the many benefits and assures the continued availability of appropriate alternative funding for such community teams of carers.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): This morning, members from all three parties attended the annual lobby of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, known as OAITH. While the purpose of the lobby was to receive answers and commitments from the NDP government about its action on issues of violence towards women, what shelter workers heard instead were empty platitudes and rhetoric.

The women of OAITH expressed concern about the insensitivity of the judicial system towards victims of abuse and violence. But while the government expressed sympathy, it was this very same NDP government which this year dramatically reduced the amount of funding targeted to training and sensitizing judges and prosecutors.

When women asked the NDP to commit to permanent funding for the supervised access program, the Attorney General's evasive reply was that she was personally supportive but she couldn't "guarantee the support of treasury board."

OAITH also demanded to know why the NDP had not released funds for the down payment on pay equity promised last May -- another case of the NDP taking credit without producing the goods.

OAITH raised its deep concerns with the devastating impact of the expenditure control plan and the social contract on women in need. They brought forward concerns about delays in pay equity, the failure of Jobs Ontario, which has produced only low-paid and short-term jobs, and continuing concerns that all too often police sensitivity training is on paper only. It's time for this government to give the women of OAITH action, not words.

1340

VIOLENCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): During last Thursday's meeting of the Safe School Task Force, Liz Barkley, the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, stated her appreciation to the current Minister of Education who, unlike his predecessors, at least acknowledged that there is a serious problem of school violence. According to her, both Marion Boyd and Tony Silipo did nothing to deal with school violence. They are now the Attorney General and the Minister of Community and Social Services in charge of both justice and children.

This morning I attended the annual lobby day of the Ontario Association for Interval and Transition Houses. During the two-and-a-half-hour meeting, concerns were raised about why the NDP government is committed to zero tolerance for school violence but not for domestic violence and that this reflects in part an unacceptable limitation on the understanding of the true basis for violent acts being committed in schools. Effective intervention on behalf of children is therefore more likely to occur at this stage, before it spills over into our schools.

On behalf of OAITH, I too challenge the NDP to affirm a zero tolerance policy for domestic violence. The Attorney General cannot turn her back on supervised access programs whose funding ends in three months. The social services minister should work to amend the Children's Law Reform Act to ensure zero tolerance for domestic violence involving children and the NDP must assist children's mental health centres to provide needed services to more than 7,000 vulnerable children on waiting lists.

Children are not born violent. They learn violent behaviour and for far too many Ontario children, this is occurring within destructive home environments. While this government is trying to explain what it means by zero tolerance in the schools, perhaps it can also explain to OAITH and others its commitment to zero tolerance of domestic violence and its effect on our children.

NIAGARA FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to let you know again this year about a very special part of Ontario and that is the magic of Niagara Falls. Of course I mean the Winter Festival of Lights. Each year at this time the falls and the Niagara parks become an enchanted place, this year with the help of the magic of Disney.

This past weekend, thousands watched the wonderful Disney musical production on an outdoor stage right beside the falls. Come to Niagara Falls, stay over in one of our fine hotels, many with swimming pools for the kids, let the children enjoy the best of the holiday season, the exciting Disney displays, the lights in the park and the natural wonder of the falls in winter.

The highlight of the season will once again be New Year's Eve -- a gala celebration with great entertainers. First of all, there will be Sandra Beach for the kids, then there will be country entertainer George Fox, followed by R&B and rock musician Colin James, and then a dance band from Disney called MMC. The evening will be televised across Canada by Baton Broadcasting and it's all free. Come and enjoy the wonder of Niagara Falls's Festival of Lights.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, I know you'll agree when I say, "Poor Bob Rae." He says that everyone else is responsible for the current state of the province's affairs except himself. He whines that the media never give him a fair chance. He claims that hundreds of reporters are all conspiring against him. Poor Bob Rae.

He says that creditors and investors aren't willing to give his government a fair shake. When the province's credit rating was downgraded last week, Bob Rae said he was surprised. How could it be his fault? He's not responsible. "Don't hold me accountable," he says. Poor Bob Rae.

Even organized labour doesn't want to give Bob another chance. The split between the NDP and the OFL came as a result of the social contract and general mismanagement by the NDP government, but Bob says none of these things are his fault. He says that labour's giving him a hard time for no reason. Poor Bob Rae.

Bob Rae says everyone else is responsible, he shouldn't be held accountable, it's not his fault.

On Thursday, December 2, the people of Ontario will let Bob Rae know just who they believe is responsible and who they believe should be held accountable for the current state of this province. On December 2 I hope that the citizens of Essex South will go to the polls in a by-election and elect the outstanding Liberal candidate, Bruce Crozier, as their member for their riding. They'll send a message to poor Bob Rae.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses held its annual lobby day. This organization, which represents a network of 77 shelters and groups working to eliminate violence against women and children, is here to speak on behalf of those who are victims of violence. I would like to congratulate them on their very hard work and their dedication to truly making our society free from violence.

The focus of this year's lobby is the serious problems in our family and criminal legal system, and I would like to indicate to the Attorney General that my colleagues in the PC caucus and I strongly support the recommendations made by OAITH.

The government must look at providing adequate cultural interpretation services for women. There is a need for faster service from the support and custody order enforcement program to ensure that women do receive support more promptly. We must ensure that the Children's Law Reform Act, in its enforcement, reflects a policy of zero tolerance for violence and abuse, and there is a pressing need for the government to ensure that our judicial system is free from bias and is sensitive to the very real problems of violence against women.

I would specifically urge the government to ensure that the supervised access centres pilot project, which ends in March, 1994, is made a permanent program. I know that in my own community of Kitchener-Waterloo and Cambridge the centres have been a very successful additive to our community.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mrs Witmer: I urge the government to take immediate action.

WALKERS AND RUNNERS AROUND THE COUNTY OF ESSEX

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Today I want to praise an important volunteer group, Walkers and Runners Around the County of Essex, or WRACE for short. Almost every weekend with my son, Brett, in his jogging stroller, I join our friends in WRACE for a six- or 10-kilometre run. Not only is this great exercise and great fun, it truly is a family affair. Members who range in age from 9 to 74 compete against persons their own age, parents compete against their children, and grandparents compete against their grandchildren. WRACE events attract participants from southwestern Ontario and from the United States.

This season WRACE helped raise over $312,000 for local charities, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the downtown mission, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Cancer Society, the local Council on Aging, Citizen Advocacy, the Metropolitan General Hospital burn unit hospice and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Of course, an organization of 500 members couldn't achieve such greatness without the work of many volunteers and corporate sponsors like Culligan Water, Pepsi, the Olive Garden, Windsor Factory Supply, and the support of Windsor Police Services and its auxiliary, Rose City REACT, volunteer of the year Jim Tuite, and WRACE's driving force, Jerry Slavik. They helped over 35,000 runners and walkers cross the finish line safely this season.

To my fellow WRACE members, I want to encourage you to prepare for next season, stay in shape, register early and plan to bring a friend. You can count on Brett and me to be joining you.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, two special visitors from the National Assembly of Cambodia who are seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Tol Lah, secretary general, and Mr Niem Chou Leng, special assistant. Mr Lah will be assisting at the table during his visit to Ontario. Welcome to Ontario, Canada.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, can I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make a brief statement on the Kirkland Lake mine rescue operation that's under way?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MACASSA MINE

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The thoughts of all members today are no doubt with the families and friends of the two miners trapped since last Friday by a rockburst at the Macassa mine in Kirkland Lake. No one of us can truly know the mixture of fear, hope and anxiety running through the minds of the families as they wait for news of their loved ones. All we can do is offer our prayers and support, as much of Kirkland Lake is doing today.

The crisis has drawn that community together in a way that is common in mining towns, where everyone knows everyone else. You can be sure that the people of Kirkland Lake are close to their radios and telephones waiting for the latest news, hoping against hope that these two workers are still safe.

These families know, as families of miners have known for decades, that mining is a dangerous occupation. They know that any time they could hear the emergency alarms ring and the evacuation bells sound. The industry has made great strides with its health and safety record in recent years. However, it will never be enough to allay totally the fears of miners and their families.

I would like now to share with the House the latest news from Kirkland Lake. At this hour rescue operations continue around the clock, spearheaded by the company's own rescue team. Three Ministry of Labour mine rescue officers are on the scene as well, providing advice and backup on a 24-hour basis. The rescue effort is proceeding diligently and professionally, given the fact that there is a tremendous amount of rubble and debris to overcome and the safety of the mine rescue teams themselves to consider.

1350

Two Ministry of Labour ground control engineers are en route to Kirkland Lake to begin an investigation into the cause of the accident. All work in other areas of the mine has come to a halt.

As the Minister of Labour, I have often been called upon to defend the money and time spent on occupational health and safety. Unfortunately, it is only at times like this that some people finally realize how valuable that investment is in terms of reducing workplace accidents and saving lives.

Although miners are famous for never voicing optimism during a rescue operation for fear it may turn out the other way, we are all silently hoping for a quick and happy end to the search. May the families of those two very brave and courageous miners be surrounded by comfort and care in these anxious hours.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): First, I'd like to thank the Minister of Labour for his kind thoughts for all my constituents in Kirkland Lake and especially the families involved and the miners who are trapped in the Macassa mine.

It is a very sad day in Kirkland Lake. It's something that I guess always hangs over us in mining communities. In northern Ontario, there are not too many things that we do in terms of our occupations. We are fairly limited to resource extraction and jobs that service the resources. We know that mining is a very dangerous occupation for sure. We have been wonderfully blessed with the resources in northern Ontario and have developed an expertise to exploit that resource, to develop that resource and sell those minerals around the world and have developed quite a reputation for doing that. But at the same time, we understand the risks involved in developing that resource. Mining is not as safe as it should be, and we must always endeavour to try to make it safer.

This is the third incident of a rockburst in the last few years. It certainly concerns me. I think the industry, government and all of us are going to have to work more diligently towards finding ways of detecting rockbursts so we can prevent these types of occurrences from happening.

I just wish the rescue operators well. They're in the mine now. They're working as volunteers on four-hour shifts. There's a lot of material that has to be removed there to recover these men. We wish them well, and we wish their families well.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for his comments this afternoon.

Our prayers and our thoughts are with the community of Kirkland Lake this afternoon as the search continues for the two miners who are trapped as a result of the explosion last Friday. Our sympathy is with the friends and the families of the men, who we know are experiencing anxiety as the rescue efforts continue.

As has already been indicated, underground mining does present a very special risk to the men and the women who have earned their living in this very important Canadian industry. The inherent danger in working two kilometres below the earth's surface is a situation which these workers must deal with on a daily basis.

We extend a special prayer to mine manager Rudi Rucker and to the rescuers who are working around the clock with a tremendous effort to reach the area where the men are trapped. We pray that these individuals will be granted the strength and the courage to continue these efforts.

It is at times like this that we in this House do forgo our partisan positioning on political issues and pull together, as we have today, in any way possible to assist a community and families and friends who are in despair. Our thoughts are with Kirkland Lake and all of northeastern Ontario as their rescue efforts continue. We wish them well and Godspeed in these endeavours.

ONTARIO PARENT COUNCIL

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Three months ago, I announced the launch of the Ontario Parent Council. I did this because we believe the system has to be more accountable to the people it serves. We also believe that parents must be given a formal voice on education issues at the provincial level.

Public response to the council's launch was excellent. In the weeks following the announcement, ministry staff were flooded with inquiries. We had more than 3,000 requests for information and received more than 1,000 applications for membership to the council. From the hundreds of qualified applicants, 18 parents have now been selected to form Ontario's first Ontario Parent Council.

Three of the members have been appointed by parents' groups with a long record of service in Ontario. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario and the Federation of Francophone Parents' Associations of Ontario have each appointed one member to the council.

The other 15 places on the parent council have been filled from applications submitted. External selection committees were created in each of the six regions of the province. These committees, composed of parents and other community members, each chose one member for the council. I have used the applications received to select an additional nine members to reflect as closely as possible the diversity of Ontario's population.

Although selecting just 18 members wasn't easy, we now have a council of deeply committed parents who will work diligently in the interests of all Ontario parents.

It is my pleasure to introduce the members of Ontario's first parent council. They are with us in the members' gallery this afternoon. They are: Gisèle Acheson, from Navan; Cecilia Bruno, from Sault Ste Marie; Richard Burke, of London; Norma Coleman, from Tecumseh; Peter Farlinger, from Desboro; Carole Lamoureux, from Chelmsford; Jacqueline Latter, who has agreed to be the first chair of the council and is from Toronto; Leslie Linklater is from Moose Factory; Norma McGuire is from Etobicoke; Glenn Meadows is from North Bay; Valerie Mills-Daly, from Kenora: Malcolm Ng is from Richmond Hill; Spiros -- I'm not going to say this correctly; I'm going to try my best, and I apologize to Spiros -- Papathanasakis is from Toronto; Francesca Piredda is from Ottawa; Barbara Smith is from Markham; John Storm is from St Catharines; Mervis White is from Scarborough; and Richard Zelinka is from London. I ask the members of the parent council to stand.

As Minister of Education and Training, I have received a clear message from parents that they are concerned about how and what children are being taught. They want a greater say in how their children are educated. The Ontario Parent Council will help make that possible. As it finds new and better ways to communicate with parents, the council will be an access point for parents to get more involved in the education system.

As an advisory body, the council will give me recommendations on education policies, programs and issues. The council will be free to study whatever issues it deems important. From time to time I will ask the council to address topics of particular interest to the province.

I have given the lead responsibility for the council to my associate minister, Mike Farnan, who is himself a parent with two children in Ontario's education system. We both look forward to meeting regularly with the Ontario Parent Council and hearing its views.

It is essential that we hear from parents when we make decisions about education of their children. Ontarians want an education system that is more accountable to the public it serves, and one of the ways we can do that is by listening to what parents have to say.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Later this afternoon I will introduce for first reading an act to amend the revenue enforcement statute law, which contains provisions to improve compliance with a number of tax statutes.

Most important among these are measures that address an issue of great concern to many of us in this House: the growing illegal trade in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Today we are introducing strong steps to fight this criminal activity.

I would like to highlight for my fellow members what these measures will consist of.

First, we are increasing the penalties against people who trade in cigarettes on which provincial tax is not paid. Those convicted of possession for sale of 50 or more cartons of such unmarked cigarettes will now be liable to pay 10 times the amount of the unpaid tax, up from the current three times, and, for the first time, those convicted of possessing unmarked cigarettes in those quantities may go to jail for up to two years, the maximum period allowed under provincial law.

1400

To target people selling illegal cigarettes on the street, anyone in possession of five or more cartons of unmarked cigarettes will face a fine of $300 to $10,000 as well as seizure of the product, measures which already apply to those who trade in larger amounts.

Second, provincial officials will be given the power to stop and search any vehicle where there are reasonable grounds to believe it is being used to move illegal tobacco. We are taking this step because we know that non-commercial vehicles such as cars and vans are being used to distribute smuggled cigarettes. Right now, there is very little be can do to control that.

In order to make these measures as effective as possible, we will be adding investigators and inspectors to the tax division of the Ministry of Finance as well as increasing police presence in those areas where the problem is most serious. These measures give the province greater power to police the trade in cigarettes on which no provincial tax is paid.

But there are very real limits to what we can do. Smuggling unmarked cigarettes into Ontario from outside the country, as opposed to selling them here, is a federal crime, not a provincial one. We do not have the power to arrest smugglers as they cross the border. Nor can we investigate possible illegalities on first nations reserves.

I say this to remind my fellow members that this is a very complex issue involving provincial police forces in Ontario and Quebec and authorities at the federal level here and in the United States, in New York state and among the first nations. My cabinet colleagues and I are eager to work together with our federal counterparts to explore further areas where our governments can jointly tackle this growing problem.

The illegal sale of cigarettes is not a victimless crime. It steals revenues that are supposed to pay for valuable services such as health care, education, training and other programs. These are services that all of us in Ontario benefit from and that all of us should contribute to by paying our fair share.

Smuggling creates fear in communities and it creates a criminal infrastructure that opens our province to illegal trade in guns, drugs and other controlled substances. That is why this province is today introducing stronger measures to fight this problem and why we continue to look for ways to combat this illegal, criminal activity.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House for their full cooperation in speeding the passage of this bill so that these measures become law as soon as possible.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Finance. Just to put it into a context that I think we're all familiar with, a legislative committee is dealing with this issue. I think it's fair to say that the testimony there would confirm that the province loses between $2 billion and $4 billion a year in revenue as a result of various things in the underground economy. Obviously today we're dealing with one important subaspect of that, and that is the issue of illegal cigarettes.

The most shocking testimony, I think, to our committee was last Thursday, when the OPP indicated that the nightly profit on the illegal sale of cigarettes, just from cigarettes that cross Cornwall each night, is roughly a million dollars. We're dealing with an extremely serious matter. As my colleague the member for Cornwall, Mr Cleary, has said often here, there is the financial matter and there is the safety matter. Many of the residents in the Cornwall area have felt a threat, really, to their safety.

It is an issue that is necessary to deal with. It is an enormous issue dealing with the revenues of the province far beyond just the issue of cigarette smuggling.

Having said that, the proposals today are a small but necessary and important step forward. As I read the proposals, and we will see the bill later, they deal with increased fines, with stepping up the patrolling, with allowing our enforcement officers more leeway in investigations. It is important but, I think we should recognize, just a first step in dealing with what now all of us, I believe, regard as a major problem.

I heard the statement today earlier by the federal Minister of Finance, who indicates that the underground economy is one of the key reasons why the federal revenues are down. So while we will be looking to be very much supportive of the proposals today, I think it is also important that the government recognizes that we need to deal with this in a comprehensive way.

I think fundamental to that is there is no doubt that people who are normally law-abiding citizens are avoiding paying taxes. We have to come to grips with that, because we are on the edge of a large number of our citizens finding that it is quite acceptable in the way they conduct their day-to-day activities to avoid taxes.

We will now look, as I say, at the legislation. We'll be as supportive as we can as we see the legislation. The all-party legislative committee -- that was, if I do say so, the Liberal Party initiative, supported by the other parties -- will be coming forward I hope with additional recommendations for dealing with the underground economy.

ONTARIO PARENT COUNCIL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in response to the statement by the Minister of Education and Training. I was pleased to be at the session earlier today when the members of the council were introduced. I think it's fair to say that they have a very daunting task indeed.

But certainly all of us who had a chance to meet with them and to talk with them would recognize that they're looking upon their new responsibilities with a great deal of determination and I think with some interesting ideas, imaginative ideas, innovative ideas, to try to help all of us in ensuring that there is even greater involvement of parents within our school system.

We will have an opportunity later in this session to deal with the omnibus bill and to debate some of the more specific issues around the creation of the parent council. But I hope one of the things that the council will really look at is in using its regular meetings to get around the province and not to see itself as being fixed here in Toronto but really getting out, because if it can play its role well and effectively, I think it is going to be through liaising with parents in various parts of the province.

The minister noted the number of individuals who've written, phoned, expressed interest in the council and the number who had actually applied to be on the council itself. I think that is indicative -- certainly to any of us who are out there meeting with parents, and the royal commission I think would echo that as well -- that this is a very, very important area and the Ontario Parent Council can perform enormous service by doing its job well. I'm sure, in looking at the names of those who are there, that they will do that. We look forward to working with them and working with the minister to make our education system even better.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Briefly, I wish to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education and indicate that on behalf of the member for Waterloo North and the member for London North, who co-chaired about a year of consultation, of listening to parents and listening to those involved in the educational community talk about what they saw was wrong with the system and changes they wanted to make -- and then the publication of the document New Directions, Volume Two, on learning in Ontario.

One of the key recommendations of that document -- and let me say this, by the way, that since this new Minister of Education has taken over, contrary to the rest of the rascals that ignored just about everything the public was saying and New Directions said, this minister has adopted some of those, for example, greater accountability through testing so that we understand how our kids are stacking up against other schools, other systems, other provinces, other countries.

We regret that it has taken a couple of years to correct some of the mismanagement of the last eight years of Liberals and NDP, but we want to say that we're very supportive. We can only hope that this government, unlike the previous Liberal government, will listen when the parents do tell it the concerns that we have. We will look forward to that.

1410

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I particularly, though, also want to respond to the statement that was made by the Treasurer in talking about cigarette smuggling and the steps that he's taken. He's forgotten a couple of the most important reasons, the two, one and two; no attack on reasons one and two, why smuggling is on the increase and why, once cigarettes get smuggled in, they are far more accessible to our youth than if they were sold legitimately, whatever the reasons.

Reason number one: Our taxes are too high. They're too high relative to all other jurisdictions. Just as businesses have to be competitive, families have to be competitive, government taxation levels have to be competitive, and in the area of cigarettes, as well as a whole host of other areas, thanks to eight years of Liberal and NDP overtaxing, we're not competitive. That's the number one reason for smuggling.

The number two reason why people cheat on their taxes --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Lowest in Canada.

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

Mr Harris: -- the number two reason is their absolute distrust and disgust with how the money is being spent. When people feel that governments are frittering their money away --

Mr White: Lower than any Tory government in Canada. Lower than Alberta.

The Speaker: The member for Durham Centre, please come to order.

Mr Harris: -- when people feel that governments are mismanaging the money that they get through taxes, then they more and more resent paying those taxes and they look for tax avoidances. Those perhaps are the two main reasons why the avoidance of paying tax on cigarettes is on the increase.

It's interesting that the Treasurer today -- at the very time in his talks on the reason why cigarette smuggling is so much on the increase, this frittering away of the dollars, this mismanagement -- came forth with his Economic Outlook and released the data on that to the finance committee. In that he indicated that virtually every indicator, every indicator that was in his budget of 1993 last spring, all the indicators were lower. They were all lower than they were there, down a full point in some cases.

That is why the bond raters think your debt projections for next year and the year after or the year after are full of hooey, that they won't stand up. In fact the only person I've seen in the country who thinks that they are even close is Paul Martin.

Paul Martin and Floyd Laughren pat each other on the back and say: "Oh Paul, it's not your fault. Don't worry about the 40-odd-billion-dollar debt." And Paul says: "Oh, it's not your fault, Floyd. It's the bond raters. They're picking on you. Your debt's okay. Your downturn's okay." We have these two brothers of debt, Paul Martin and Floyd Laughren, running around telling each other: "Oh, don't worry. It's okay."

The number two reason why there is tax avoidance, why people don't want to pay their taxes, is because they believe the government is not spending their money properly. So if you would address the obvious imbalance, Mr Treasurer, in the tax levels with other jurisdictions, if you would address your frittering away and your misspending --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East.

Mr Harris: -- and your mismanagement, if you would address that, you might find taxpayers more willing to pay their taxes.

VISITORS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, it's not customary for us to introduce people in the gallery at all times, but during ministerial statements we have generally allowed the announcement or introduction of members of boards and panels who are newly created. We had that happen again today. About a week ago, we also had the introduction of several people in the gallery who were given awards for volunteer work in recreation.

My concern is, there is nothing wrong with the introduction, but in each case, as has occurred at least in the last half dozen cases, the people who have been introduced and who have received the applause of the Legislative Assembly have been conducted from this assembly before either the Liberals or the Conservatives could reply to the statement which introduced them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, it would seem that, if they are to be received appropriately in the chamber during the ministerial statements or otherwise, there ought to be equal time for us to extend to them not only our greetings and best wishes on their endeavours, but to set out, from the opposition's point of view, some of the jobs or tasks that will be at hand for them to conduct, as either members of the parents' board, as those people appeared today, or others who are confronted with some very interesting problems that are affecting us in Ontario.

I merely state that, sir, not because I think that you can obviously chain the doors or whatever, but to bring to the attention of all people that if those things are to be done, it would seem to be equitable and reasonable to receive replies from all sides of the chamber before those people are conducted from the House.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Bruce: While he does not have a point of order, indeed what he brings to the attention of the House is something which I would consider to be a courtesy which should be extended to all members of the House.

We do, from time to time, have special visitors. Ministers take the opportunity to introduce special visitors to the House, and it would seem to be a common courtesy that those on the opposition side should have the same opportunity to greet the special visitors.

Hopefully, the point which he has brought to the attention of the House will be taken seriously by all ministers of the crown.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MACASSA MINE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The news of the Macassa accident was of course a shock to us all and I appreciate your expression of concern earlier today for the men who are trapped. I know we're all concerned that the miners still underground get out safely and return to their families, and indeed all our prayers are with them today.

Minister, as you yourself have said in the past, particularly when you were on this side of the House, as legislators we have a responsibility to ensure that whenever these accidents occur they are fully and openly investigated. You know there has been a history of accidents at the Macassa mine. My question is, what steps have you taken over the past three years to look at the ongoing problem of rockbursts and their tragic consequences?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The mining industry, as I am fairly certain the member will know, has probably made more progress than many industries in the province of Ontario, and many of the current changes and improvements in health and safety legislation are as a result of the progress made in the mining industry.

When it comes to rockbursts, some mines seem to be more prone to them than others, although even here, the rockburst activity is down in recent years. As to what the final answers may be in terms of rockburst activities, I guess we haven't got all the answers in on that as yet.

Mr Mahoney: In December 1991, you will be aware that a rockburst resulted in one fatality and one critical injury at this mine. In October 1992, a series of rockbursts, at least two, resulted in five minor injuries. Today, we're dealing with another rockburst that hopefully will only result in minor injuries as well, but we've yet to find that out. As a result of that, there have been at least those three rockbursts in that one particular mine.

Minister, it's your fourth year as the Minister of Labour. The problem of rockburst accidents at the Macassa mine and at other mines in Ontario has existed throughout your tenure as minister. As the vociferous and vigilant Labour critic, you singled out rockbursts as a major mine safety problem and it appears you are right. Mining company officials have now said that they will set up a committee to find ways to predict rockbursts so that miners can get out before the bursts occur.

The question is very simple: Why haven't you taken any action whatsoever to deal with this problem? Why have you left it up to the industry to deal with the problem alone? Why didn't you take action before another accident occurred?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the current interest and priority of this ministry, and certainly the miners involved, is trying to get out the miners who are underground and taking care of those who are trapped. That is the priority at this point in time.

Mr Mahoney: We certainly agree that this should be the priority at this point in time. The point is, Minister, that you have not lived up to the very rigorous standards that you yourself set as the critic for the Ministry of Labour.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Unbelievable. Oh, you guys stop at nothing.

Mr Mahoney: It seems to upset the Premier some here, Mr Speaker. The questions are directed at the Minister of Labour who is not living up to the standards he's set. It is your job, sir, to ensure that workplaces are safe and that everything possible is done to prevent accidents. Miners and their families need leadership, particularly now.

My question, very direct, is, will you ensure that measures are taken immediately to protect miners at risk, and will you live up to the standards that you yourself called for in the past and find a way to put an end to these tragic accidents?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not sure there can ever be enough done in terms of health and safety in the workplace, but I want to make it clear that this government has set new standards for health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario and is currently setting standards for the training and certification programs through the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, I am proud of that and we will continue to do what has to be done to protect workers in the workplace.

1420

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I understand that today the federal Minister of Finance announced the revised deficit numbers in the $44-billion to $46-billion range. The people of Ontario I think would like to know what impact that might have on the provincial budget.

You may recall that about three or four weeks ago I asked you if, when you did your revenue projections, you had taken into account any likely significant changes in the federal government's outlook. At that time, I think you indicated that the revenue shortfall you'd built in was primarily as a result of the shortfall in 1992 income tax. We have heard today an update on the numbers. I gather that the reason for the shortfall was far more than just a 1992 adjustment on income tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is simply this: Now that you have an indication from the federal government of where its position is, can you indicate to the people of Ontario what if any impact that will have on the province's finances for 1993-94?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt is quite right that the federal Minister of Finance did make a statement today that, as he put it so quaintly, the Conservative deficit for 1993-94 will be substantially over what had been anticipated and what the former Minister of Finance and Prime Minister had indicated.

I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt asks a good question. The numbers that he is talking about now are for the 1993-94 fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 1994. I have no way of knowing at this point to what extent there would be any impact on this province's revenues. We have already taken into consideration the 1992 settlements and there won't be any substantial further settlement on income tax returns for the balance of this year.

But as I indicated previously, there are still two major sources of revenue that are somewhat open to question: our retail sales taxes because of the Christmas shopping period and the corporate income taxes which are reported later in this fiscal year. At this point in time I see no reason to revise any of our projected numbers.

Mr Phillips: I gather as well that you're meeting over the next two days and that part of the discussions there will be around the capital program, the infrastructure program, I gather, based on the release you put out today.

My question is this: I know that in your update on the finances for the first six months, one way that you reduced expenditures was to reduce the capital expenditures by about $300 million, so the capital expenditures for this year, 1993-94, have been cut by about $300 million. It's about $300 million lower than it was a couple of years ago.

I gather that in the infrastructure discussions you will be discussing a matching program with the federal government that, according to the numbers I've seen, would be about $300 million. Is it your expectation that at these meetings you will reach some determination on infrastructure, and is it likely that we will see the $300 million that you've cut put back in as your share of the infrastructure program?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I would be very surprised if there's any kind of detailed discussion at the meetings the next two days concerning the specifics of the infrastructure program. Secondly, he's quite right when he talks about our projected decrease in capital expenditures this year. That'll happen largely because of projects coming in at a lower bid than we'd anticipated and some inevitable delays, as there always are with some projects. It's hard to predict which ones are going to be slower coming in or which ones are going to be coming in under projected numbers.

I want to reassure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that it's not because we have reduced our commitment to capital programs in this province. Nothing could be further from the truth, because we really do believe that the future competitiveness of this province is at least partly because of our commitment to capital expenditures.

Mr Phillips: As I said earlier, I think the people of Ontario are anxious to get a fairly clear view of what the likely impact will be on the finances. The second document to come out today was your economic document, where on virtually every indicator the 1993 economy is substantially weaker than you had planned in your budget of six months ago.

Housing starts are down by about 25% of what you'd thought they'd be. Retail sales tax growth is down about 25% from what you'd expected. The gross domestic product is about 60% of what you'd expected. That, in your Economic Outlook for 1993, combined with the federal numbers, in many people's mind would suggest that there is a need to relook at the financial outlook for the province.

For the first time, I gather, you've had from the federal government a clearer view of what its finances will be. Will you undertake to provide for the Legislature, before we adjourn for Christmas, as a result of your meetings over the next two days and as a result of your just-released Economic Outlook, an update on the finances of the province so that we have a clear view of how you see the finances impacted by those two new events that weren't there three weeks ago when you released the second-quarter results?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not believe that, first of all, we'll have any more information a week from now than we have right now. Mr Martin has indicated to me that he wants to have this meeting, being new at the job, to listen to the concerns of all the provinces at this first meeting before he would announce any kind of specific changes in any kind of relationship with the provinces. So I would be very surprised if I could give the member for Scarborough-Agincourt any more or any new information as a result of the meeting with the federal Minister of Finance and my other provincial colleagues than I could give him right now or than he already has in the six-month finances of the province or from the provincial financial outlook that was released today.

LEGAL AID

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is for the Attorney General. Many, including me, were appalled yesterday to read in the Toronto Star that you threatened to hold legal aid funding to ransom if the Law Society of Upper Canada rejected your plans for a government-run legal clinic.

Minister, this $840,000 pet project of yours would only service people with legal aid certificates and would only be staffed by government lawyers. In response to your threats, the members of the legal aid committee expressed grave concerns that you were using budgetary manipulation over an issue of principle, a principle it seemed only you shared. Some would go so far as to call this extortion. What do you call it, Minister?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I confess I was quite surprised at the article the member refers to as well. I certainly met with the Ontario legal aid advisory committee to discuss the report of the design committee. The design committee had recommended two of the options that were brought forward. The Ministry of the Attorney General had I think for some time prior to my appointment as Attorney General been wanting, if we were going to test any models in this area, to test a third model that would allow us to compare the cost-effectiveness and the consumer effectiveness of a staff clinic model which is used in many other provinces to the judicare system.

I certainly did indicate to the committee that we were supportive of the two models that had come forward from the design committee, but we would want to add the third model in order to have the thorough test of all those different ways of offering legal aid assistance, so I'm not clear on why that was considered to be a threat by some of those who were present.

1430

Mr Harris: I have a copy of the report that I am releasing today that was put before the Law Society of Upper Canada last Friday. When you read the copy of the report, surprise about the article in the paper disappears because page 4 of this report says, "The Attorney General left a clear impression that a lack of cooperation by the legal aid committee would result in negative implications in the consideration by treasury board of the legal aid committee budget for the current and next fiscal years."

Minister, clearly you have used precious tax dollars as a bargaining chip to gain support for your pet project. If that isn't abuse of power, I don't know what is. Will you offer a public apology to the law society for your actions and withdraw the blackmail threat that you have put before it in that report?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I in no way threatened or offered blackmail to the law society and I am sorry that impression may have been one that was left with the committee, but it was certainly not my intention nor was it any of the ministry staff's recollection of what had gone on.

At that meeting we discussed the various issues that had come forward, for, I might add, a period of three years, around the cost of legal aid, per-unit costs as well as per-hour costs of legal aid in Ontario as compared to the rest of the provinces and the very clear desire that has been expressed by treasury board ever since we got into office to examine other ways of offering legal aid services, to ensure that there is access to the justice system for all who require it and yet to limit the enormous growth in costs in legal aid that we have experienced in this province. We were discussing the real issues in terms of cost sharing with the federal government around legal aid costs and our obligation as a government to try other ways to offer accessible legal services. I do not consider that a threat at all.

Mr Harris: On November 2, in response to a question by the member for Willowdale, you said that there should be, and I now quote you, "an arm's-length relationship between access to the justice system through legal aid and the political arm of government."

You, Attorney General, are the political arm of government. I would ask you two things. Number one, would you not agree, given the report that I am releasing today that was before the benchers, that you have violated that arm's-length relationship by bargaining with funding for legal aid to further your own political agenda? Secondly, if you do not agree with that, will you stand in your place today and publicly tell all, that if the $860,000 pet project -- the government lawyer clinic -- is not in any proposal put forward, that in no way will jeopardize funding for legal aid in this province this year or in future years?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The issue that we have as a province and the issue we have continued to have since we got into government, and one assumes for many years prior to that, is that there is a growing cost to providing adequate and effective legal aid to all those who are eligible and require it in the province. We have been working in partnership, because we are in partnership, with the Law Society of Upper Canada on the Ontario legal aid committee --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): When it's convenient, it's arm's length.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- to try and find ways in which we can provide those services in a more cost-effective way and a way that is more effective for the clients. The design committee was a joint committee. The Ontario legal aid committee is a joint committee. I do not regard myself as having in any way politically interfered in that process. We have said in response to the report of the committee that we are prepared to do that if they are prepared to try our option.

It is interesting that the clinic proposal that was rejected by the law society was one which we were very, very happy to concur in and to recommend to the law society. So I do not see in any way that we have interfered with the law society's ability to act independently in terms of rejecting that part of the proposal.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On Wednesday I asked the Minister of Environment and Energy to confirm recent speculation that Ontario Hydro may in whole or in part privatize. The minister said he had no plans, or something to that effect, to privatize all or part of Ontario Hydro.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: My question then is to the Premier, because that may be that he had no plans. However, Premier, given statements that you have made over the last number of months, given statements that we have seen come forward by Mr Strong, it would appear that both you and he have plans. Given those comments, when can we expect an announcement on the privatization of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There will be no such statement made by me, and I can only tell the honourable member that the Minister of Environment and Energy was speaking for me in the answers that he gave to the honourable member last week.

Mr Harris: Certainly the quotes you give to the media, the quotes we see in the press and the quotes that we hear from Maurice Strong are suggesting something very, very different, and there is a growing fear out there that you are eyeing fire-saling parts of Ontario Hydro as a means of helping your Treasurer out of your financial mess -- that's the fears, that's what we're hearing, that's what a number of people in the financial community are telling us -- instead of looking at Ontario Hydro in a logical, long-term way.

I would ask you this then, Premier: Before you play with the fate of Ontario Hydro's supply, would you agree with me that Ontarians deserve a full accounting of the utility's financial and operating conditions and will you give us that commitment today: no sale of all or part of Ontario Hydro without a full public accounting of how much and why?

Hon Mr Rae: For a Tory to lecture this government with respect to the issue of accounting -- this is the party whose contribution to the fiscal soundness of this province was to build a nuclear station that was supposed to cost $3.5 billion and whose total cost is over $14 billion.

That's the record. It's the same record. Between Kim and Mike, that's a $22-billion-plus gift to the people of Ontario and to the people of Canada. The Tory party should never be able to rise in its place again and lecture a soul on the subject of Ontario Hydro, fiscal soundness or anything else. They should hang their head in shame and walk around asking for forgiveness from the people of Ontario and the people of Canada for what they've done to us and the burden that they've left upon those of us, mere mortal souls, who are having to handle the terrible fiscal burdens we've been left by our predecessors.

Mr Harris: Ontario families and businesses depend on a secure and an affordable supply of energy. The province's economic future depends on it. That's why many experts feel any change in the status quo has to be made by experts in the energy and financial communities, not by politicians. Any motivation has to be for the long-term interest of Ontario Hydro, access to it and the cost of it, not for political expediency. The decisions need to be made with all the information available.

Premier, if you're not afraid of that, will you acknowledge today that there is considerable time and effort going into privatizing all or part of Ontario Hydro? Will you open up that discussion to include the real stakeholders, the consumers and the taxpayers, and initiate a full and open public debate before any firm decisions are made?

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to the honourable member he is, as he often is in the House, tilting at a bunch of windmills, rumours, various quotations which he pulls out of the air, and says that he's got hold of something. He's got hold of nothing, which isn't unusual for the leader of the third party. Once again he's struck out three times.

1440

You want an inquiry? Let's do an inquiry into the uranium contracts. Let's do an inquiry into Darlington. And then you stand up in your place and say what needs to be done with Ontario Hydro. You left it a shambles, an absolute shambles, a cost structure that was unaffordable and that had to be dealt with. Maurice Strong has had the courage and tenacity to deal with that a lot more than you ever had to deal with when you were in office.

RECYCLING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I was wondering, Minister, could you please tell the municipalities how the blue box program will be paid for when provincial funding runs out in three months?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The funding was clearly outlined in the original blue box program that was announced by the Minister of the Environment. The funding is still there. The Minister of Environment and Energy has answered that question several times in the House.

Mr Offer: The funding for the blue box program runs out in three months. Last April, the government announced a new regulation that would make the blue box mandatory throughout the province. The regulation was scheduled to become law August 1993 -- last August. The regulation has not been signed into law because your government has been unable to forge a private sector financing agreement that would ensure the continuation of the blue box program.

Minister, in three months the blue box funding program comes to an end. If there is no agreement with the private sector within the next three months, will your government (a) commit to maintaining the funding of the blue box program or (b) instead take the risk of municipalities disbanding their blue box program in the name of budget cuts?

Hon Mr Philip: The previous government started the blue box funding without any kind of guarantee of secure funding. This government, through the Ministry of Environment and Energy, is negotiating actively with the private sector. We expect that those negotiations will be successful.

USE OF METRO TORONTO LAND

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Mr Premier, I go to you because your government very recently made a deal with Metropolitan Toronto. I assumed, and they assumed, that this deal had your stamp of approval.

Sir, on developing the Toronto Islands, you promised Metropolitan Toronto that if it turned over the land on the islands, some 40 acres, you would give to Metropolitan Toronto the psychiatric grounds property in Etobicoke. I know the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore understands this issue very well. It also says a lot about, when you give your word, whether your word's worth anything.

Mr Premier, I ask you directly. You made the much-ballyhooed announcement about developing the Toronto Islands property and giving Metropolitan Toronto land, the psychiatric grounds in Etobicoke. I have in my hand a letter from Chairman Alan Tonks that says that at the OMB hearing your provincial government lawyers came forward and said that the land that they promised Metropolitan Toronto as part of this swap is now no longer theirs. In fact, part of this land, if not a huge chunk of it, will be given to the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board and Metropolitan Toronto will get nothing from the deal that you gave your word on with respect to developing Toronto Islands.

How do you respond to these charges that Mr Tonks makes in his letter suggesting to you that your word is worthless when it comes to making a deal on land swaps and developing property in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll let the Minister of Municipal Affairs answer this.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The moment I received the letter from Chairman Tonks, I responded immediately and assured him that the 23 acres of land would be available. I'm sure he'll be quite happy with the response.

Mr Stockwell: How could this happen? How could the lawyers representing the provincial government at the hearing give them information that is absolutely and completely wrong? Your lawyers at the OMB stood up, much to the surprise of Metropolitan Toronto, and said: "This land is no longer yours as promised. We are going to give it to the separate school board." How could this confusion take place? How could you put Metro in a situation of debating this issue at council last time when obviously an error was made?

Who's made the mistake? Your lawyers? Management Board? Who made the mistake? "Metro made the mistake," the minister's saying when his lawyers stood at the OMB and told it that they were going to give part of the land to the separate school board. Metro made the mistake because it heard them say that? I ask you, Mr Minister, how could this have happened?

Hon Mr Philip: We gave an offer to Metropolitan Toronto six months ago. They only responded this week, and that's why are now in this situation. They've had the assurance that 23 acres of land are available. I'm sure that now that they have responded, after six months, they'll be happy with my answer to Chairman Tonks. I'd be happy to supply the correspondence.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. With the recent realignment in your ministry, I have noticed that the office of disability issues has been disbanded and has been incorporated into two different areas: policy and programs. Madam Minister, how is this realignment going to affect services for the disabled? The disabled community has had a place in the ministry that they could come to with their concerns, their suggestions and crises. We're talking about a segment of the population that has difficulty processing information or may have mobility or communication limitations. My question is, do you now expect these people to identify their issue as a program or policy matter, or will they become entrenched in a bureaucratic system that will be unable to serve them expediently and with dignity?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I thank the member very much for his concern in this issue, particularly because we know this member is a fine advocate for disability issues and has brought the concerns of many individuals to the House and to our legislative process.

The office for disability issues, although it will be done in a different process, in a different way, will still have a person who will be responsible for disability issues. If an individual would like to call the ministry, they will find a person at the other end of the phone who will be addressing their needs. They will not have to worry about which part of that compartment or department they must address.

In fact, they will probably be getting better service. Not only will the office have somebody in Toronto to answer their questions, but they'll also be able to go to regional offices in our ministry across Ontario in order to get their issues and their concerns responded to and will have better access to government information. This is also to make sure that people with disabilities are completely looked after in all of the ministries across Ontario.

Mr Malkowski: Could you please explain how the funding of community groups will be affected by the realignment? Will this lead to a cutback in access grants and other funding for community services?

Hon Ms Ziemba: The funding arrangements have not been changed at all. In fact, we have just increased the funding for the access fund and it will be extended for the next three years. I don't think the community activists across Ontario will notice the difference in the dollars. What they will notice is that they will have better service in regions across Ontario and that they will have access to the government policies in a much quicker and more efficient way.

1450

LEGAL AID

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): My question is to the Attorney General regarding the report in the Toronto Star on the weekend about the rejection by the Law Society of Upper Canada of women-only legal clinics. What I want is a fairly simple answer from the Attorney General.

The report that Fran Kiteley presented before convocation said the Attorney General left the clear impression that a lack of cooperation would result in negative implications in consideration by the treasury board of the legal aid budget. Given that it appears that the law society cooperated, can I get the assurance of the Attorney General that there will be no impact on the legal aid budget in this year or following years?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): What I said to the committee is still a concern for us as a government and, frankly, for the deputy minister's working group that is looking at legal aid costs across the country. There is no question but that that committee, in doing its work and its survey, has found that our per-unit costs as a well as our per-case costs in Ontario are higher than in other provinces, particularly provinces that have a wider variety of applications of legal aid services than we do.

I made it clear to the committee that we were committed, and had been committed for some time as a government, to testing out other ways of ensuring that Ontarians have access to legal aid. Seventy per cent of those who use legal aid are women. One of the reasons we were supportive of the design committee's proposal for a women's legal centre was that we wanted to see how that would work in terms of overall costs for women.

We were prepared to support that, but we were also saying, and had consistently through our joint discussions said, that we needed to have the kind of staffed office model that is used in other provinces in order to compare costs within our jurisdiction to see whether that was a more cost-effective way of ensuring access to legal services.

We made it very clear that we could not in any way guarantee to the committee that despite our support for the women's centre it was bringing forward, it would meet with any kind of approval unless we were prepared to try all three kinds of models in Ontario --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- so that we could compare costs in the way in which we had been asked to do. We had been resisting the call, frankly, of some of the treasury board staff that we move entirely to a staffed model, because we had not tested this out on a pilot basis.

Mr Murphy: That answer is completely inadequate and does not in any way answer the straightforward question I put. I'm sure the Attorney General will know that she has now forced on the law society something that it, in its own report in December 1991, recommended against. It's a model that is opposed by the Ontario Family Court Judges Association, family lawyers and assaulted women's shelters. She has forced it on by extortion, by saying she'll cut the budget. She has refused to make it clear that it will not be cut. I want to know whether she is going to apologize to the law society for that threat, and if not, will she resign?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I did not threaten to cut the legal aid budget.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Are you saying they're not telling the truth?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I don't care what the report said; I didn't write the report.

What I explained to the committee and what I said to that group is the same issue. We are involved in cost-sharing with the federal government and we are involved always in our negotiations with treasury board around the kind of support we will get for the legal aid plan.

What I did say to the group was that despite the best arguments in the world, unless we in Ontario are prepared to try other models to ensure access to legal services, (a) we cannot ensure we will continue to get cost-sharing from the federal government and (b) certainly, despite the best efforts in the world, cannot guarantee that under the current circumstances that we face as a province, particularly if our cost sharing were cut by the Liberal federal government, we would not be able to ensure the current levels of cost. That is not threatening; that is being very clear and very direct with our colleagues about what our problems are in terms of funding this program.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. In a recent memo to staff representatives and local union presidents, Mr Fred Upshaw, the president of OPSEU and a member of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency board of directors, indicated, "All union-appointed certified members must receive certification training only through the labour-based Workers' Health and Safety Centre and be trained by a union instructor who has been approved by the centre."

Mr Upshaw went on, "Worker-certified members must not be trained or registered through any employer-based safety association such as the IAPA, CUSSCO or COHSA or by any of their approved instructors."

Minister, for weeks I have been telling you that the idea of management-labour cooperation at the WHSA is a joke and that this agency is acting only on behalf of labour. Do you agree with Mr Upshaw that there are labour-based and employer-based health and safety organizations and can you explain what Mr Upshaw means by the use of these terms?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The certification training programs that have been taking place at the agency to date have been extremely successful. Some of the best training programs in the province are through some of the labour organizations. Others exist as well. The concern is getting the workers trained in health and safety and in the certification program, not where they're trained.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you did not respond to my question. You do not seem to understand that there is a serious problem at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. You should know that there are not labour-based or employer-based safety organizations but bipartite associations. In fact, the board of Ontario's safety and health association, which Mr Upshaw specifically calls an employer-based safety association, has 16 representatives, eight of them chosen by the employers and eight drawn from unions, whose nominations are approved by the OFL.

Minister, will you direct the WHSA to issue a memo clarifying the right of both labour and employer representatives to obtain training through any of the recognized bipartite health and safety associations?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Surely the member understands that we have at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency a bipartite board, and that board is working and they have a good training program in place.

ASSISTANCE TO TOBACCO FARMERS

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I wish to pose a very pertinent question that most certainly will have a direct impact on the farming community in Haldimand-Norfolk, and across this province, for that matter.

The farmers in the Haldimand-Norfolk area who are looking to move away from tobacco production to alternative crops raise a common issue. That common issue is that we as a government have encouraged them to seek alternatives but in a great way failed to provide the ability for them to be covered under the present crop insurance program.

I know this program is under review, and I know it's an important review to all those people who work in farm and rural Ontario.

My question is, will the minister give the cash-strapped farm producers of the region the coverage in insurance that is needed to make the transition from tobacco, or one product to another? This deals directly with the whole question of alternative crops.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): First of all, let me state that as a minister we support the extension of crop insurance to alternative crops.

However, having said that, the mandate of the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario is to work with producers to arrive at a plan that is acceptable to the farmers and to the federal government under the terms of our federal-provincial agreement. What is necessary is that producers of a particular crop come together and approach the crop insurance commission and work with the commission to develop a plan.

This is not a situation where there's a plan on the shelf that you can take off and apply for that particular crop. You have to work with the producers, and you need more than one producer, obviously, to have a plan. We have encouraged the commission and we would encourage the farmers to work together to develop plans for any of the alternative crops they have in mind and that they have been producing for one or more years.

Mr Jamison: My supplemental question really delves into a different area, but one area that again is very, very important to the wellbeing and long-term stability of the farm community. I know my government has also been working towards a national farm income safety net program. Can the minister update this House on the recent steps taken in this very important direction?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We can certainly confirm for the member that we now have agreements to have NISA, the net income stabilization account, extended to all commodities except for livestock and the supply-management commodities. This is good news to a number of the smaller commodities, and I know this is good news for the tobacco farmers in the member's riding, who have been quite interested for a number of years to have NISA coverage for their crop.

1500

Beyond that, I would make note of the fact that my federal counterpart said in Alberta on the weekend that he wants to review all of the safety net programs. I'm not sure what that means as yet. I look forward to meeting with the federal minister, and other ministers, to see what his ideas are. However, we remain committed to a whole farm safety net program that will cover all commodities and provide some safety net insurance for not only the member's farmers but all the other farmers in the province of Ontario.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the member for Dovercourt. Both myself and the member for Grey-Owen Sound were at an emergency meeting dealing with children's services just recently. There's real concern among the people providing services in our area concerning how they are going to meet the needs of the children who are in need of their services and of the parents who require the services for children. We were advised that they are even now looking at ways of cutting and slashing or, as some of the government people would tell them, streamlining their services.

I have just received a letter from the children's aid society of Bruce county that indicates that they have been required, and of course they are under law required, to send two people to a week-long course for the health and safety committee workers.

I would like the Minister of Community and Social Services to advise me what special steps he is going to take to ensure that the $1,500 or more that is required by the Bruce county children's aid to send its two staff people for certification course work for a week-long course work period isn't taken away from actually delivering services to the children in need in our county.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think, as the member would know, that the decision from an agency about where it's going to fund services and make provision for staff to attend health and safety meetings and instructions is very much one of the areas and responsibilities that societies have.

I believe what the member is asking about is really the broader issue of funding to children's services. I can tell him that certainly as a result of various discussions we've had with agencies, we have reduced the expenditure control plan reduction for this year to the children's services area to $3.4 million from the $8.9 million that was originally set, and we are working with agencies to address some of the problems that they've identified exist in the sector. In fact, I had a meeting with representatives from a variety of agencies just last week and we are going to continue our discussions to see what more we need to do and what more we can do.

Mr Elston: As a result of the social contract and other things, there have been cutbacks all the way through children's services in this province: discussions around copayments, user fees to parents who probably can't afford to go through the trauma of dealing with problems in their families, let alone the trauma of financial hardship.

Now these people are being required by the government that the minister goes out and advertises good things for to pay $535 each for each person to attend this week-long course. They're going to have to pay for transportation, for accommodation and other costs. It will cost the society in Bruce county over $1,500 to send these two people for this certification program.

They're already cutting back the way they have traditionally served the needs of the children in Bruce county. I want this minister to guarantee to me, and through me to my constituents and also to people right through the province, that this $1,500 that the Bruce county people will have to find will not impact unfairly and negatively upon the services for children in my county, and I want him -- listen, what is this? What is that? Are you bowing to me or what?

Interjections.

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

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I have taken considerably less than the previous questioner has on this. I want the member for Dovercourt to tell us how he is going to make sure that the services that children are receiving in Bruce county are not more negatively affected than he has already hurt them. How are the children in Bruce county going to be prevented from taking on another hit when you require the $1,500 to be taken from the county services in order that a certification program be attended?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the member knows this would not be the first $1,500 that any agency has had to spend on health and safety concerns. I think he would also accept the fact that good health and safety practices, in the end, end up saving money for all concerned, because it's important for workers in the system to also know that they are applying the very best in terms of health and safety procedures, and that continues to be very much the process.

I think on the broader issue of funding, we continue to work and will continue to work with the agencies to address the problems that exist. I don't want to get into a berating approach, but I think I should also remind the member opposite that his own leader not too long ago was advocating that we could deal with the whole funding problem by simply taking more dollars out of government expenditures. Where does he think taking more dollars out of government expenditures would come from, $2 billion more in fact?

We are trying to manage a very difficult situation. I can say to the member opposite that in this area, the government has been very sensitive to the needs that exist in children's service agencies. We continue to work with those agencies to deal with the problems that exist there and we will continue to do that.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This year in Metropolitan Toronto, 1993, there were 120,000 property assessment appeals. This was against a system that's 50 years old, so out of date it's unfair. Mr Minister, I know you agree with me when we recognize the tragedy of thousands of people who are caught in the crossfire, who have had their assessments appealed by a neighbouring municipality.

Earlier you rejected a motion by the Metropolitan Toronto council for an updated assessment. Recently you have rejected another Metropolitan Toronto request for equalized assessment. Mr Minister, we know what you don't like. What the people of Metropolitan Toronto and the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto want to know is, what are you going to do? You've stalled. It's too late for 1994. How long are you going to duck this issue?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We didn't stall. We agreed that the original proposal was not acceptable for a variety of reasons, which my predecessor, Mr Cooke, outlined. Clearly, it would have had tremendously adverse economic impacts on business and on transportation, not just in Toronto but in the whole greater Toronto area, which is the economic hub of Ontario.

Clearly, we didn't stall. Our staff cooperated with Metro Toronto in its latest study. They came back with a study this late in the year. It had no economic impact data attached to it, as we had requested. They came in a couple of weeks before the Fair Tax Commission is about to report. It would seem prudent at this point in time to see what proposals the Fair Tax Commission reports.

Indeed, my letter and my conversation with Mr Tonks said that we would be happy to work with him and Metro to try to resolve some of the problems. Certainly, Halton has been able to reach a fair compromise that everyone in that area, all tiers, accepts. We're hoping that Metro Toronto will come up with a similar, satisfactory solution.

Mr David Johnson: Metropolitan Toronto has been working on this issue for a number of years and has put two proposals before the minister. The minister has rejected both of those proposals. The minister says he's happy to work with Metropolitan Toronto, but I'm seeing this happiness to work go on year after year after year and what we're not seeing is any particular solution.

Mr Minister, you mentioned the Fair Tax Commission. The working group report on property tax for the Fair Tax Commission reported one year ago in a report dated December 1992. You've had that information from the working group for a whole year. How much longer do you need?

1510

That report recommends deleting welfare from the property tax system. It recommends reducing the education cost from the property tax system. My question to you is: Since you've had that report for a year, do you intend to reduce the burden of welfare and education from the property tax system? Do you have any plan at all to deal with this or are you going to continue to stall?

Hon Mr Philip: The report he refers to which was made public about a year ago is only a working group report. The Fair Tax Commission will report around December 15. We look forward to having that report.

Maybe the honourable member would like to share with us: Do he and his party support the proposal that was tabled by Chairman Tonks? Is he for it or against it? I haven't heard any word from his party in that regard. I'd be happy to know what his views are on this.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. It regards the proposed introduction of ferry fees for Wolfe Island and the increase of fees on Amherst and Howe Islands. As I've told you, Mr Minister, I appreciate your appointment of Mr Brooke McNabb to consult with islanders on a new fare structure for January 1, 1994, and to recommend fees that are both fair and reasonable. Could you please tell me the status of these consultations and when we can expect action arising from this process?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is insightful indeed, for it involves the very ferry policy of the province of Ontario. Historically, the good citizens of Wolfe Island have not shared in the fare policy system across the province of Ontario where we have fully some 17 different endeavours. In the great majority of cases, people are paying a small fare. It doesn't come close to meeting the need to reconcile the bottom line, first vis-à-vis the cost of building the ships and then the cost of operation.

I met last week with Mr McNabb. After public consultation, he's presented me with his first preliminary report. What we intend to do simply is to be fair and equitable and consistent in our approach.

Mr Gary Wilson: As I've mentioned in a previous question to you, Minister, the economic impact on working families is going to be substantial, especially at a time when most families are already struggling. I remind you that islanders must go to the mainland for most of their shopping, all of their health and dental care and for high school, sports and other activities. Mr Minister, how are you responding to these concerns?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Again, we must be consistent. We must achieve consistency in the system. This is the very reason why I appointed Mr McNabb: to go and find out, by way of consultation at first hand, to talk and listen to the people of Wolfe Island and see how different they are than other circumstances. We must take that into consideration.

Candidly, there will be no increase in the coming months, because we want to go to the bottom of this. But we have to be consistent. If you go to Kingston, for instance, and hop on public transit, you have to pay a fee because public transit costs money. The province will keep on subsidizing 100% of the capital costs, the costs of building the ferry system, and we will keep on subsidizing the major portion of operating. However, there will be a small fee.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question today is for the Minister of Housing, if I could have her attention for a moment. Minister, I want to ask you a question about the Ontario home ownership savings plan. Certainly the Treasurer has indicated that he is looking at it, that he recognizes that there is some significant value with respect to the plan, and has indicated that he's reviewing it.

You will know that the plan is scheduled to terminate at the end of this calendar year. As Minister of Housing, we would like to know what your position is with respect to the continuation of the Ontario home ownership savings plan and what efforts you're extending through the offices of your portfolio to see the extension of this plan on behalf of the people of Ontario and also, I might add, for those involved in the real estate industry as well, as they see it very much as an effective tool for getting people into the housing market.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member is correct in saying that the program has involved a lot of interest from home buyers over the last few years. The degree of that interest has been such that over the years in which it has been in existence, the cost in terms of government revenues has been around $200 million, and we can expect that those costs would rise next year as a result of the fact that we will see more people ready to purchase with their home ownership investments by next year. So it is an expensive program, it's a program that creates benefits, it has significant costs and it's on that basis that members of the Ministry of Housing staff are discussing the issues involved with the Ministry of Finance.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBER'S PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): There are three matters I wish to deal with coming out of the House leaders' discussions over the last couple of days. The first is that I believe we have agreement and therefore I seek consent to waive notice on private member's ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Mr Wilson, the member for Simcoe West. This refers to private member's motion number 35, which was tabled after the appropriate time, so we're seeking consent for waiving notice.

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

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Secondly, I believe we have consent to sit past 6 of the clock this evening to deal with the matters that are set out in the orders of the day, up to and including Bill 51.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A motion to sit beyond 6 of the clock. Agreed.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 51

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Lastly, I believe we also have agreement that the order for third reading of Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe, be discharged and the bill be referred to the committee of the whole House.

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

PETITIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Environment mandates that all municipalities (whether upper- or lower-tier) which require to expand or relocate municipal sanitary landfill sites, must conduct a waste management environmental assessment study; and

"Whereas it is the policy of the Ministry of Environment to assist in funding these studies at the upper-tier level of local government only; and

"Whereas of the 830 municipalities in Ontario, only 39 are upper-tier municipalities organized at the regional or county level;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Environment to cease this discriminatory policy and give funding assistance to all municipalities that are required to conduct a waste management environmental assessment study, and that this funding be made retroactive where applicable."

It's signed by members of my constituency and I have affixed my signature.

TUITION FEES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas those wishing to go to colleges and universities in Ontario must pay tuition fees; and

"Whereas tuition fees have increased by 96.7% since 1981; and

"Whereas education is a right and should not only be limited to those who can pay; and

"Whereas increasing tuition fees would further restrict the ability of low-income youth from attending colleges and universities;

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

"We ask that the Ontario government ensure post-secondary tuition levels do not exceed the current levels, and that when feasible the province look at enacting measures which make post-secondary education more accessible to those with low incomes."

It's signed by numerous students within our community.

1520

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, you'll be aware of the extent of anger and frustration of the people of York region on the question of landfills and Bill 143. I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government seems determined to proceed with its ill-conceived proposal for a megadump in the city of Vaughan; and

"Whereas the residents of the city of Vaughan will not tolerate a second megadump within its borders and will fight against this proposal with all the legitimate means at its disposal;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the NDP government to repeal Bill 143 and put into place waste management policies based on the evaluation of all available waste management technologies and on the principle of locating a waste management facility on a willing host community."

These petitions are signed by some 829 residents of my riding. There will be several thousand more to come. I'm affixing my signature to these today.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government's sale plan;

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there.

This is becoming even more pressing as on December 1 the appraisal process begins, and once begun, 97 families could be evicted within the very near future and there would be no recourse.

This is signed by people from all over southern Ontario and I affix my signature in the hope that the new Liberal government will show some compassion --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Wiseman: -- and deal with this problem.

The Speaker: Order. The member knows better.

TAXATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is not about the sale of provincial lands in the same area; it's about something else.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario;

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

I affix my signature to this.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition signed by about 4,200 names which I'm presenting on behalf of my colleague the member for Brantford. Many people in Brantford and the surrounding area, including people from my riding and in Dundas, Ancaster and Lynden, have signed this petition to the Legislative Assembly in support of their ambulance workers and it reads as follows:

"I agree with Brant county's ambulance officers that there should be one provincial paramedic service. Implement the emergency medical review now."

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill 79 unfairly discriminates against members of Caucasian race and is unfairly prejudicial to males; and

"Whereas Bill 79 is unjustified and oppressive interference with free enterprise and freedom of opportunity and has a divisive influence on the workplaces and communities of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the Parliament of Ontario to withdraw or defeat Bill 79 and to cease from further encroachment on the human rights and freedom of opportunity of the residents of Ontario."

There are more than 800 signatures on this petition, and I have affixed my signature to this.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): 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 55 will make it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. 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 opinion.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

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

"We, the undersigned Canadian taxpayers, are pleading for the assent of the proposed bills to reform the politicians' pension plan.

"MPPs must act responsibly and align their pensions more realistically with the private sector. Double-dipping, severance pay after voluntary resignation and collecting of pensions before age 55 must cease.

"We will not support candidates who are more concerned with furthering their own personal financial interests than protecting the interests of the average taxpayer and the security and the wellbeing of the nation."

I guess they've got a real concern here and I'll sign it in support.

AESTHETICIANS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by a number of aestheticians from the London area who ask the Legislative Assembly to regulate the practice of aesthetics in the province of Ontario since it involves health and safety with many of their clients, that the training be standardized, that the government of Ontario require aestheticians to complete diploma courses from accredited training facilities and that a licensing structure be put in place and be administered by the appropriate Ontario ministry.

I have signed my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition put together by the First Baptist Church in the town of Wallaceburg. There are two that were inserted with this letter that is addressed to me, and both petitions are addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. One is against Bill 45 and the other is against Bill 55. I present them on behalf of my constituents.

GAMBLING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I present this on behalf of my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition 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 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 Bill 45.

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

I'll also be tabling a petition, as will the member for Perth, on Bill 55.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): This is regarding Bill 45:

"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 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, it may 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 such reference should be removed from the code.

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

1530

TUITION FEES

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

"Whereas those wishing to go to college and university in Ontario must pay tuition fees; and

"Whereas tuition fees have increased by 96.7% since 1981; and

"Whereas education is a right and should not only be limited to those who can pay; and

"Whereas the increase of tuition fees would further restrict accessibility of low-income youth from attending colleges or universities;

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

"We ask that the Ontario government ensure that post-secondary tuition levels not exceed the current level and that the province look at the feasibility of enacting measures which make post-secondary education more accessible to those with lower income."

I affix my signature to it.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity, but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviance; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel a new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special-interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

I am happy to lend my support to this petition.

HOUSING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I'd like to present this petition on behalf of my colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It is a petition from the tenants of 98 and 100 Cavell Avenue regarding mixed housing.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I am tabling for first reading an act to amend the revenue enforcement statute law. This act contains provisions outlined in the 1993 budget to improve compliance with Ontario's tax statutes and collection of provincial taxes. They include standardized penalties for late-filed returns and non-payment, daily compound interest on taxes owing and refunds, and registered liens on real and personal property of taxpayers who are in arrears of payment. As well, the bill contains specific provisions relating to the taxes on fuel, gasoline, land transfers, mining activities and tobacco.

Interjection: You have to move the bill.

Hon Mr Laughren: I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to provide for Administrative and Enforcement Changes to various Taxation Statutes administered by the Minister of Finance and that it be now read for the first time. I realize I spoke out of turn there, Mr Speaker.

REVENUE ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DIVERSES LOIS FISCALES EN CE QUI CONCERNE LEUR EXÉCUTION

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 127, An Act to provide for Administrative and Enforcement Changes to various Taxation Statutes administered by the Minister of Finance / Projet de loi 127, Loi modifiant diverses lois fiscales appliquées par le ministère des Finances en ce qui concerne leur administration et leur exécution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you wish to make another statement?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I think, Mr Speaker, that the comments I made a few moments ago, which violated the process, nevertheless did reflect what it was I would say at this time.

UKRAINIAN PEOPLE'S HOME IN PRESTON ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Cooper, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr73, An Act to revive Ukrainian People's Home in Preston.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

Consideration of Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we start, let me read the following:

"All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 3:30 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House following passage of this motion.

"Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5 pm on this sessional day.

"At 5 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House.

"Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once, and all deferred divisions taken in succession."

The last time we were in committee of the whole debating this issue, we were dealing with section 6.1.

1540

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could I ask whether the government has in fact tabled amendments to subsection 19(2), subsection 19(4) and a new section 19.1?

The Chair: Yes, it has.

Mr Eves: In that event then, I would like to move that those three amendments in particular are out of order. The reasons for so doing I shall try to enunciate as clearly and as succinctly as I can; however, it may be somewhat lengthy.

First of all, the amendment that the government has moved to subsection 19(2) in effect ends up amending or deleting or doing away with a section of the Expropriations Act of the province of Ontario, namely, subsection 10(2).

Similarly, the amendment that the government has moved with respect to subsection 19(4) purports to do away with, for the purposes of this act, section 17, section 34 and section 38 of the Planning Act of Ontario.

The new section 19.1 purports to do away with any official plan that may be filed under section 17 of the Planning Act, any zoning bylaw passed under section 34 of the Planning Act and any interim control bylaw which may have been passed under section 38 of the Planning Act of Ontario.

I would like to read from both Beauchesne and Erskine May with respect to amendments not being able to amend a statute that is not before the House or the committee, and also with respect to amendments which purport to go beyond the scope of the bill that we are debating in committee of the whole at this time.

I would refer you, sir, to Beauchesne, the sixth edition, at page 207, under section 698, which speaks to the admissibility of amendments in committee. "An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be put from the chair." It goes on to say in the very first subsection, "(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived." I would submit to you, Mr Chair, that indeed these amendments are beyond the scope of the bill before the committee of the whole this afternoon. I would also submit to you that it is irrelevant to the bill.

I will talk about what is or is not relevant to the bill by referring to Erskine May. I refer you to the 21st edition, at page 486 and again at page 491, talking about the functions of a committee on a bill. I will just read in part because I don't want to read the entire section on functions of a committee on a bill.

"(2) The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill, as introduced (see page 467)." That was the beginning of subsection (2).

"(3) An amendment which is outside the 'scope' (as described on page 491) of the bill is out of order and cannot be entertained, unless an instruction has been given by the House to the committee."

Turning to page 491, which we just were referred to, inadmissible amendments, "(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration."

I would also like to refer you, Mr Chair, first of all to the bill itself, because I think we've just read in Erskine May that if an amendment is not covered by the long title of the bill, it is beyond the scope of the bill. The title for this bill, Bill 8, is An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos. That's it. That's the long title to the bill.

Interjection: It says "other matters."

Mr Eves: "Other matters related to casinos," plural. We heard that over there, did we?

Section 19 of the bill, which the government is purporting to amend, and a new section 19.1 which the government is purporting to introduce, have their own separate part in the bill. It's a very short part, because it consists of only section 19, which in its original form consisted of subsections (1), (2) and (3).

Section 19 says, "Part II: City of Windsor: Casino Area." The whole purpose of section 19 in the bill as originally drafted was to define the casino area by describing the boundaries within the city of Windsor, which are included, or define the casino area, which is what subsection (1) is all about.

Subsection (2) talks about market value, saying that it "shall be determined as of the 1st day of January, 1993."

Subsection (3) talks about redevelopment powers that the city of Windsor can be given with the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, dealing with the constructing, selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of buildings and land appurtenant to them, and selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of part of the casino area to any other person or government authority.

Nowhere in section 19 or that part of the bill does it refer to the Expropriations Act of Ontario, as the bill was originally drafted. Nowhere in section 19 or that part of the bill does it refer to the Planning Act of Ontario, as the bill was originally drafted.

I would submit to you, sir, that indeed these amendments that the government has now come forward with purporting to dispense with sections in the Expropriations Act and to dispense with sections of the Planning Act are beyond the scope of this bill. They're beyond the long-form title of the bill, and therefore inadmissible and out of order.

I would also like to refer you to some rulings that have been made, both in the Ontario Legislature and, in particular, in the Parliament of Canada on similar matters; rulings, if you'll bear with me, of several Speakers as well as Chairs of committee of the whole House.

One example I'd like to point you to, Mr Chair, is the Chairman of committee of the whole House on December 12, 1983, with respect to an amendment to Bill 111, which was the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act. The ruling there by the Chair of the committee of the whole of the day was that amendments were ruled out of order. I quote the ruling as follows:

"In his amendment before us he refers us to the Health Insurance Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act....The motion presented by the member...refers to two separate acts that are not before this House in Bill 111. I therefore cannot accept it as an admissible amendment."

I would submit to you, sir, that is exactly the situation that we have here. Nowhere in Bill 8 does it refer to the Expropriations Act, as the bill was originally drafted and submitted in its original form. Nowhere does Bill 8 refer to the Planning Act of Ontario, as it was originally drafted. That is exactly what happened in the Ontario Legislature committee of whole on December 12, 1983, and those were ruled out of order.

I would also like to refer you, Mr Chair, to several rulings of Speaker Jerome and Speaker Lamoureux in the House of Commons in Ottawa on similar matters. There are plenty for Speaker Lamoureux; I will refer to a few of them.

I will refer to one of Speaker Jerome on March 5, 1976. That was consideration of Bill C-61, An Act to provide for a maritime code for Canada. A point of order was raised by Mr Forrestall, the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, seeking the decision of the Acting Speaker, Mr Turner, on the acceptability of a particular motion, an amendment which had the effect, which this does, of amending another statute, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. The amendment was ruled by the Speaker to go beyond the scope of the bill. I refer you to decisions of Speaker Jerome, page 108, 1983 publication.

I would also refer you to decisions of Speaker Lamoureux on several other matters with respect to similar circumstances. One is a ruling of June 27, 1966. This was consideration in committee of the whole House, again a similar situation, Bill C-211, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the Provinces a proportion of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies. Mr Barnett proposed that the clause be amended to impose conditions on the allocations of funds under the bill.

1550

The Deputy Chairman ruled the motion out of order because it went beyond the principle of the bill and introduced a new and irrelevant provision. The decision was appealed to the Speaker, who ruled as soon as the report was made. The decision was upheld. The amendment was out of order because it would create an entirely new principle that goes beyond the terms of the clause under consideration and of the bill as expressed in the resolution.

Another ruling published in Speaker Lamoureux on November 30, 1966, again committee of the whole House on a bill, C-227, An Act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical care services...: There was an amendment moved to the definition of "medical practitioner." The issue as determined in the publication was, is an amendment acceptable if it changes a definition, thereby extending the scope of the bill?

This amendment was also ruled inadmissible because it is not permissible to do indirectly what the rules will not allow to be done directly. The scope of insured medical services is limited by the resolution. To propose to amend the definition of "medical practitioner" would be to extend in fact the scope of insured medical services.

Again, this is what this government is doing with respect to these amendments, I'm submitting to you, Mr Chair. What they are purporting to do is amend the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act of Ontario or dispense with them or suspend those particular sections because it suits the purposes of this bill, but the purposes of this bill, both in its long form and in its original form, I would submit to you, do not include the Expropriations Act of Ontario and cannot affect any section in that act, I'm submitting to you, nor do they include the Planning Act of Ontario, and they cannot affect the Planning Act of Ontario, I am submitting to you, by way of amendment.

If they wanted to do that, it should have been in the original bill and it should have been very clear, but they did not do that and I think it's too late for them to come now and try to backhandedly amend in effect the Expropriations Act of Ontario and the Planning Act of Ontario.

Another precedent: January 17, 1967, again committee of the whole House, Bill C-231, An Act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada...: There was to be a proposed amendment to a clause in that bill. The member introducing it sought to have included in the bill provisions for the compensation of employees who suffer financial loss as a result of any change, alteration or deviation in the railway.

Again, it was ruled that the amendment may not be put. The Chair of the whole committee heard arguments for both sides of the issue. In his view, the amendment as proposed is beyond the purport of the clause and also of the bill.

I would like to refer you to a decision again, on March 28, 1969, in the House of Commons, the report stage in consideration of Bill C-102, An Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act: A motion in amendment was proposed by Mr Saltsman of Waterloo, to permit hospital pharmacies to provide narcotics and controlled drugs on prescription under the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act.

Again, this amendment was ruled out of order and could not be put. It was said that the proposed motion and amendment was inconsistent in form and content with the clause it purports to amend.

Another ruling on March 28, 1969, the same bill, Bill C-102. I'm not going to read them all in their entirety because you can read them at your leisure, Mr Chair.

April 16, 1969: Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act..."Consideration was given to a motion, an amendment standing in the name of Mr Gilbert from Broadview to prohibit..." blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to read all of these, because I'm going to take up too much of your time.

I think I've made my point and I think the point is that an amendment cannot purport to do anything that was not included in the original scope and intent of the original bill. Here, in effect what the government is trying to do is purporting to suspend sections of the Expropriations Act of Ontario and sections of the Planning Act of Ontario through the casino act of Ontario, one having nothing to do with the others.

The first two acts I mentioned, the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act, were never referred to in the original draft of Bill 8. Bill 8, in the long form of the bill, the title of the bill, certainly does not include talking about anything relating to the Expropriations Act or the Planning Act. In fact, as I pointed out, the original drafting of section 19 nowhere refers to the Expropriations Act of Ontario and nowhere refers to the Planning Act of Ontario. If it had, the government might have a logical argument, but it didn't and the government, I would submit to you, Mr Chair, doesn't have a logical argument.

The amendments they're now purporting to move should be moved to the Expropriations Act of Ontario, should be moved to the Planning Act of Ontario. The government is trying to do something that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I would submit to you that the three amendments I have referred to, subsections 19(2) and 19(4) and their new section 19.1, are out of order on that basis.

I can provide you with more precedents for similar amendments: Another one on April 25, 1969, in Lamoureux, a very similar thing. "By attempting to repeal a section or subsection of the Criminal Code, which is not presently before the House, these motions and amendments constitute a new legislative proposal."

Again, similarly here, what the government is trying to do is introduce a new legislative proposal by way of these amendments. Really, we all know what the logic behind these amendments or the rationale for the government putting them forward is. I don't want to go into that; I don't think that's at debate here.

But I think that if you will refer to the precedents that I have referred you to, both in the House of Commons and the Ontario Legislature, and Beauchesne and Erskine May, you will see that indeed these amendments as proposed by the government are beyond the scope and the intent of this piece of legislation, sir.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): At the outset I want to acknowledge the fact that the member for Parry Sound had the courtesy to advise me as critic that he would be bringing forth these particular matters as a point of order to challenge the appropriateness of the amendments in question.

I first of all congratulate the member for a very well-thought-out and extremely well-researched presentation to you, and the points I think that he made bear no amplifications. I will simply say that I would trust that you, Mr Chair, as you always do, would look at them very, very carefully and consider the argument strictly on its merits. I think that having heard and had an opportunity to reflect on them, they are very substantive indeed, and I ask you to give them your utmost and very careful consideration.

I would simply add one point for your consideration. As you look at those particular amendments, I think it appropriate to look at the sections in the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act, both of those acts, that the proposed amendments seek to change. I think upon doing so you will see on first blush that they are not merely what one might term housekeeping matters but rather are very, very substantive elements of those particular pieces of legislation, namely, the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act.

Inasmuch as the title of the bill, as indicated by the member for Parry Sound, refers to "matters related to casinos," it does not extend to the specific elements of the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act, which are very substantive and very significant pieces of legislation. These particular sections are also very substantive and essential, I think one could argue, to the application and efficacy of the two acts in question.

As you consider the points, as I again say, very well researched, and I commend the member for that, and the staff who assisted him in so doing, that you would also look at the acts that it seeks to amend, having regard to the significance and the import of the sections to those acts in question. I think that would only seek to amplify and add weight to the arguments put by my friend the member for Parry Sound.

1600

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Sir, it seems to me that when you are looking at the point raised by my friend from Parry Sound and also spoken to by my friend the member for Brampton North, you should ask a question around the act as to whether or not the sections dealing with the Planning Act and the Expropriations Act are fundamentally necessary to carry out the act of operating a casino. The question is not whether or not there are difficulties around the expropriation and the planning in order to put a facility in place; it has to be the question of whether or not operating a casino is affected by the changes that are being asked for in front of you.

One of the questions certainly that came to my mind was why, in this particular circumstance, the ministry, the government of the day, would be willing to override all the legislation and the judicial interpretation around expropriation in this one small clause in this one particular bill. It seems to me, sir, that when you are looking at undoing legal rights, legal remedies, the way is not to do it in a bill as a tangential part of another proceeding, but by bringing that bill forward and actually addressing the circumstances of the particular bill and the legal rights and remedies which are being dispensed with.

In this case, I think if you look at that you will find that the Expropriations Act does not hinder the government from operating a casino. It may hinder them from getting the casino and the land at a price which they want to have it at. It may in fact backdate things so that time periods run in a more favourable manner for the government. But the principles of expropriation and of the Planning Act are not to allow proponents favourable timing; they are to provide a set of circumstances of relief for them when the government steps in to take away land.

It seems to me therefore that if you narrowly choose to look at this act as a casino act and the ability to operate a casino, then you should sever from that the legal rights and remedies which must be and ought to be dealt with under a separate piece of legislation that the government should bring here in front of us.

It is for me a marvellous revelation of how this government would propose to override all legal authority, all legal remedies and all legal rights of a citizen of this province just for the purposes of speeding up the operation of a gambling centre in one community in our province. If they're prepared to do that, sir, it seems to me that we should be into a different debate altogether around who is going to be left with any rights if you are prepared to stand up and confront the government of the day that certain things should happen, ie, that certain prices should be paid for your land and certain applications should be made under due process.

I thank you for your indulgence but think that you could easily sever from this bill the portions on the Expropriations Act and Planning Act and still have the government authorized to carry on the business and duties that are required to operate a gambling facility in this province.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I heard with interest the member for Parry Sound's arguments vis-à-vis whether or not certain sections were in order for the government to bring forward at this time. I wanted to bring to the Chair's attention that during the hearings on Bill 110, which was the compendium bill dealing with the advocacy and consent legislation, the government, during the committee hearings, attempted to put forward several amendments dealing with different acts.

I think it's interesting to note as well, if you follow the line of argument which the member for Parry Sound put forward, that the general long title of Bill 110 is An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1991, and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1991.

What the government attempted to do late in the day after second reading in the standing committee on justice of this Legislature was to put forward an amendment to amend the Marriage Act, which was deemed by them to be of interest to them. I objected at that time that it was out of order because it did not have any direct relationship with Bill 110. The Chair of the justice committee did deem the government amendment out of order at that time. They also, I believe, disallowed amendments to Bill 110 by the government dealing with the Mental Health Act.

I think what is significant in what the Chair decided in the justice committee is that the long title of this bill is very generic. In other words, if the Chair or the Speaker of this House was looking for an excuse to include a section of a bill, it would have been under Bill 110.

My view is that this House has already agreed, or has set the precedent through the Chair of our justice committee, that there will be a strict application of this rule against the government introducing, late in the day, amendments dealing with different pieces of legislation, different statutes that are out of order. Therefore, I urge you to apply the strict rule that the Chair of the justice committee did in terms of disallowing the government to introduce amendments to the bill which are not necessary for the general purpose as stated in the long title of that bill.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The House leader of the third party and the House leader of the opposition party, but specifically, the House leader of the third party made a long and I think --

Mr Elston: Persuasive.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- not necessarily persuasive but fairly eloquent intervention on this point of order. It seems to me that he's essentially questioning whether or not the amendments are within the scope of the intent of the bill. I would suggest to you that in fact the amendments are.

The purpose of the bill is very clearly to establish a casino corporation and to enable the setting up of a casino. The amendments are specifically related to those matters.

In that respect, there have been some comments, although I unfortunately didn't hear them all, because I had to leave for a few moments, about amendments to other pieces of legislation. It is clear that we are not attempting, in this legislation, to amend the other pieces of legislation. We are simply proceeding to exempt certain sections of that legislation through this legislation. That's a practice that this House has dealt with on a number of other occasions, on a number of other pieces of legislation and --

Mr Elston: An exemption is an amendment to the application of a statute.

Hon Mr Charlton: The intent of our amendments is to simply exempt a particular project from a particular part of a piece of legislation, not to amend the legislation itself. It is clear that from that perspective, the amendments we've brought forward are amendments around which there are a number of precedents in the history of this place which have been passed in legislation that we've debated here over the course of the time I've been here, and the opposite as well. In that respect, from my perspective, these amendments are fully in order.

1610

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I just want to support the concern that is being expressed here, particularly elegantly and persuasively, I think, by the member for Parry Sound. Obviously, if you're going to make an exemption in a piece of legislation which is already drafted, you are in fact amending that legislation. The very act of exemption is making a change or an amendment to that legislation. I think that point is very clear.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Again, in opposition to this point of order, Mr Chairman, I draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that when you read the act itself, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos, and if you look under section 4 of the bill, clause 4(c) provides for the operation of casinos. Indeed, if you look under section 19 of the bill, it defines the area in relation to the land area in Windsor and also talks about the market value of any land.

I also want to talk about section 19.1 and the purpose of this particular amendment. This section defines the interim casino area as the legal description of the Windsor art gallery location. It also provides for proper zoning for a casino in that area in the same manner as for the casino area.

It also provides that the minister responsible for the administration of the Ontario Casino Corporation Act can set a final date for the zoning exemption for the interim casino area; that is, when the permanent casino opens, if the minister passes a regulation which specifies the date, the interim casino area would no longer be properly zoned for a casino.

I believe this amendment does not amend the Planning Act. Indeed, if you look under subsection 19(2), this amendment clarifies that, for the purpose of expropriation, the value of land in the casino area will be the value at January 1, 1993. That's already part of the bill. Subsection 10(2) of that act again sets out three possible dates for evaluation. In any event, in evaluating land under this act, no account can be taken of any special use to which the authority will put the land.

Under subsection 19(4), the purpose of this amendment is to provide for proper zoning for a casino in a casino area. This is done by making a casino a permitted land use, as long as regulatory requirements, if any, of the minister responsible for the administration of the Ontario Casino Corporation Act are met. Windsor's zoning bylaw for this area is so specific as to exclude the gaming area of casinos as a permitted use. Again, this amendment does not amend the Planning Act.

I believe these amendments do not amend either the Planning Act or the Expropriations Act. They simply hold these sections in abeyance, as is done in many bills that have been passed by this assembly. I believe these amendments give effect to the purpose of the bill as set out in the title.

Mr Eves: If I could say just briefly, in response to comments made both by the government House leader and the parliamentary assistant, I appreciate the subtle difference, I suppose, but the net effect, as was ruled by Speaker Jerome in Ottawa, of amending this statute is amending a different statute.

I said during my remarks that had the government in its initial draft of Bill 8 referred to the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act of Ontario and had a section that said "Notwithstanding this section," or, "Notwithstanding that section," in the original bill, or had they been referred to in the long title of the bill, I would quite agree the amendments they are now moving would be within the scope and jurisdiction of the bill. But not having done that, to come along at the 11th hour and say, "Oh, gee, we forgot that this section of this act might affect us, and this section of that act, and we didn't do our homework very well, so now we're going to try to slip this under the door instead of having it done properly in the first place," that's basically what this discussion is about.

I think both Beauchesne and Erskine May are quite clear on this point. We've given you two precedents in the Legislature of Ontario and numerous precedents in the House of Commons in Ottawa. I would submit to you again that these amendments are, for the reasons stated, beyond the scope of this bill, and I think that you have no choice, unfortunately, but to rule them out of order and inadmissible.

Mr Duignan: With due respect to the honourable member for Parry Sound, the third party's House leader -- and again, I must pay compliments to your well-researched, as they usually are, points of order. However, I believe this particular point of order is not in order because I believe the title of the bill and the purpose of the bill is to establish a casino operation and the enabling of the setting up of a casino. I believe the amendments are clearly relevant to and within the scope of that act. We are not trying to amend either the Planning Act or the Expropriations Act.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

If you are agreeable, perhaps what we could do is to keep on doing what we've started already while we do our research on both sections, the issues that you've raised, and we will have an answer for you in the immediate future. Are you agreeable to that?

Mr Eves: I would prefer, if you need some time, that you take it now, because as I understand it, at least from this side of the Legislature, these amendments are the really contentious amendments that the opposition parties have had problems with. We did not have an opportunity to debate them in committee because the government chose not to pose them in committee because they didn't have the numbers sufficient to carry the amendments in committee. This is the first opportunity we have to talk about these particular amendments.

I would submit to you, sir, that if you need time, you take five or 10 minutes now and adjourn the committee of the whole to make such a decision. Otherwise, we're going to be at a loss as to whether or not we're debating amendments that are out of order.

Mr Duignan: Maybe we could agree to a 10-minute recess of the House so you can do your necessary research into the point of order.

The Chair: If everybody agrees with that, then we will recess for 10 minutes. But I must remind you what I read. We are limited in time. But if this is what you require, this is what you ask of me, I'll do it.

Mr McClelland: I'm in agreement, as is my House leader, I think, as indicated; I think I see him nodding agreement. The member for Parry Sound is entirely correct. The substantive issues for debate today turn on these matters. There are some other amendments I would like to have a moment to reflect upon, but I think the most contentious and substantive issues for discussion are related to these, so perhaps it would be advisable that you take a moment and give us your ruling.

Mr Duignan: Our side is well aware of the fact there is a time allocation motion on the committee of the whole, but if the opposition choose to waste their time on this type of point of order, that's their decision.

The Chair: So are we all agreed that we will have a 10-minute recess? Agreed.

The House recessed from 1619 to 1630.

The Chair: I want to thank the member for Parry Sound for bringing this matter to my attention, and the other members also who commented on this matter.

Let me begin by clarifying that the amendments in question do not in fact seek to amend either the Expropriations Act or the Planning Act. The effect of these amendments is to exempt this act, Bill 8, from certain provisions contained in the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act. It is not in fact unusual for one act to contain within itself a provision by which it exempts itself from some other acts.

The ruling the member cites from December 12, 1983, is one which specifically addresses an attempt, by way of an amendment, to amend the Health Insurance Act, which is not open in the bill under consideration and is not applicable to this case.

As to the argument that these amendments are beyond the scope because the subject of them is not referred to in the long title of the bill, I submit that the words "and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos," along with the reference in the bill to the acquisition of land and land use, are broad enough to include these amendments within the scope of the bill.

I therefore find that these amendments are not beyond the scope of the bill and are in order.

Mr Eves: I appreciate the reasons you've given for your decision. Suffice it to say that I certainly disagree with the second reason you gave, especially with respect to the broad title of the bill and the wording of section 19 itself.

I really do feel that this is a very important matter and I wish to appeal your ruling under standing order 100(b) to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

The Chair: If you don't object, we'll wait for a couple of minutes. The Speaker is on his way to the House, so we'll just wait patiently.

Mr Speaker, I made a ruling on certain amendments that were brought to the bill. My ruling has been appealed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the Chair of committee. I wonder if I could prevail upon the member for Parry Sound and then the member for Bruce to briefly describe to me their concern about the ruling by the Chair.

Mr Eves: I'm not going to go through, nor would you probably let me go through, all the precedents that I quoted earlier. However, suffice it to say that originally this afternoon in committee of the whole I quoted initially the principle from Beauchesne and Erskine May with respect to amendments going beyond the scope of a bill or a piece of legislation.

Beauchesne, in paragraph 698: "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived."

I'm submitting that the three amendments I referred to, they being government amendments to the casino bill, Bill 8 -- subsections 19(2) and (4) and a new section that they're purporting to introduce, section 19.1 -- go beyond the scope of Bill 8, the casino bill, because they have the effect of suspending or doing away with the operation of sections of other pieces of legislation.

With respect to 19(2), the amendment, which is very brief, is:

"I move that subsection 19(2) of the bill be amended by adding 'Despite subsection 10(2) of the Expropriations Act' at the beginning."

Similarly, subsection 19(4): This is a new subsection that's being purported to be added to section 19 of the bill. It starts off:

"Despite any official plan adopted under section 17 of the Planning Act, any zoning bylaw passed under section 34 of that act or any interim control bylaw passed under section 38 of that act, the operation of a casino" etc.

Similarly, section 19.1 basically does the same thing. Subsection (2) says, "Despite any official plan adopted under section 19 of the Planning Act" -- the same language I just went through.

Also, I referred to Erskine May, which I thought was fairly important, because it talks about the scope of a bill and it talks about the objects of a bill at page 486. It goes on to say, "The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill, as introduced (see page 467)."

I also referred the Chair of the committee of the whole House to page 491 of Erskine May, where it says: "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill" etc.

1640

In ruling just now, the Chair of the whole House basically -- and I'm not going to go through all the precedents I cited, because I presume you have those at your disposal; I'm trying to sum up what he said in my own language. I think he basically said that for the following two reasons he found these amendments to be in order.

Number one, the amendments do not purport to actually amend another piece of legislation. They in effect have the effect of saying "notwithstanding" or "despite" a section of another bill, but they do not directly amend another piece of legislation. That's a reasonable argument. The other reason he gave, though, I cannot concur with, with all due respect to him, and that is why I have appealed his ruling to you.

The other reason he gave was that he felt the casino bill, Bill 8, whose long title is not very long -- An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos; that's the long title of the bill. He thought that title was broad enough in its scope to include dispensing with or suspending sections of the Expropriations Act of Ontario and sections of the Planning Act of Ontario.

I also during my remarks, when I introduced this point of order in the first place, read virtually in its entirety section 19 of the bill, which is the separate part of the bill. It is very short. Nowhere in section 19 as originally drafted, subsections (1), (2) or (3), is the Planning Act of Ontario even mentioned or is the Expropriations Act of Ontario even mentioned. Basically, all section 19 does is define by street name the area which is the casino area in subsection (1). It talks about the market value of the property being established as of January 1 in subsection (2). In subsection (3), it talks about what the city of Windsor could do if it has the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to selling, disposing or otherwise dealing with the land in question. Basically, that's what it does.

From my point of view, I think if you read that broad title to 100 people on the street, you'd be stretching a point to have anybody agree that it includes the Expropriations Act of Ontario and it includes the Planning Act of Ontario. During the course of arguments that were posed during committee of the whole, both the government House leader and the parliamentary assistant who has carriage of this particular piece of legislation made points with respect to the fact that, "Well, you have to deal with the Planning Act and you have to deal with the Expropriations Act."

I would submit to them that if in fact the original draft of the bill in section 19 had stated or alluded to or mentioned the Planning Act of Ontario and the Expropriations Act of Ontario, I think they would have a very valid point indeed and I don't think I even would have made the point of order in the first place. However, I don't think that any reasonable person can conclude from reading the long title to this bill, Bill 8, that it automatically includes the Expropriations Act of Ontario or dispensing with a certain section therein, or the Planning Act of Ontario and dispensing with three sections of that legislation therein.

As a matter of fact, knowing the factual background to why we have these amendments before us I think even further strengthens my argument. It wasn't until the city of Windsor went to the Ontario government and said, "Hey, we have a lawsuit going on here; our council says the only way we can be assured that we're going to be able to do this by the time we want to do it is for you to pass a piece of legislation that does away with the sections we don't like in the Planning Act and does away with the sections we don't like in the Expropriations Act."

It was never the intent of the draftsperson of this bill to do any of those things when this bill was submitted, and I'm submitting to you that for that reason alone it is beyond the scope of the legislation. None of it was ever intended. It was never contemplated that this legislation would have any effect whatsoever on the Expropriations Act or the Planning Act of Ontario.

Only when it was found that there were four sections, three in the Planning Act and one in the Expropriations Act, which proved somewhat inconvenient to the city of Windsor to get its interim casino and its permanent casino up and running when it wanted them running, and only after they made that case to the province of Ontario and the government of Ontario decided to take up that cause on behalf of the city, did they then go back and seek to do, by amending Bill 8, what I would submit should have been done by another piece of legislation.

I would submit that the three amendments I have talked about are out of order and inadmissible because it's beyond the scope of the bill for the reasons I have mentioned both here and in committee of the whole.

Mr Elston: I concur in the comments made by the member for Parry Sound, but I move quickly now to the reasons that were cited by the Chairman of committee of the whole.

He had made the ruling because he said the Expropriations Act has not been amended by the intended amendments which are before the Legislative Assembly as we deal with Bill 8. If in fact we were to turn to the Expropriations Act, you will see that it applies to every case where a legislative authority takes land against the interests of the land owner and specifies certain times at which that land value is to be computed, the amounts of money that are at stake and how you would compute the value of the land that is to be taken for the purposes of the statutory body if it was not normally used, in this case, as a casino.

What the legislation purports to do by amendment actually restricts the application of the Expropriations Act. That means in this case there is no application of the Expropriations Act, that in fact the sections which tell you about how you determine value no longer exist. The exemption, therefore, is an amendment of the Expropriations Act. It limits it.

In fact, if you take a look at the Expropriations Act as it was originally set out, here is subsection 2(1) of the Expropriations Act,

"Despite any general or special act, where land is expropriated or injurious affection is caused by a statutory authority, this act applies."

That means that in this act, in all circumstances where a statutory authority takes land, these are the rules and the laws of the province of Ontario.

In the first reading of Bill 8, the sections about which we are talking now in committee of the whole were not even contemplated. I think only the section which dealt with January 1 as the evaluation date was then enumerated among the 19 subsections.

But here we have a general limiting of the application of the Expropriations Act, and on that ground alone I raised issue with the Chairman. I understand what he may be thinking, and it's actually, I guess, contrary to the advice I offered, making a decision that, "Well, we understand that in order to get this casino thing up and operating, maybe we'll have to throw the Expropriations Act out the window."

That is not, in my view, an appropriate amendment of the Expropriations Act. If the Expropriations Act was not to apply to circumstances where a city wants to set up a gambling casino, then this act probably would have talked about that. It didn't say, however: "Where there are special needs of a legislative body, we will allow them an exemption. If it's going to cost them too much to expropriate under the act, we'll give them an exemption, or if it's going to take more time than they think they have to do amendments under the Planning Act, then we'll exempt them from the Planning Act." It doesn't give us that leeway. The Expropriations Act says clearly, "Despite any general or special act," this applies.

That is why the legislation has been requested after the introduction of the casinos act. It is not only an amendment of the Expropriations Act to say that it no longer applies in this circumstance to this public taking of this land; it is setting it up so that the citizens of Ontario must indeed wonder, if in fact Ontario Hydro wants land, then maybe it will do something special and go to the Legislative Assembly and say, "We're going to throw out all the things under the Power Corporation Act that we're allowed to give people the result that they want."

I just don't understand how a ruling could be made that the Expropriations Act is not being amended. Its application has been limited. It is, as a result, an amendment to expropriations. It is an intrusion on the way in which expropriations will be considered in the future.

1650

It is, if one particular place in our province can come to the Legislative Assembly and say, "This is inconvenient for us, to go through expropriations," the throwing away of the traditional way and the legal way of dealing with a dislocation of one of our citizens. It is as well, taking into consideration all of the judicial authorities, throwing away all of the interpretations one would normally have to understand if you were going to go through expropriations.

One of the things that is dealt with when you go through expropriations hearings is the very fact that people have to come to the court with clean hands; in other words, in fair dealings. It would seem to me, sir, that under these circumstances it looks like you're throwing all of that out the window. That's my first point, that in fact we have amended the Expropriations Act, and if you peruse the reasons, or at least the basic words which I think were used during the Chair's ruling, you will see that the indication was that there is no amendment to the Expropriations Act. I disagree.

I think the second reason the Chair ruled that the matters were in order was that he had indicated that the long title was broad enough to deal with the intended amendments, citing the latter portion of the long title, the full title being An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and -- this was the part upon which we fix our attention -- to provide for certain other matters related to casinos.

This is where I had offered some advice earlier, and I can understand that my advice may have been slightly convoluted. But it basically, sir, does not make one iota of difference to the operation of the casino in relation to accepting amendments on the Planning Act and on Expropriations. It does make a difference as to when those casinos get started. It may in fact, if I could ask for somebody who knows a little bit more about it, and I understand this is true, cost some more dollars in getting the casinos operating.

Mr McClelland: Ten million.

Mr Elston: Ten million, I'm advised by my friend from Brampton North. It may in fact, because of the time lines under the Planning Act, require certain steps to go through before the casino can be up and running. But the bill itself does not say, "This is a bill to provide for the early and less expensive operation of casinos in Ontario." In fact, if you take a look at this particular legislation, it is unlikely that there will be, and in fact there can't be, another time when section 19 comes into operation when other casinos are established, because it quite clearly says that the value for this particular facility is going to be determined as of January 1, 1993.

I would hope that does not have a general application to the commencement of proceedings to expropriate land for the construction of casinos in other centres around the province. If it were, it would be a very unfortunate set of circumstances indeed, and in fact I can tell you, sir, that this is not intended.

As a result, we have a very, very exclusive set of circumstances, not dealing with the operation of casinos in general in Ontario, but dealing with the commencement of operation of one particular casino, the one on the government's agenda at this time period.

It therefore means, sir, that while you might extend the interpretation to say that those latter phrases which I underscored by emphasis would allow something along the lines of those amendments, it cannot be so determined if they have no application to the general circumstances of this act. In other words, sir, the broad outline of this bill is to operate casinos. It's to provide for the operation of casinos under a corporation set up to do that. But in that way, any amendments which are accepted must therefore have general application to all of the operations of casinos in the province and cannot be exclusively aimed at one of those facilities alone.

That being the case, it is in my view therefore out of order to accept the amendments which would affect so negatively the individual legal rights of one particular land owner in the area of one of the casinos in the province. That is why I'm saying that the general title cannot be used in a way or interpreted in a way that would allow you to accept the amendments as they are proposed.

Those two are my concerns about the ruling. If they were of a more general application -- ie, to every facility -- if they did not prescribe the application of the Expropriations Act and the Planning Act, if they were not merely for convenience but if they actually said that certain things had to be done so that casinos could operate reasonably, then I think you're okay. In this circumstance, I must disagree with the Chair.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Bruce. I wonder if the member for Halton North has any contribution.

Mr Duignan: Very briefly, Mr Speaker. The member for Parry Sound rose on a point of order, saying that certain government amendments were not germane to the main motion or in fact extended the scope of the act, and tried to point out that these were out of order. In fact, the title and the purpose of the bill are very clear, and that is "to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos."

Again, these amendments do not amend either the Planning Act or the Expropriations Act; they simply hold these sections in abeyance, as is done in many, many bills that are passed by this assembly. In fact, these amendments give effect to the purpose of the bill as set out in the title.

As the member for Parry Sound, indeed the Tory House leader, has pointed out, and has granted our point regarding the fact, the amendments don't amend the Planning Act. I believe that concession alone should be enough to uphold the ruling of the Chair.

The Speaker: I appreciate the contribution by the member for Bruce, the member for Parry Sound and the member for Halton North. This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1657 to 1703.

The Speaker: First, I wish to thank those members who participated and contributed for the edification of the Chair, in particular the honourable member for Parry Sound who obviously, especially from the first opportunity, demonstrated that he had done some considerable homework on this particular point and quoted suitable references.

I must find that I sustain the ruling of the Chair and I confirm as well that the amendments do not amend the particular acts, that the title was referred to in the ruling of the Chair. The Chair also referred to certain sections of the bill that refer to both the acquisition of land and to land use, specifically sections 5 and 19. We may resume the chairmanship of the committee.

The Chair: In accordance with the orders of the House, "At 5 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House."

I will therefore proceed.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Since the motion read that we were to have done that at 5 and since we have not resumed until well after that time, I move that we are no longer able to undertake the business in committee of the whole House, that we are out of order in accordance with the actual terms.

The actual terms were such that, since we were not in committee of the whole House and the terms of the motion are very specific indeed and are to be read verbatim and word by word and interpreted very strictly because they overrule the standing orders which we generally use to govern business in this House, we now cannot proceed to take the votes that you are now purporting to take.

Mr Eves: On the same point of order made by the member for Bruce, Mr Chair: I think he's quite correct in that the time allocation motion, as passed, is quite specific. It says that any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5 pm on this sessional day.

There doesn't seem to be any room for latitude there; it says 5 pm, period. "At 5 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment," etc; it goes on and on.

I would submit that the member for Bruce indeed has raised a valid point of order. I don't think it's up to the discretion of the Chair to now do it at 5:10 or at 6:15 or at 11:12 tonight. I think 5 pm says exactly what it means, 5 pm, and we're definitely out of order here. At 5 o'clock, as a matter of fact, the committee of the whole wasn't even sitting.

Mr Duignan: I should point out that our House leader called the business of the day, which was dealing in the committee of the whole with Bill 8. How the opposition chose to debate that two hours or hour and a half remaining in the debate was up to them. They chose a point of order and debated a point of order instead of debating the substance of the bill.

Very clearly, our House leader called the order of the day, the business of the day, which is committee of the whole dealing with Bill 8.

1710

Hon Mr Charlton: Just to make a few additional comments on this point of order, the members opposite have put us through this a couple of times before when motions set a specific time, and then through procedural tactics that time was breached. It's no different than anything else that goes on around here. The time allocation motion which was passed by this House is an order of this House, and we now need to proceed with the votes that are set out in that time allocation motion which was ordered by the House to occur at this point.

The Chair: Any further comments? Any further questions?

You decided to have points of order, which was in order. I've listened to your points of order. I made a ruling which you appealed. We appealed the ruling to the Speaker. The Speaker made his ruling. I have to follow the orders of the House and this is what I will follow, and I will put every question. This is the order that I have, which I have to follow.

Shall the amendment to section 5.1 by Mr Duignan carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This is stacked.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: May we have agreement that where there are ayes and nays, we can agree that the vote will be stacked without having to stand on each point?

The Chair: Is it agreed? Agreed.

Shall section 6.1 by Mr McClelland carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The vote therefore is stacked.

Before we proceed with sections 7 to 12, there is one here which I neglected to mention. It's subsection 6(9), an amendment presented by Mr McClelland. Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall sections 7 to 12 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall paragraph 13(1)1.1 moved by Mr Eves carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall paragraph 13(1)3.1 introduced by Mr Eves carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall subsection 13(1) by Mr McClelland carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall subsection 13(3), presented by Mr Eves, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall subsection 13(5), introduced by Mr McClelland, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall section 13.1, introduced by Mr Eves, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall sections 14 and 15 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall subsection 16(1), introduced by Mr Eves, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall section 16 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

The ayes have it.

Shall subsection 18(1b), presented by Mr Eves, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall clause 18(2)(a), introduced by Mr Eves, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall section 18.1, introduced by Mr McClelland, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall subsection 19(1.1), introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall subsection 19(2), introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall clause 19(3)(a), introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall subsection 19(4), introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall subsection 19(4), introduced by Mr McClelland, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Shall section 19.1, introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall section 19.1, introduced by Mr Eves, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

The nays have it.

Shall section 19.2, introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall sections 20 to 38 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall section 39, introduced by Mr Duignan, carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall section 40 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall the title carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1721 to 1726.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order. Please take your seats.

All those in favour of section 0.1 to section 5, please rise if you are in favour.

All those opposed to section 0.1 to section 5, please stand and remain standing.

Members please take their seats.

The ayes being 62, the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Members come to order.

Government motion moved by Mr Duignan for section 5.1. Does this motion carry?

The ayes are 62, the nays are 33. I declare the motion carried.

Moved by Mr Eves, amendment to section 5.1: Shall the motion carry?

The ayes are 33, the nays are 62. I declare the motion lost.

Mr Eves has moved amendment to section 5.1. Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Motion 5.2, moved by Mr Eves: Is it the pleasure that the motion carry? Same vote as the one above?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr Eves has moved amendment 5.2(1), (2), (3) and (4). Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr McClelland has moved amendment to subsection 6(3). Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr McClelland has moved amendment to subsection 6(9). Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr McClelland has moved amendment to section 6.1. Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Shall sections 6 through 12 carry?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Subsection 13(1), Mr Eves, same vote reversed?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr McClelland has moved amendment to subsection 13(1). Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr Eves had moved amendment to subsection 13(3). Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr McClelland has moved an amendment to subsection 13(5). Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr Eves has moved a further amendment to section 13.1. Same vote?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare the motion lost.

Sections 14 and 15?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Shall sections 13 through 15 carry?

The ayes being 62, the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Mr Eves has moved amendment to subsection 16(1). Same vote reversed?

The ayes being 33, the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Shall sections 16 and 17 carry?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

1740

Mr Eves has moved an amendment to clause 18(1)(b). Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The same vote reversed?

The ayes being 33 and the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr Eves has moved an amendment to clause 18(2)(a). The same vote?

The ayes being 33 and the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr McClelland has moved an amendment to section 18.1. The same vote?

The ayes being 33 and the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Shall section 18 carry? The same vote reversed?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Members, we are getting there. I would ask you to have patience.

Section 19: Mr Duignan has moved an amendment to subsection 19(1.1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Mr Duignan has further moved an amendment to subsection 19(2). The same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Mr Duignan has moved an amendment to clause 19(3)(a). The same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Mr Duignan has moved an amendment to subsection 19(4). The same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Mr McClelland has moved an amendment to subsection 19(4). The same vote reversed?

The ayes being 33 and the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Shall section 19, as amended, carry? The same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Section 19.1: Mr Duignan has moved an amendment to section 19.1. The same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Mr Eves has moved an amendment to section 19.1. The same vote reversed?

The ayes being 33 and the nays being 62, I declare this motion lost.

Mr Duignan has moved a government amendment to section 19.2. The same vote reversed?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare the motion carried.

Sections 20 through 38, same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare the motion carried.

The final amendment is government amendment to section 39. Same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Shall section 39, as amended, carry? Same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Shall section 40 carry? Same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Shall the title carry? Same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare the title carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Same vote?

The ayes being 62 and the nays being 33, I declare this motion carried.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Charlton moves that the committee rise and report. Shall the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I believe we have agreement to now start with the 117th order and do all of the private bills through to the 129th order. I think we have unanimous consent to do both second and third readings.

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Eves, on behalf of Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Owen Sound Little Theatre.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

1750

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

CAMBROCO VENTURES INC ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Ruprecht, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Cambroco Ventures Inc.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Perruzza, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr50, An act to amend the Institute of Municipal Assessors.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

COUNTY OF HASTINGS ACT, 1993

On motion of Mr Paul Johnson, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the County of Hastings.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

OTTAWA JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGED ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr56, An Act to revive Ottawa Jewish Home for the Aged.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

CHILDREN'S ONCOLOGY CARE OF ONTARIO INC ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Poole, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr57, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

COUNTY OF GREY ACT, 1993

On motion by Mrs Marland, on behalf of Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the County of Grey.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Gary Wilson, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Akande, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

1800

YORK-DURHAM HERITAGE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr O'Connor, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

REGION 2, IWA BUILDING SOCIETY ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Bisson, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Region 2, IWA Building Society.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE

Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act / Projet de loi 40, Loi visant à stimuler le développement économique grâce à la création de sociétés de développement économique communautaire et à certaines modifications apportées à la Loi sur l'éducation, à la Loi sur les municipalités, à la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement d'une ceinture de promenade.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I recognize Mr White and I would like to ask if there are questions, comments and/or amendments, and to which section.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I wonder if first I might beg the Chair's indulgence and allow staff to join us, if that is possible. I don't imagine this will be a lengthy debate.

I move that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(a) the loan is intended to be used by the eligible borrower for --

The First Deputy Chair: Excuse me, Mr White. Could you first name the sections that we will be dealing with?

Mr White: Section 22.

The First Deputy Chair: I must ask if there are any questions, comments and/or amendments to sections 1 through 21. Shall sections 1 through 21 carry? Carried.

Mr White, now you may address the section.

Mr White: Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding section 22, Madam Chair, I move that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(a) the loan is intended to be used by the eligible borrower for any purpose other than the development of the business of the eligible borrower; or".

Simply put, this addition simply allows us to reinstate a clause which was inadvertently withdrawn in order to allow for an opposition amendment. I know the opposition was very much in favour of this amendment and of these clauses, as it strengthens the administrative component of the bill and ensures accountability. So, very simply, this establishes that loans offered by a committee loan fund are for purposes of establishing a business and not for paying off debts or other uses.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to Mr White's amendment to section 22? Seeing none, shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Carried.

Are there any further questions, comments or amendments to section 23 through to section 69? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that sections 23 through to 69 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

1810

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE COMTÉ DE SIMCOE

Consideration of Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe / Projet de loi 51, Loi concernant la restructuration du comté de Simcoe.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would members take their seats. We are dealing with Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe, standing in the name of the Honourable Ed Philip. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to any section of the bill?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): First of all, Madam Chair, I'd like the indulgence of the House to allow the staff to enter the chamber for committee of the whole, and I will go down there.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hayes, would you be able to tell us which sections of the bill you wish to amend?

Mr Hayes: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: Please proceed.

Mr Hayes: I'd like to thank the rest of the members for their patience and indulgence. I was looking for numbers, and the first few are actually legal language. It's plain language, not numbers.

The first one is that the bill be amended by striking out "Adjala and Tosorontio" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Adjala-Tosorontio." That's the first one.

The second one is that the bill be amended by striking out "Oro/Medonte" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Oro-Medonte."

The next one is striking out "Nottawasaga, Stayner, Sunnidale and Creemore" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Clearview."

The next one would be subsection 2(2). The next subsection 11(8.2); subsection 11(9); subsection 55(3).

That completes the list of amendments.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any further amendments to any other sections? Seeing none, Mr Hayes, would you like to further explain your amendments?

Mr Hayes: The first one is that the township of Adjala and the township of Tosorontio have requested that the new municipality resulting from their amalgamation be referred to as the township of Adjala-Tosorontio rather than the township of Adjala and Tosorontio.

The First Deputy Chair: Would you move the amendment first?

Mr Hayes: I move that the bill be amended by striking out "Adjala and Tosorontio" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Adjala-Tosorontio."

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Hyphenated names are regarded as awkward by some, but I think the important thing here is that it provides for community identification and that's very important. Therefore, I support the amendments.

1820

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, shall the motion by Mr Hayes carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes: I move that the bill be amended by striking out "Oro/Medonte" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Oro-Medonte."

The township of Oro and the township of Medonte have requested that the new municipality be given that name.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions and/or comments? Is it the pleasure of the committee that Mr Hayes's motion carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes: I move that the bill be amended by striking out "Nottawasaga, Stayner, Sunnidale and Creemore" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "Clearview."

This amendment was brought forward as a result of the request of those municipalities that I have named and we're just carrying out their wishes.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions and/or comments with regard to this amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 2(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after "the township of Essa" in the second line "the township of Adjala."

The standing committee on social development amended Bill 51 to implement an intermunicipal agreement annexing a small portion of the township of Adjala to the town of New Tecumseth. That was a request brought forward by those municipalities, also a local decision.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further comments or questions to this amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 3 through 10 carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes: I move that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same -- township of Essa

"(8.2) The commission of the township of Essa shall be composed of,

"(a) the mayor of the township of Essa; and

"(b) two other members who are qualified electors in the local municipality, elected by general vote."

The township of Essa has requested that its new hydro-electric power commission, created under section 11 of Bill 51, consist of the mayor and two additional members rather than the mayor and four additional members. This amendment accommodates the township's request.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there further questions or comments to this amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 11(9) of the bill be amended by striking out clauses 10(1)(c), (d) and (e) in the second and third lines and substituting clauses 10(1)(c) and (d).

This is the similar to the previous amendment, of course, brought in by the request of the township and we are accommodating that request.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to this amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 11, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 12 through 54 carry? Carried.

Now I believe you have an amendment in section 55.

Mr Hayes: I move that subsection 55(3) of the bill be amended by striking out subsection 44(19) in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting subsection 43(19).

This is a technical amendment and, as it is currently written, subsection 55(3) refers to subsection 44(19) and subsection 44(19) does not exist. This amendment corrects this error so that subsection 55(3) will refer to the subsection 43(19). I hope we've made that very clear.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other comments or questions with regard to this amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 55, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 56 through 68 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. Mr Wilson has moved that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole has reported two bills as amended and begs leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Hon Mr Wilson: I move the adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Wilson has moved the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The House adjourned at 1830.

29 novembre 1993