Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Conway moved resolution number 34:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the forest industry of the Ottawa Valley is in serious difficulty, that this difficulty arises from many factors including a marked deterioration in the availability of good standing timber on both public and private lands, that this difficulty has resulted in hundreds of workers losing their jobs in communities like Pembroke, Eganville and Barry's Bay where this industry is vital, the government and the Legislature of Ontario should

(a) recognize the economic importance of the forest industry to areas like Renfrew county;

(b) take immediate steps to stabilize and support the forest industry, including taking sensible and timely action to implement the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study, which was completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources this past year.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to simply take a few moments this morning to bring to the attention of this Legislature one of the most serious economic pressures in my part of eastern Ontario, and that has to do with the very serious state in which the oldest of our industries, namely the forest industry, now finds itself. It is not overstating the case to suggest that the forest industry in Renfrew county and in the upper Ottawa Valley is currently on the critical list. Hundreds of jobs have been lost in communities throughout the Ottawa Valley, as they have been lost in other parts of eastern and northern Ontario over the past number of months.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a briefing from the Ontario Forest Industries Association, at which briefing the group provided a copy of a recent analysis of the forest industry in Ontario by Price Waterhouse. I'm sure members of other caucuses will have the opportunity, if they have not already had the opportunity, to see this submission. It's quite clear that in the past number of years we have been losing the battle in this sector. I hope it is but a cyclical downturn, though there are very clear indicators that in fact there is a fundamental restructuring occurring.

In the brief time that I have available to me this morning I want to indicate that this issue is, as I indicated earlier, of priority concern to my constituents. I mentioned three communities in the resolution: the city of Pembroke and the villages of Eganville and Barry's Bay. They are only three; I could add to that list several others. I see in the chamber this morning my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton. He knows only too well what his area has experienced, particularly in the last couple of years with mill shutdowns.

I'm not here this morning to say that there are any easy answers, because in fact there are not. What we face today is a problem that has been developing over the past number of years and over the past number of decades. The solutions are not easy, but it is my contention that if government, business and other stakeholders in this debate do not turn their minds, and turn their minds quickly, to some of the difficult choices and painful decisions that have to be made, we are going to be presiding shortly over an Atlantic fishery debacle. That is not something I would want to see happen in my part of the province, particularly in this industry, which is the lifeblood of so many of these communities and quite frankly has been the reason for settlement in that part of the province for the past 150 years.

At the present time all three sectors of our local forest industry are in trouble. The sawmill sector is a mess and getting worse, not better. Wood chips are piling up in the mill yards from Pembroke up to Huntsville because that market, as my friend from Muskoka knows, is very soft. The veneer sector is perhaps in even more trouble. We've got four mills operating now in the area from Pembroke up to Sault Ste Marie. Really only three of those mills -- Canada Veneers in Pembroke, Columbia Forest Products in Rutherglen and Birchland at Thessalon -- are now operating. The Lajambe mill at Sault Ste Marie is down. We've lost hundreds of jobs in the veneer sector over the last couple of years, and I'm afraid more jobs are going to be lost if we don't take some corrective action very soon.

I mentioned in the resolution something called the Central Ontario Wood Study. This is a study that has been completed in recent months by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. I think it does provide a good focus for some of the decision-making I believe has got to be undertaken. Let me say, in a critical way, that I believe one of the most serious aspects of this difficulty has to do with an attitude in the Ministry of Natural Resources, which for the past number of years has, for probably the best of reasons, sought to overcommit a declining supply.

The Ministry of Natural Resources admits in this study that it does not have a very good handle on what is in the bush. The evidence strongly suggests that in the past number of years decisions have been made by governments, on the basis of MNR advice, that have overextended or overcommitted the natural resource base, which cannot sustain the capacity that's out there. As a first step, I think it is very important that we all take a very realistic, and quite frankly a more conservative, assessment of the standing timber that is on both crown and public lands. We've gotten ourselves, in my view, into the current difficulty because we have imagined that there was more material available than there actually was. Politicians of all stripes in all governments have been pressured into some bad decisions because they didn't understand that there simply was not the material there to sustain the capacity that was either being installed or being expanded.

The veneer sector is a classic example of that. We have some tough, painful decisions to make if we're going to keep the 250 jobs in Pembroke, the 200 jobs in Mattawa at Rutherglen and however many jobs are in the Sault Ste Marie area. There is no easy answer. In my view, the key to that sector is a much more hardheaded, realistic assessment of how much veneer material there is in my part of the province and reaching up to Sault Ste Marie and trying to reapportion that allocation on the basis of the existing capacity, with probably the painful realization that everyone's capacity is going to have to come down.

We have in the past taken the view that somehow we could find all that was needed to keep these operations going on an established or expanded basis, and that overestimate of what was available from crown and private lands has bedevilled this debate for a long time. It must end. The Central Ontario Wood Study essentially states that.

1010

There is a plan currently before the Minister of Natural Resources that is going to have a very considerable effect on Algonquin Park. I know my friends on all sides do not necessarily agree with me that multiple use should continue to be the operative principle in Algonquin Park. As the general manager of the Algonquin Forestry Authority said the other day, 40% of the feedstock for all of the sawmills through Renfrew and north Hastings and south Nipissing and north Haliburton derives from Algonquin Park.

If we intend -- as the minister is now being pressured to, and in fact has indicated he wants to do -- to expand a very substantial wilderness zone on the east side of Algonquin Park, honourable members have to know that that is going to substantially reduce the available materials for these area sawmills.

If that decision is made, somebody from government in this Legislature ought to go to these communities, from Huntsville to Bancroft to Pembroke to Barry's Bay and Whitney, with padlocks because it's going to shut down even more of this capacity and throw even more people out of work in places like Palmer Rapids and Madawaska and Stonecliffe and Harcourt and other places where this is the only game in town. Harcourt is an inappropriate example. I should retract that because that's one of the big mills already down.

We have to understand that if we want to reduce even further the availability of supply, it is going to have a very real effect on jobs in these communities.

The government is also going to have to understand that as we proceed with the very sensitive negotiations around the Algonquin land claim, that too will have an effect on the wood industry in our part of the province. I am hopeful that those negotiations are going to continue in a way that is going to resolve the concerns of the Algonquin community but is also going to understand and respect that this forest industry is the lifeblood of these communities. It is in dire straits at the present time.

A number of the recommendations contained in this study -- let me just quickly touch upon some of these: that we do not increase the commitment for quality-graded material from crown land and that we examine, in my view, fundamentally the way in which we allocate timber resources from crown lands. I am personally of a view now that the timber allocation methodologies we have are no longer appropriate to the contemporary reality. It's an enormously sensitive and complicated question, but I think it has to be examined.

Finally, as my time runs out, I agree with the Central Ontario Wood Study, which suggests that the time has come for a much better, much more specific, much more comprehensive system of inventory of what's out there so we can make more informed decisions on these key supply questions.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution from the member for Renfrew North.

The member's resolution points out that the forest industry of the Ottawa Valley is in serious difficulty, caused by deterioration in the availability of good standing timber in both public and private lands, which has resulted in hundreds of workers losing their jobs in communities like Pembroke, Eganville and Barry's Bay.

This resolution calls on the government to recognize the economic importance of the forest industry to areas like Renfrew county and take immediate steps to stabilize and support the forest industry, including taking sensible and timely action to implement the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study, which was completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources this past year. That is important. The recommendations that have been made by that Central Ontario Wood Study should be looked at more seriously than I believe is happening now within this ministry.

While I congratulate the member for Renfrew North for bringing this situation in the Ottawa Valley to our attention today, I think it should be pointed out that it applies to the forest industry in the entire province of Ontario. Clearly, it is not restricted to only one area.

The Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with his government's attempt to cut spending, has applied major cuts to Ontario's tree-planting program and seedling nursery operations. These measures seriously threaten forest regeneration and the future of this province's forest production industry.

On February 12, the Minister of Natural Resources announced Operation Tree Plant, a stunning retreat in terms of his government's commitment to tree planting. This program's fancy and somewhat misleading name is an attempt at covering up the fact that the minister is actually planting 35 million fewer trees this year. Unacceptable. Clearly, this is not responsible or professional forest management.

Then, on March 24, the minister announced that he is closing four of Ontario's 10 tree nurseries: the Chapleau and Gogama facilities this year and the Midhurst and Thunder Bay sites in 1993. Again, this decision was not made on the basis of any long-term forest management considerations; it was based purely on fiscal desperation.

By any objective measure, there isn't any question that the minister's misguided policies and actions seriously threaten forest regeneration, the future of the forest products industry and jobs. The very essence of this member's resolution this morning is jobs and forest industry protection.

The minister's current budget allocation of approximately $230 million to forestry over the next three years: He plans to cut that budget by $100 million, and $40 million is to be slashed in the first year alone. Obviously, the minister's commitment to Ontario's forests is dead, and he's killing off jobs at the same time.

The Ontario Silviculture Association estimates that 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, mostly for students, were eliminated in the industry this year. The ministry itself estimates that the closing of the four tree nurseries will cost 50 permanent jobs and 180 temporary positions. In the Thunder Bay region alone, the minister's cutbacks are costing an estimated 770 jobs.

Thunder Bay city council, as I've mentioned before, has endorsed a report from the local tree seedling growers association, which calls on the NDP government to ensure that 165 million trees are planted annually -- falling on deaf ears, I may say.

I support the member for Renfrew North in his effort in bringing this deteriorating situation in the Ottawa Valley to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources and his government, but I would expect and demand that the minister make a new and comprehensive commitment to our forests throughout all of Ontario, one that's bolstered by a long-term, comprehensive plan and sound professional management.

I would like to urge the minister to form a partnership with such organizations as the Ontario Tree Seedling Growers Association. It should be a partnership dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the public's forest ecosystem for all environmental, social and economic uses.

Just this week the Ontario seedling growers association has been in touch with me again, wanting to know what has happened with regard to the ministry, with regard to its programs, with regard to its commitment for these seedling trees that it wants to sell, as it has over the past years.

Tree planting should be a commitment utmost in the mind of the minister and his parliamentary assistant from the north, to make sure that these areas that have been cleared and are ready for replanting are replanted. I met this morning with some people within the industry. They're indicating to me that these areas are not being replanted. So I think the commitment from the minister to his forest management should be utmost on his mind.

When we look at the four mills that the member talked about, from Pembroke to Sault Ste Marie, that were probably closing and laying off people, we've got to look at that whole aspect, and that's only one area that he's talking about. There are areas in all of Ontario that is the same.

The assessment of standing timber: Has there been assessment made by the ministry that will determine for us exactly what is out there that you could make and sell to the cabinetmakers, for wood-finishing people? Do we have those stands?

When we look at the economic policy of the government relating to forest management, the Ministry of Natural Resources commitment to the people of this province is failing. It's going to get a failing mark because the $40 million this year alone that is being cut is unacceptable. I think that priorities within the ministry have to be put in place whereby forest management is its number one priority.

1020

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just want to take a little bit of time to address the resolution that the member for Renfrew North has brought forward. He's referred a number of times to the wood study -- and that is not the Len Wood study. That is the wood study of the central Ontario area that he's referring to.

I have a copy of the study here. There are a number of recommendations -- I believe they number up to eight -- that have been brought forward on that study.

In the resolution, the member for Renfrew North's comments are to "take immediate steps to stabilize and support the forest industry, including taking sensible and timely action to implement the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study."

This is a study that started in September 1990 and was completed in September 1992. A number of actions will be taken from recommendations brought in in the fall of 1993.

There's going to be an improved inventory: "the importance of improved inventory to our future management," and "We're actively working to incorporate the inventory projects into our ministry budgeting process." These are some of the comments from MNR.

One thing we have to remember is that in the area where the wood study was done, there are 250 operating sawmills. Out of these 250 sawmills that are operating, there are 43 sawmills that produce over one million board-feet of lumber a year, and 13 of these mills provide over 90% of the lumber produced.

Of those 13 sawmills, there are logs available from crown and private land to meet the demands of approximately only eight. I'm talking about running full production, because in my riding of Cochrane North, all of the communities are single-industry towns. They're dependent on the renewable resources that we have. I'm talking about Hearst, Mattice, Opasatika, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane. Each one of these communities depends for its livelihood either on sawmills, pulp mills or paper mills.

The member mentions that there are a lot of jobs lost. There's no doubt about it. In my riding of Cochrane North, over the last number of years, there have been a lot of changes taking place through modernization -- mechanization of the forest and modernization in the pulp mills, paper mills, sawmills -- and downsizing. There are a number of sawmills that haven't been able to continue to operate.

For example, in Hearst right now, unemployment is close to 40%, but we're hoping that this is going to turn around as the community works together with government, with the various ministries and with private enterprise to be able to get the best use of what forest is there and to maximize employment.

You can go back 20 years, where in one community there were 12 sawmills operating, and now there are two operating at approximately one and a half shifts. They cannot make ends meet, spend the money for capital to modernize the places, and at the same time create jobs. So they need full operation and they also need wood to be able to do it, and trees that are out there.

So there are a number of recommendations in the Central Ontario Wood Study area that will be addressed in the fall of 1993. The ministry staff in Pembroke are presently working with local sawmillers and Renfrew county staff on a variety of proposals for the utilization of the large volumes of low-quality material in eastern Ontario.

One of the options being considered is the development of a wood-fired generation plant in Renfrew county. While there are a number of problems that will have to be dealt with, the project provides a wide variety of benefits, including the stabilization of the local forest industry. We'll continue to work with Ontario Hydro, private investors and local representatives to develop a viable project for Renfrew North.

This is one example of private enterprise, government, the county and the municipalities in any community throughout Ontario trying to create other jobs and value added products from waste from wood, to get the maximum amount of jobs out of a renewable resource. If we're cutting down trees and using them to make pulp and paper and two-by-fours and things of this kind, then we have to reforest. I disagree with the member for Simcoe East; we are planting the trees, there are a number of trees being planted out there. In a lot of cases there are fewer being used because of recycling of newsprint and things of this kind, but during the recession and hard times that we're going through, the worst recession we've had in 50 years, we are making an attempt. I believe that Bud Wildman is doing a very good job of bringing forward a lot of proposals that are going to address the issues brought up in this resolution.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It certainly is a privilege to stand and support the resolution of the member for Renfrew North today. I think it indicates a strong concern, not only in his constituency but across the province, for what's going on in the forest industry and the forests of Ontario today.

Mr Conway represents many single-industry towns whose only reason for being was the forests of Ontario and the wealth they could bring to this province. Historically, these communities have brought that kind of wealth not only to the people within the region, by creating employment, but for the province as a whole. They have been strong engines of Ontario's economic development since people first started to use those resources to make this a better place. Ontario forests provide 20,000 fewer jobs today than they did about two years ago. That, to me and to the members of my caucus, is unacceptable. We find that the numbers in the forests and the wealth produced from these forests are just unacceptable, given the government's policies.

There's some information that I don't think people are well aware of, but forests, of course, are a renewable resource. Forests can be used over and over for many things, including the commercial uses. I want to talk just a little bit about the regeneration because, in estimates, our party spent a lot of time talking about wood supply and about what we are going to do 50 years from now. I want to tell you that the cuts to the regeneration programs in this province have been unconscionable.

Strangely, if you look at regeneration on crown land, what New Democrats are doing in 1991 and 1992 looks almost precisely like what Tories did in 1981 and 1982.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): But what we want to know is, what did the Liberals do?

Mr Brown: The graphs are very similar; it's exactly the same thing.

We have an opportunity to improve forest regeneration, to do better things --

1030

Mr Martin: You had five years.

Mr Brown: Well, we did have five years, Tony, and I'd like you to look at the graphs, because they go like this. They go straight up, and now they're going straight down.

I want the New Democrats over there to understand that the 30 million trees that aren't being planted on the crown lands in Ontario today are a direct result of misguided policies over there, and not only the trees being planted because that's only part of the story. You can't just plant a tree, you have to tend a tree, and if you think that the number of trees planted have gone down significantly since this government came to power, and that's a fact --

Mr Martin: You don't harvest trees in five years.

The Deputy Speaker: Heckling's out of order.

Mr Brown: -- the tending of the forest has fallen right off the chart. This government is spending virtually -- well, it's just not there. They're not looking after the investment the previous governments have made in the forests of Ontario, because you have to tend the site for five to six years. We are not doing that in this province.

Members from the north would know that there were about 2,000 people less in Ontario's forests last year providing planting and tending, and those 2,000 people were mostly young people. They were people who were going to universities, they were people who wanted to improve their opportunities for education, and in a time when a government is cutting back on the assistance that it provides to students in northern Ontario as well as across the province, it is really unacceptable to me and should be to all members of this place that the government is not doing things that make sense. It makes sense to tend the forest. It makes sense to take advantage of the opportunity we have in the forests of Ontario today and to make sure that the renewable resource is in fact renewed.

I estimate we learned a lot of very amazing things. We learned that the Ministry of Natural Resources has increased the amount of money it is spending for information, research and policy by 23%. They're paying for a lot of consultants out there, but they're paying 6% less in operating costs. The actual amount of work being done in the forests of Ontario and all the other programs of the Ministry of Natural Resources has been cut, and on top of that -- and this is shameless -- the staff payroll within the Ministry of Natural Resources has increased by 11% in one year, and the inflation in this province was about 1.5%.

If Mr Wildman can explain that to the people I represent, to the people who aren't working out there, how ministry staff can have their salaries and benefits globally increased by 11% --

Mr Wood: It was all explained to you in estimates, if you were listening.

Mr Brown: I cannot understand. The people I represent won't be able to understand that. We have to be able in this time to set some priorities, and our priorities are the people who Mr Conway represents, the people I represent, the people Mr Miclash in Kenora represents, who rely on the forest products industry for wealth. We hope our children and grandchildren will be able to do that. Without regeneration, without proper timber allocations, we will not have the opportunity of doing that, but we know that the bureaucracy is being well looked after.

The amount of money being spent on operations by the Ministry of Natural Resources is down significantly. It is the old "pay more and get less," and this government continues to do that in just about every facet of its operations.

I represent communities such as Mr Conway's. I represent communities along the north shore of Lake Huron. I represent the town of Espanola. Just outside my riding is Nairn Centre, some of the largest forest industry operations in this province. They are experiencing great difficulties. The industry was in to see us, that is, a committee of the Liberal caucus, last evening, and they showed what dire shape that industry is in these days. They told us that they are losing hundreds of millions of dollars. They're in very difficult straits. As I said, they've lost about 20,000 employees over the last two years.

They told us that there are problems out there, and they don't only relate to timber management. They don't only relate to regeneration. They relate to an unconscionable energy policy in the province of Ontario that is forcing them out of business. They are becoming very uncompetitive with their neighbours in even Michigan because of hydro rates. The numbers are astounding.

To survive that industry is going to need a rational policy by this government to make sure that they are economically viable. That applies both to Mr Conway's constituents in the forest industry or the people he and I represent on the farms of Ontario or the senior citizens. I want to just leave this government one message. The message I want to leave them is that your hydro/energy policy is killing the competitiveness of this province and it must stop.

With that, I'm going to ask that I can give my time to the member for Lanark-Renfrew so he may finish his remarks, if that's possible, sir?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's my pleasure this morning to join with my colleague the member for Renfrew North in support of this resolution number 34.

The preamble of the resolution asks this House to recognize that the forest industry is in serious difficulty. While this difficulty arises from many factors, the primary factor is the deterioration in the availability of good standing timber.

The resolution also acknowledges the fact that the current forest industry crisis has led to the loss of many jobs in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, and I will say that these job losses have been particularly hard on the economy.

The resolution also states that immediate steps should be taken to implement the Central Ontario Wood Study, which was released over the past summer. This study is proof that the government is aware of some of the problems with the forest industry. Despite the fact that the government is aware of the problems inherent to the industry, it has failed to implement the recommendations of its analysis. The longer the government delays, the more jobs will be lost.

The industry is in trouble not for lack of natural resources, because there is still abundance of harvestable trees within the Ottawa Valley. The forest industry is dying because of excessive intervention and regulation on the part of the Ontario government. Rigid environmental policies, set out and enforced by bureaucrats from the Ministry of Natural Resources, are simply incompatible with the economic realities of the Ottawa Valley. As a result of these unsuited policies, companies are going bankrupt, hundreds of people are losing jobs and communities are actually falling apart.

The closure of Stone Consolidated at Braeside is the clearest example of this negative dynamic between economy and government policy. It is evident in the village of Braeside in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew. In this village of only 500 people, 155 individuals have lost their jobs because Stone Consolidated, formerly known as Gillies Lumber, went out of business.

Stone Consolidated was not the only industry located in Braeside, and its closure put a total of 300 people out of work in the valley as a whole. This mill did not go out of business because it was uncompetitive or for the lack of markets. Stone Consolidated closed operations because it wasn't granted sufficient timber allocations by the provincial government.

1040

The closure of the mill has had devastating effects on the community. This mill had served as a mainstay of economic activity for over 25 years and formed a major component of the unique tradition of history in the Ottawa Valley. It had shown that forestry was capable of sustaining jobs and investment within our local economy, because forestry is one of the few natural resources available to our area and because the Ottawa Valley has been hit particularly hard by the recession.

In discussing this closure with the reeve of Braeside, Mr Neil Mullins, he states, and I quote:

"The community of Braeside has been hit very seriously. Assessment from our mill took care of our school and county taxes and now the county taxes will have to cover our losses and as a result everyone in Renfrew county will pay and there will be more taxes for everybody."

The economy of the valley is already suffering from hard economic times and cannot sustain any further tax increases. Taxes will also have to be increased in order to cover the welfare costs of the unemployed from this mill. This is particularly frustrating given the fact that every taxpayer knows full well that forestry is still viable in Renfrew county. What is even more frustrating is the fact that the mill at Braeside is capable of sustaining 400 to 450 jobs if the government would allow it to operate at its potential capacity.

When asked to explain why the Braeside mill went out of business, Reeve Mullins said, and I quote:

"I blame the government because they would not grant the necessary timber allocations to keep the mill open. By not allowing the mill to obtain these timber allocations, it's as though the government wants us to be on welfare."

We feel there is still hope for the renewal of the forest industry in Renfrew county and there is still a possibility that the Braeside mill can go into operation again, only if, though, the government starts to rethink some of its forestry policies. Instead of crowding out economic activity and placing unnecessary limitations on resource allocation, the government must work towards cooperative agreements that will ensure that local mills have access to the timber allocations that they deserve.

There are currently buyers who are interested in purchasing the Braeside mill, but there is one problem. The investors will not buy the mill unless there's assurance from the Ministry of Natural Resources that it will allow for sufficient timber allocations. This deal is thereby contingent on whether the government can cooperate with the forest industry. In essence, this government can make or break the industry in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew. The obvious solution is for the government to become more realistic in the implementation of its environmental policies. They should work towards sustainable development and not zero development.

Another problem with the forest industry in my riding is the cost of energy. I know my colleague the member for Renfrew North is well aware of what's happening. He has many more businesses and industries depending on the mills than in the south part of the riding that I have, along with Lanark.

The mills were actually guided and directed to use electricity for their operations not that many years ago and now, due to the policies of this government and the policies at Ontario Hydro, which is under direct control of this government, that energy is no longer feasible simply because of the cost. That, along with the drop in the availability of timber rights to the mills, is causing the real problem in my section of Renfrew county.

I am pleased this morning, along with the member for Simcoe East, who used to work in the sawmill and is very well aware of the number of people it employs and the type of employment, to be able to be here and support Mr Conway on this bill.

Mr Martin: It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise in the House and speak on this issue. We in this government inherited two and a half years ago a great challenge re the management of the resources of the province, a challenge that I think was heightened by the non-management of the resource over the last 10 or 20 years or more in the province, and particularly in the five years proceeding the time we came into office.

There has been a history of misuse and abuse and of catering to interest groups and particular groups. We decided that we would stop that and that we would try it in partnership with all the vested interests in the forestry sector, particularly in our neck of the woods as northern members, and do it in a way that recognized all the interests: certainly, the interests of the industry, the interests of the workers, the interests those of us who live and breathe in northern Ontario, and the interests of the environment and those kinds of concerns.

We have done a number of very interesting things by way of that unique partnership. My colleague from Cochrane tells me of the success of the Spruce Falls restructuring. I know that in my city Algoma Steel was restructured in a way that spoke to a new partnership and coming together of people, and we will continue to do that. In this forestry sector particularly, there is a need to sit down and seriously look at where we're going. That's not done overnight. It takes some time. We're well on our way and I think it won't be long before we will be able to see some of the fruits of the work we are now doing.

I will give you some examples of some of the recent activity in the north and particularly in this central region that my colleague, friend and neighbour Bud Wildman is leading as the competent minister that he is in Natural Resources.

The ministry is working with all parties to ensure that no additional commitments are being made on a very limited resource in the north. We are presently reviewing with industry representatives the allocation of the crown licences associated with the Stone Consolidated mill in Braeside, Ontario, that closed last May. Our operating principle in the review is that these licences should be redistributed among existing mill operations in the Ottawa valley area.

The recently announced wood rationalization program in central Ontario will be attempting to deal with the issue of improvement to our present wood allocation and licensing systems. This program has started with a target of late 1993 for recommendations. Representatives from the forest industry in the Ottawa valley and those members of the public concerned about this issue will play an active part in the wood rationalization program.

We recognize the importance of improved inventory to our future management and we are actively working to incorporate inventory projects into our ministry budgeting process. We are also taking initiatives to try and modernize the mills, which I think is important for the long-term viability of those operations and those enterprises. Incentives for the modernization of mills is closely linked to the availability of a long-term wood supply, of course. Before the industry can move ahead with modernization we have to sit down together to talk about long-term available timber volumes and sustainable forestry. There is recognition within the industry that things are changing and we will be going through a period of restructuring. Our challenge is to ensure that whatever changes are made are done in such a way that the sustainability of the resource is ensured.

I think that's the key issue here this morning, the issue of sustainability and working in an intelligent fashion in front of that to make sure that all operations, including the ones that are most particularly being targeted here this morning by the member for Renfrew North, that are a concern, certainly to my colleague the member for Cochrane North, Mr Wood, and myself re the operations in my riding.

1050

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House and speak to the resolution set forth by Mr Conway, the member for Renfrew North. Our ridings are very similar and Haliburton county is very close to Renfrew county and has similar territory and similar concerns. We in Haliburton county experienced a very difficult time under the Liberal government when the Harcourt mill was closed down. It was closed down for many of the issues that have been raised here today, because of the deterioration in the availability of good standing timber.

The Harcourt mill was seeking ways to expand its procedures for getting lumber. They were going to the government, and they asked for an agreement with the government to go into certain crown lands. The government, under the Liberal regime, was unwilling to do that. I must say, although I was very much against the process of what happened around the Harcourt mill, I really felt for the government in those days because the government was faced with a very difficult problem, and it's a problem that all governments, including our own, are facing today, and that is on one hand, we have the reality of government intervention, the government having to decide what are the priorities in terms of the forestry industry and how those priorities are to be met. On the other hand, we have a growing consciousness and understanding about ecological considerations, and it is these two very strong competing forces which have pushed governments into having to make very difficult decisions.

I live in Haliburton county, in that part of the county where there's been a significant amount of lumbering. It's a historical industry, going back to the Boyd family of Bobcaygeon, which was one of the barons of the lumber industry in the 19th century. I go through my area and I see the kinds of lumberings that are going on now in the forests, I see the wood that's coming out, and if you look at the stumpage, if you look at the size of the logs that are coming out of the forests, they are not very large any more. In fact, we have forested and overharvested to a great degree throughout our part of Ontario.

Again, we have this constant tension between government intervention and setting priorities for government and trying to help the industry along, and on the other hand, ecological considerations about the viability of the forests. How is that to be resolved?

I agree with the honourable member for Renfrew North when he says that the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study be taken very seriously, and in many cases, implemented. I think on the whole that it's a good study. It needs to be taken seriously and I want to support that part of the resolution that the member for Renfrew North puts.

I do want to say, though, that in response to the members for, certainly, Simcoe East and Lanark-Renfrew, some of the criticism they have put towards the government, being a fair-minded individual, may indeed be true, but I can say -- as I keep on hearing about where the Ministry of Natural Resources has cut its operating budget and the effects of that throughout the ministry and on the province of Ontario -- to those honourable members, you can't have it both ways.

We are in a recession. We are definitely in a situation in which we have to control government spending. That is going to affect programs, and you can't have members saying on the one hand, that government should not be cutting these programs, and in the next breath, condemn the government for its spending. You can't have it both ways, so I would say to those honourable members that the government is attempting to redress this. I hope the recommendations of the study are accepted and I want to give my support to the overall aims of the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I want to thank my colleagues on all sides for their contribution to this debate. I appreciate very much what they've had to say individually about the situations in their own communities. I guess a big part of the reason I'm here today with this resolution is that this is one of the most basic industries in much of this province and it is in a hell of a mess, and we're all to blame.

My friend from Haliburton rightly observes the pain and misery of that Harcourt thing. I lived through that. I saw my own name smeared in the public press over that. I won't get into the history of that, but I'll tell you, it was not a very happy time, and there's blame on all sides, blame on the part of past governments, blame on the part of industry.

The key question of what's in the bush today -- the member for Sault Ste Marie was talking, and rightly so -- we've high-graded, we've depleted the public and private lands of this province of much of the good material, and that is not entirely the government's fault. Industry has a responsibility for that and so do all of us living in communities, because there were a lot of very, very strong short-term local pressures that drove some decisions, and sometimes those decisions, with the best of intentions, went altogether in the wrong direction.

My friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew points out the problem he's got in Braeside. I want to just cite one statistic, a statistic from this Central Ontario Wood Study, and this looks at the area from Pembroke up through Parry Sound. I ask my friends to listen to this. This is the most recent data from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

According to these MNR data, we now know that we have only enough sawlog material from crown and private lands to meet the demand of eight of the 13 large sawmills in the Pembroke-Parry Sound area. So without doing anything else, we apparently now face a situation where 40% of the existing large mills in the area will have to shut down. That's hundreds of jobs. I hope it doesn't happen, but that's the latest data.

On top of that -- this is very painful for members on all sides -- in this study area, 40% of all of the material comes from Algonquin Park. Now if we move, for whatever good and virtuous reason, to eliminate logging in Algonquin Park or to substantially reduce the materials available to the Algonquin Forestry Authority, I hope we all understand what that means. That is sending hundreds of people to guaranteed unemployment. If we do that, we just better understand what we're doing.

When I go to places like Mattawa and Madawaska and Palmer Rapids and Cardiff and all of these other places, this is in many cases the only game in town. Before I send those people down the road to the unemployment and welfare lines, I'm going to think long and hard. I do not support an elimination of logging in Algonquin Park, although I understand the theoretical argument.

Mr Martin: Do you support management?

Mr Conway: Of course. We have no choice. I want to say to my friend the member for Sault Ste Marie who says we're talking about management, well, I hope so, and one of the criticisms I have is that the government -- and I don't mean this is a partisan observation because it was certainly true in our case -- the fiasco that our government presided over at Temagami was in large measure because the government was at war with itself. The Ministry of Natural Resources is becoming fundamentally conflicted. The timber branch is perpetually at war with parks and recreation. It cannot make any kind of a cohesive and coherent decision because it is a conflict of interest writ large.

Now you've got other departments of government: You've got Environment working at cross purposes with Natural Resources. As the member from Lanark pointed out, and as my friend from Manitoulin observed, the Hydro pressures on this industry are stupendous. My friends in the government caucus will hear from the Ontario Forest Industries Association, I expect, very shortly, but I'm going to tell you, when you've got sawmills employing 50 and 60 people with hydroelectric bills of $500,000 going up on an annual rate of 10% and 12% at a time when the market is collapsing, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out what that's doing to viability. I know there maybe aren't any easy answers to that. My point is that we'd better understand that we don't have an endless amount of time to debate this question.

The OFIA told us last night that we've lost about 20,000 jobs in this sector in the last couple of years and we are undoubtedly going to lose more, and some of those losses we're not going to be able to do anything about. We'd better soon in this province develop a strategic plan in this vital resource sector that turns on a few principles.

One, it is an important industry in places like Sault Ste Marie and Pembroke and Haliburton and Cochrane and a lot of other places, and it's politically correct to say that, that forestry is not some kind of scourge, although forestry has some sins for which atonement is due. I agree with my friends opposite and my friends here when they say we can't continue the past practices. I can't believe there's anybody out there who honestly imagines that we can or should.

But we'd better soon come up with a plan in this province that brings government and business together in some kind of sensible, coherent way to address the problems of the environment, of energy, of wood supply, of a better inventory, of a fundamentally re-examined timber allocation system. In my area we've got community groups now developing that are not very happy with the traditional OIC, or order-in-council, licences.

On the other hand, we've got an industry that's going to require massive investments if it's going to modernize and update to develop some of the new opportunities. Nobody's going to invest any money in this industry if there is no certainty, if there's no predictability.

1100

When we talk about some of these other issues like energy and the environment, I hope we all understand what some of these high-cost uncertainties in those key areas are doing to the investment climate. Nobody's going to go into Braeside, nobody's going to go into Lajambe in Sault Ste Marie and invest any kind of money if he thinks he's about to be run out of town with impossible environmental regulations. Nobody's going to do anything in my area if you think you're going to lose 40% of your feedstock, which has traditionally come from Algonquin Park. That is a reality.

This is an issue of economics, of jobs, of community survival in my part of eastern Ontario. The industry's on the critical list and now is the time to get on with some tough choices and some important decisions. I'm glad we're prepared to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Tilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This subject was first drawn to my attention and, I assume, to the attention of other members of this House some time ago by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. I will read the explanatory note which all of you have in front of you, but it would be interesting for those who are watching these proceedings to know the purpose of this bill.

The bill addresses a situation where a person provides emergency care to a person who later goes or is taken to a hospital.

The person who provides the emergency care may then ask the medical officer of health if he or she was exposed to a reportable disease or to an agent of a communicable disease in the course of providing the care. The medical officer of health is required to respond in writing as soon as possible and to not disclose the patient's identity to the care giver.

In addition, a hospital is required to report to the medical officer of health the name of every person who provides emergency care to a person with a reportable disease or an agent of a communicable disease. If the medical officer of health determines that the person who provided the emergency care may have been exposed to the reportable disease or to the agent of the communicable disease, the medical officer of health shall advise the person as soon as possible of that fact.

In short, if a fireman, a policeman or what I call a good Samaritan, an individual who is driving along a road and observes a car accident, or if he or she is in his or her place of employment and observes that someone has been injured and has sustained substantial injuries and then either rescues that person, takes the person to the hospital where he or she is attended to or simply makes the person comfortable until the fireman, the police officer or other person of authority comes to take the person to the hospital, and if that person who has been rescued has a communicable disease and the hospital, in the course of examining that person, determines that the person has a communicable disease, the law currently is that the rescuer or the police officer or the person providing care simply cannot be informed that he or she has come into contact with such a person. The purpose of this bill is to rectify that situation.

The rationale of the bill is that emergency response personnel are contracted to provide a service that we, as a society, consider to be essential: the provision of emergency medical care. People who are called upon to fill that role include ambulance personnel, police, firefighters and nurses.

As well, of course, it is widely recognized that all citizens have an obligation to provide what care they can for others who are seriously injured. Those who fulfil these obligations are recognized with citations, medals and awards, aside from the moral issue of simply providing assistance to people who are in need of care. Yet these health care providers and good Samaritans are, as it turns out, themselves put at risk of contracting potentially fatal diseases such as hepatitis, meningitis or HIV.

This bill, then, is designed to inform emergency care providers if they have faced significant chance of exposure to a communicable disease, so that they can take the medical steps to learn if they have indeed been infected, as well as altering their own behaviour to reduce the risks to their coworkers, friends and families.

I think that is the next issue, of course, if these persons have contact with a disease and they go back and, unbeknownst, infect their family. That currently is the law today, and I would hope all members of the House would support this bill and remedy that situation.

There are a number of factors which together combine to place emergency response personnel at significant risk of contracting a communicable disease from an injured person. First of all, there is the presence of body fluids. While many medical emergencies arise out of motor vehicle accidents, workplace accidents or crime scenes, the injuries can be severe burns, extensive wounds etc. This means that the ample presence of body fluids is one of the ways in which communicable diseases are transmitted.

Secondly, the speed of response must be very high. The victim must receive medical attention fast. Any delay may be fatal. We all know that and we all, as good Samaritans or firefighters or police officers or nurses, realize the necessity to deal with these injured people as soon as possible. Emergency response personnel therefore are faced with the dilemma of wasting valuable time donning protective gear or acting to save the victim. So they're put in a very difficult position, and it may be that they may not have time to don their protective gear, aside from the risks of the good Samaritan.

Thirdly, there is the physical proximity to the victim, and this increases the risk of transmission.

While some 60 diseases have been designated communicable and most of them life-threatening, four are significant. There is the disease tuberculosis, secondly meningitis, thirdly hepatitis and fourth, human immunodeficiency virus, the disease that of course leads to AIDS.

One of the ways that a communicable disease may be spread to health care workers is through accidental needle pricks, in which a care provider pricks himself with a needle that he has just administered to a patient.

Not only does contacting these diseases have serious health implications, as I've indicated; it also puts friends, coworkers and family of the infected people at risk. Early detection can sharply reduce the risk of transmission.

There is one case in the United States where a person has died from a communicable disease contracted through providing emergency health care. I don't believe it's known how many health care providers have contracted communicable diseases through the provision of medical care, so there's no question -- to date it hasn't occurred a great deal, but because it has happened at least once in the United States and because of the very fact that the possibility is there, I think we should act now before it does happen.

While the vast majority of medical emergencies do not put emergency care providers at risk, nevertheless I would submit that we need to protect our health care workers and the good Samaritans in the few situations where it does happen.

1110

I'd like, in the brief introductory remarks that I have, to indicate how this bill would work.

First of all, hospital administrators would be expected to maintain records of who provided emergency care to any particular person.

Secondly, an emergency care provider, be that a professional or a good Samaritan, can make a written request to a medical officer of health to determine, in the words of the bill, "whether he or she may have been exposed to a reportable disease or to an agent of a communicable disease in the course of providing [the] emergency care." The request would include certain information such as the date, the time and the place the care was provided, as well as the type of care provided. The medical officer of health would respond in writing, confirming whether the person was so exposed, and, if so, to what disease.

Nothing in this bill would allow for the person carrying a communicable disease to be identified, so that that individual's rights are protected, and at the same time, the people providing the care, or the good Samaritans, would have their rights protected as well.

I would submit that this government might consider the establishment of counselling for emergency care providers that would be able to provide factual and clear information about the communicable disease that the person may have been exposed to, as well as the importance of privacy. It's a very difficult issue, I appreciate, the whole issue of privacy versus the rights of our care givers and our good Samaritans, and I would hope that the members of this House would support this bill.

There have been examples of this legislation elsewhere. As of 1990, at least 27 US states, as well as the United States Congress, have enacted legislation requiring the notification of emergency response personnel of the possible transmission of communicable diseases. There's a list of those states in the Journal of Legal Medicine, and those are all set out. There are copies of that bill, and much of these bills say pretty well what this bill is recommending that this House pass.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I fully appreciate that the member for Dufferin-Peel's bill to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act is sincerely motivated and his goals are important and desirable. The exposure of emergency care givers, or anyone else for that matter, to infection from dangerous diseases is a matter of great concern. Clearly, we must do everything we can to set up safeguards against it.

After serious examination of the bill's provisions, however, the Minister of Health has concluded that it would not offer additional protection to emergency workers, and I'd like to explain the reasons for that.

For some time the Ministry of Health has been aware of the concerns of occupational groups such as ambulance attendants, firefighters and police officers. About two years ago a working group, the public safety services liaison committee, was set up with a mandate to address these concerns. The group includes staff members of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the fire marshal's office, as well as management and union representation of police and firefighters.

The working group stresses the need for ongoing education of emergency workers, strict adherence to the infection control protocols, and the importance of informing those who may actually have been exposed to communicable diseases.

The Ministry of Health, through the physician manager of the disease control service of the public health branch, has reminded all medical officers of health in the province about the importance of identifying and informing close contacts, especially ambulance attendants, police and firefighters, about any exposure to diseases for which person-to-person contact might create an increased risk. This must be done immediately after patient diagnosis, and the requirement for physicians and hospital administrators to report such exposure to the medical officer of health is spelled out under regulation 559-91 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. So there is already a serious and organized effort in place to safeguard the health of workers most likely to be exposed to health risks from communicable diseases.

Three infectious diseases are of particular concern: meningococcal disease, hepatitis B and, of course, HIV/AIDS. The situations surrounding each of the three are somewhat different. Meningococcal disease is an acute infection that is quickly diagnosed. Hospital administrators are already required to alert the medical officer of health about any diagnosis. The MOH, in turn, is required to trace contacts and ensure that they received immediate and appropriate treatment. This procedure has been in place for some time now, and the mechanism proposed in Bill 89 is unlikely to speed up the process for informing contacts who have provided emergency care. Also, there is no issue of confidentiality with respect to meningococcal disease.

With hepatitis B, many individuals are carriers without having any symptoms and without being aware of their infection. Thus, the only way to safeguard those who provide emergency care from the risk of being infected with hepatitis B is to ensure that they are immunized against the disease. Ambulance attendants are already required by the Ministry of Health to have this immunization. I would suggest that it would be best to extend this requirement to other emergency workers, such as firefighters and police.

The risk of HIV/AIDS is of course a major concern with a more complicated framework than the diseases already mentioned. For one thing, many people who are carrying HIV have not been tested and are not aware they are infected. Furthermore, because of the confidentiality policies regarding anonymous testing and the right of individuals to keep their infection undisclosed, the medical officer of health may not have the information needed to advise emergency care givers that they have been exposed. Even when the medical officer of health has this information, in most cases the emergency care giver would know the identity of the patient, so release of the information would identify the infected person and thus compromise his or her right to confidentiality.

At present, hospitals do not record the name of every person who provides emergency care, and it is not unusual to have a reportable disease become known only many months after an incident. By that time it is too late for effective intervention to protect the emergency worker.

Furthermore, Bill 89 would undoubtedly increase the workload of emergency workers, hospital administrators and the medical officers of health across the province. This would be well worth it if it were to result in an improvement of the safeguards. However, there is absolutely no indication that this would offer any additional protection.

The ministry takes the concerns of emergency care givers very seriously. We are well aware that it is a serious issue and are committed to continue to work towards acceptable and effective solutions. However, we don't think Bill 89 would move us any closer to that solution. Consequently, we cannot support passage of this bill.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 89 and commend Mr Tilson for bringing it forward. I say that and will also say up front that I will not be supporting the particular bill, but I'm interested in the fact that in private members' hour, on at least three occasions that I can recall within the past couple of years, similar bills or proposals have come forward to this place and on each occasion I have not been able to support the particular resolutions or bills that have been placed here. None the less, the concerns that are being carried by the placement of these materials and the resolutions before the House I think should give us pause.

In all of the previous cases, my reasons for not supporting the particular proposals that were made related to the methods through which the proposals could be implemented, deficiencies in drafting or indeed some misunderstanding of what the existing protocols or requirements or regulations are in the field of protection from communicable diseases or other diseases among the emergency care workers. My response to Mr Tilson's particular bill will be along those lines and may well indeed reflect much of what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health has just spoken to.

None the less, while the parliamentary assistant has indicated that there are teams looking at these issues, in my view the matter is a broader concern than is being addressed by the particular working group set up by the Ministry of Health. Clearly, we in this House do not think that those efforts are adequate or expansive enough, and because they really reflect the professional emergency worker and relate less to the volunteer or to the good Samaritan, a great deal more attention has to be paid to those areas.

1120

The other question relates to whether in fact we're addressing issues of concern with respect to airborne transmission of disease or transmission of disease through blood and bodily fluids. I think the Ministry of Health would do well to note the discussions that have taken place here and that the view of people as individuals in this House, which is why we're here the morning, is that much more action must be taken.

With respect to Mr Tilson's bill specifically, I want to pass on to him that while I recognize the intent, the specifics are of concern. I think serious problems would be created with its implementation and I'd just like to raise some of those issues. One of them is the entire issue of cost of record-keeping and who would pay. We know that the Minister of Health has now reduced the operating transfers to hospitals, in fact to zero. They say it's 2% but that's not the case; it's zero.

The hospitals are taking other hits. They're taking hits from the Workers' Compensation Board, which is now demanding payment for coverage of co-op students, nursing in training and so on, and no more hits can be taken by hospitals in this province. The implications of Mr Tilson's proposal may well be, because the Ministry of Health clearly isn't picking up any other expenses, that the hospitals would have to take an additional hit in terms of cost.

I'm also very concerned that were Mr Tilson's proposals to be implemented, there would be an automatic presumption of disease. The person providing the emergency care may seek, through the medical officer of health, information as to whether he or she was exposed to a reportable disease. There aren't adequate criteria with respect to requesting information, and I was interested in looking back to the congressional action which was taken, which more reflects the requirement that we have in place now whereby medical officers of health are in fact required for certain diseases to trace all contacts. That is more reflected in the American statute to which Mr Tilson made reference.

I think Mr Tilson also hasn't adequately addressed the reportable diseases which are now on the list by regulation of the medical officer of health, required reporting provisions. If we look at that list, we have to look at issues that have not been raised here. The incubation period for chickenpox, by example, which is on the list, is 21 days. A person with an HIV infection may never have been tested and almost always doesn't have symptoms until the last stages. With other diseases which were included on the list such as malaria and measles, a different urgency would be expected in terms of the tracing of all contacts.

We know that MOHs must now trace all contacts for the three most virulent and serious diseases, and I think that is of some use. Were that to be extended, there would have to be a considerable examination of which diseases it would be extended to. Again, hepatitis B can be carried for many years with no symptoms at all, and symptoms generally only develop in about 50% of the cases in any case. So the presumption of disease is one that I think Mr Tilson should be looking at.

Another issue is the costs and the efforts associated with the tracking system. What if the patient doesn't know who provided the care? What if the hospital doesn't know who provided the care, which is clearly the case now? I don't believe hospitals record for the most part who the emergency worker was.

Additionally, because the definition section of Mr Tilson's bill is so broad, a person providing emergency care could in fact be a professional emergency worker, a firefighter, an ambulance worker, a policeman, a paramedic. It could be somebody who was employed in a position of authority but who in fact is not a professional emergency worker -- I think of a teacher or a swimming coach -- or it could be somebody in a totally different capacity: a volunteer at a community centre, a neighbour who's assisting by transporting his or her own neighbour to hospital. I think the section is far too broad, and that alone will provide difficulty.

Although I know Mr Tilson has made an attempt to introduce a liability section to this bill, I question if it is broad enough. I think if we look at the very flawed legislation, Bill 74, which the government has put forward with respect to the liability clauses associated with recordkeeping, even they are a substantial improvement over Mr Tilson's proposals here.

In conclusion, while I recognize the intent of Mr Tilson's particular bill today and the other issues that have been raised by other members -- I believe Mr Morrow spoke a few months ago with respect to a similar piece of legislation related directly to AIDS -- I think more work needs to be done not in a legislated form but in terms of the protocols, in terms of the training not just for emergency workers but for all people who work in volunteer or other situations as part of our public health preventive programs.

I hope the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health will take what are clear concerns of this place back to the minister and ask for increased action and attention to these areas.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'm pleased to be able to be able to speak today on my colleague David Tilson's private member's Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

This legislation will enable an emergency care giver to find out from the medical officer of health whether or not he or she was exposed to a reportable disease in the course of administrating aid.

I fully support this bill and I've also discussed it with my firefighters in Grey and Owen Sound. They urge me to tell this House how important this bill is to them and to every other profession which provides emergency care. They believe, as I do, that they have every right to know if a person they helped has a communicable disease and what the disease is.

In my area I have one full-time firefighting body in the city of Owen Sound, as well as 12 other volunteer firefighting groups throughout Grey county. These dedicated individuals give freely of their time and should be afforded the protection this bill offers. As I have said, in my riding we have 12 volunteer fire departments. Now, most of those fire departments are all volunteers. A couple of them do have people who are full-time, but the majority of the people who work there are just volunteers. As I stated, they give their time to go out and help people. They have other jobs and they have families, and when they give this time they don't want things to happen to them, and this would be a bill that would help when they go out on the road and find somebody.

A lot of times my fire departments are there before the ambulances, and in car accidents they're called out now all the time in our area. When they get there, they're not going to stand around and do nothing for people who may have been hurt or who are lying there bleeding on the ground; they're going to work with them.

1130

You know, no matter how much protection you use, it's not always going to be safe. There's nothing to say that the blood will not get into their system or whatever. Again, they're volunteers and I think that we have to look at something to protect these people. As I said, I've talked to them and they fully support this bill.

We also in my area have more than just firefighters. We have quite a core of ambulances in my area, along with the OPP and Mounties. We have a detachment of Mounties in our area. Most of my towns -- not all, but most -- have their own police force. A lot of the time the police are there ahead of things too. Even in Owen Sound we have an auxiliary police force who help out the local police. These people aren't even paid, but they're volunteers who could come on a scene before any of the paid people are there, and as they are volunteers I think we should be looking after them.

Also, we have a new group that has formed in my area called Community Watch Group, and these are dedicated people who have CBs. In some of the towns where the police force are stretched to the limit, they're out at night and they have their CBs on and they will call the local police. I have one gentlemen, Ron Cole, who has formed one in Meaford, and it's working quite well. They're most likely going to be at an accident scene before any of the professional medical people are there. They could also come in contact with someone who may have a communicable disease, and I think we have to try to help the people like them also.

Exposure to infectious diseases puts these professionals in a dangerous position. They routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary conditions on patients whom they know nothing about. Knowing what they have been subjected to will allow these people to modify their behaviour and to avoid further transmission to their families. I think this is one of the things why the groups in my area support this bill so much: their families are going to feel better; they're going to know when something's happened out there if this bill is passed.

Also, if there is something, it will allow them, if they have to, to get early treatment. It won't be something that they may be exposed to and not know about. So if this bill is passed, they have a chance to know this.

I also would like to read a couple of letters to the House that I received from professional firefighters. The first one I got was from the Owen Sound Professional Firefighters' Association and it's regarding Bill 89, an amendment to the Health Protection and Promotion Act:

"Our association, the Owen Sound Professional Firefighters' Association, would like your support on Bill 89, which has been introduced by David Tilson, MPP, Dufferin-Peel.

"This bill would protect our families, fellow workers and ourselves, and still protect the privacy of the person with a communicable disease.

"By letting the emergency worker know that they have come in contact with such a disease, he or she will be able to find out, in a reasonable time limit, the risk to his or her family or fellow workers. It would also help reduce health care costs because the spread of disease would be stopped as soon as possible and would not carry on undetected in innocent victims. Your support of this bill would help to save our lives."

This is from Randy Moore, secretary-treasurer of the Owen Sound Professional Firefighters' Association.

I also have one from our Inter Township Fire Department, which I was chairman of when I was reeve of the township of Sydenham. The Inter Township Fire Department is made up of four different municipalities that surround Owen Sound. They have a full-time fire chief and deputy chief, but the rest of the firefighters are all volunteers. This was sent to myself, and it says:

"I understand that on this Thursday, December 3, the Legislature will be debating second reading of Bill 89, which would amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Since the Ontario fire service is finding itself more involved in direct patient care, Bill 89 is very important to us.

"The changes proposed to this Bill 89 would protect our emergency responders in the event of being in contact with a communicable disease. As the fire chief of the Inter Township Fire Department, I would like to pass along my strong support for the continued progress in this matter in the second reading of Bill 89 on December 3, 1992."

That's signed by Ken Lawrence and he's the fire chief of the Inter Township Fire Department, which is made up of the four municipalities of Derby, Keppel, Sarawak and Sydenham township, which surround the city of Owen Sound.

Also, though, I mentioned before that we have the auxiliary police right in the city of Owen Sound and there are numerous people who work for them now and it seems to be a system that's working out quite fine. But, as I say again, they're volunteers with very little pay, if any, and every day they put their lives on the line to help people out, and they could come in contact with something like this and this would help them out.

I talked about the community watch, and I mentioned that we have 12 volunteer fire departments in my area of Grey. At the bottom of Grey is Dundalk and they don't have a hospital so they don't have an ambulance service right in Dundalk. The firefighters, when they go, are normally the first ones on the site of an accident on the highway and they have to give medical treatment. They do have now a new truck, by which they do this, and it's some time before they can receive the ambulance or people who can help them out, so they do come in contact sooner than some of the other ones.

As you know, or maybe you don't, Dundalk is one of the higher points in Ontario and we do get a lot of snow. With our conditions in the wintertime, it's probably one of the worst places in Ontario to be when it's snowing. The member Barbara Sullivan will tell you because she owns a farm up there and I'm sure she would want to be looked after if something like this happened. She'll be able to tell you that in the winter the storms are quite heavy in that area and there are a lot of accidents along the highway -- unfortunately, but they're there in that whole area of Hanover, and we have a volunteer fire department in Hanover and all through the county of Grey.

I want to congratulate the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing this bill in and I do fully support him. But before I leave, I just want to say how saddened I am by the fact that the government of the day and the Ministry of Health would not support this bill. It would seem this would be something they would want to support when they continue to tell us they care about people, but unfortunately today they've indicated that they cannot support this bill, which is too bad.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I'm rising today in support of Mr Tilson's private member's bill. The bill is a fine piece of legislation which recognizes the extraordinary services provided and the extraordinary risks undertaken by providers of emergency care in crisis situations.

There are several compelling reasons to support this bill. Although firefighters and ambulance drivers and good Samaritans have actively supported the adoption and implementation of universal precautions to prevent communicable diseases, such as the wearing of latex gloves when coming into contact with patients' blood, it is possible that they will literally face life-or-death situations where reaching for those gloves could seriously jeopardize rescue efforts. But on occasion emergency care givers do take a risk in the public interest. It is the least we can do to ensure that they are as informed as possible about the possible adverse personal consequences of their actions.

The legislation before us stipulates two main things. First, hospitals should release relevant records to the medical officer of health whenever it is discovered that a patient is an agent of a communicable disease. This is not a change in the reporting of cases of communicable diseases; it is already the responsibility of hospitals to keep the medical officer of health informed.

1140

Second, the real change in the legislation that this bill proposes is that emergency care providers will be able to write to the medical officer of health. Identifying themselves, they will be required to describe the incident in which they were involved and their potential exposure to disease. The medical officer of health, without revealing the identity of the person who received emergency care, would be able to write to the emergency care giver and inform him as to whether he has been exposed to disease. The information provided to the care giver is confidential. Nor is it possible to use this legislation to compel testing or other invasive procedures that might violate the rights of the receiver of care.

The information is essential to care givers in the case of viral diseases where there is an incubation period of several months before it is possible to test for the presence of the virus. Based on this information, emergency care givers will be in a better position to get early treatment and to act quickly to take precautions against further transmission of disease.

We are all potentially dependent on emergency care givers, be they firemen, ambulance drivers, prison guards, lifeguards or even just bystanders with some Red Cross training. We want to believe that they would take action to save our lives should the need arise. Emergency care givers are people who are willing to take extraordinary risks to save lives and protect individuals. It hardly seems unreasonable that we should give them the information that will help protect themselves and their loved ones, especially when we can do so in a way that protects the privacy of the person needing care.

I have listened to the objections this morning from both sides of the House and basically what I hear is that the bill isn't perfect, the bill isn't foolproof. However, the fundamental question we must ask ourselves is, does this bill improve protection and safety for police officers, correctional officers, ambulance attendants and firefighters? The answer, very clearly, is yes.

I want to go on record. I want to support our professionals. There is certainly room for refinement of the bill, but the bill can go to committee and refinement can take place. I want this bill to move forward as a very clear signal. I noticed that the Liberal member who spoke laughs at this, but unfortunately our professionals, our firefighters, police officers, ambulance attendants and correctional officers are not laughing with the Liberal Party on this issue. We must let our professional care givers know that they are appreciated, respected and valued, and we can do this very clearly by supporting Mr Tilson's excellent bill.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It's always a privilege to follow the member for Cambridge in what he has to say, but I must point out to him that the member for Halton Centre was not laughing at what he was saying. She was merely laughing at a suggestion I had made to her on something we had discussed a little bit earlier.

Today I rise in support of this resolution by the member for Dufferin-Peel. We can see it as being an indication, as the member for Cambridge has already indicated, of the protection of those professionals whom we most need in our communities.

I often think of the firefighters, whether they be paid firefighters, as in the community of Kenora, which I represent, or volunteer firefighters, as in all the rest of the communities I represent, the many volunteers who put in a countless number of hours into their professions, and the emergency care givers whom we have, again both our paid ambulance services and our volunteer ambulance services, and the protection that the second reading of Bill 89 will give them. I see the importance of this.

As well, the member for Cambridge mentioned about this bill going to committee. I think this is very important, because we know that should it reach committee -- and we know that it may have some flaws in certain areas -- that committee will be able to take a closer look at the bill and a closer look at possibly bringing forth some amendments that will make this bill just a little bit better and a bill that will service the needs of the care givers whom I have indicated earlier.

We can go back and take a look at some 300 amendments that were brought forward by the government alone when we took a look at the Advocacy Act, 300 amendments that turned that particular bill around, that particular act, into something that was possibly a little bit more saleable to the people of Ontario.

Again, I must indicate my sincere support of this second reading and I look forward to it going to committee.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the member for Dufferin-Peel's private member's Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act, which received first reading on October 22, 1992.

I congratulate my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing this private member's bill forward, because it addresses a very serious situation where a person, whether it's a professional involved in providing emergency services or a good Samaritan citizen, provides emergency care to a person who later goes on or is taken to a hospital for treatment.

If this piece of legislation is passed, the person who provides the emergency care may ask the medical officer of health if he or she was exposed to a reportable disease or to an agent of a communicable disease in the course of providing the care. The medical officer of health would be required to respond in writing as soon as possible, and not disclose the patient's identity to the person who provided the emergency care and treatment.

As well, a hospital would be required to report to the medical officer of health the name of every person who provided emergency care to a person with a reportable disease or an agent of a communicable disease. If the medical officer of health determines that the person who provided the emergency care may have been exposed to the reportable disease or to the agent of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health must advise the person as soon as possible.

Exposure to infectious disease is a major threat facing emergency personnel -- firefighters, police officers, ambulance attendants who routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary conditions on patients they know nothing about, and this also applies to individual members of the public, the good Samaritan who provides emergency care at the scene of an accident -- who could be exposed to a variety of dangerous, contagious diseases.

Private member's Bill 89 makes good sense. If people provide emergency care, whether they are paid for their services or not -- just out of common sense; duty makes you do this -- those people who have been exposed to the infectious diseases must be informed of this fact so that they can seek medical monitoring and modify their behaviour to avoid further transmission to the public and to their family and fellow citizens.

We, as a society, owe it to these care givers to notify them about the possible exposure to all infectious disease. They must be given the opportunity to obtain earlier treatment and reduce the possibility of further transmission. Currently, people are denied this right to know because of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Private member's Bill 89 would rectify this situation by amending the Health Protection and Promotion Act to give those people the right to know. Isn't that something like freedom of information? Don't you have the right to know, if you've been involved in helping some person in an emergency?

I urge my colleagues here to support this private member's bill, because we're always calling on the public to get involved in providing assistance in emergency situations. So let's give them the right to know if they have been exposed to an infectious disease that could have a serious impact on their future, and let's give the same right to the many professional men and women who provide emergency treatment as part of their job.

When we look at the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, they've been looking at something like this for years. They have prepared briefs. They're concerned about the exposure and infectious disease is a major reason. Firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions. Firefighters routinely provide emergency medical treatment, and they're looking to be able to know, when there's blood splattered all over the road and all over some people's bodies who have accidents that they have to touch, if they're going to be protected.

I think the right to know is what the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is all about. It's just the medical officer of health who is going to be dealing with those people.

I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing this important piece of legislation to the attention of the House. There have been another resolutions here similar to this. I'm surprised the ministry would not want these people to have the right to know when there is an accident.

I think Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act is timely. I think it's appropriate and I think it's important that every member here see fit to support it.

1150

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): In speaking on the proposed amendments put forward by the member for Dufferin-Peel to the Health Protection and Promotion Act in Bill 89, I wish to express several concerns but also lend my unqualified support.

It is recognized that the emergency care provider has an essential role in our society. Without people, such as the police, firefighters, ambulance attendants and the good Samaritans, our quality of life in this province would be very different. We are very grateful to these people and recognize that they have a very difficult job to do and that their jobs place them in positions where one must react first and then ask questions later. Preserving public safety and human life is their main role.

It is recognized that the principle behind this bill is good. It does not, however, provide the emergency care worker with any further protection. The paperwork and levels involved in this proposed amendment would take an excessive length of time prior to the notification being sent to the emergency care worker that he has been in contact with a person who is infected with a communicable disease. Therefore, it does not serve their purpose. As well, we must remember that in the case of hepatitis B, all emergency care workers are to be immunized against hepatitis B. To ensure this, greater enforcement of this immunization requirement is needed.

Another problem that exists with this proposed amendment is that the local medical officer may not have the information regarding those individuals who have tested positive. As well, in most situations the identify of the individual involved in the emergency will become known, through the media in their reports of accidents, fires etc. The emergency care giver would then know the identity of the individual, thereby compromising the individual's right to privacy.

A commitment exists to find an acceptable solution, one that will satisfy the needs and rights of all the parties involved. But clearly, the proposed amendments to this bill are not a total solution to problems or to assist the emergency care givers. Within the process, there are specific legislative mechanisms to use to see that a comprehensive and workable legislative mechanism can be put in place that will provide the emergency care giver with the knowledge he seeks.

The concerns and rights of the individuals are recognized, but the rights of all individuals must be considered. Further recommendations and study into procedures to follow in which all members of society are offered equal respect and given the right to privacy are needed. Provisions for the individual who is in the emergency, as well as those who provide care and those individuals who are associated with the care giver, that is, family members are important, but what is more important for them is to have a workable, efficient and practical method to seek and gain this information.

In the interim, adherence to the infection control protocol should be followed and ongoing education of emergency care givers should be provided.

In a presentation to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly in October 1991, Mr Kostiuk, the chairman of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters' safety committee, expressed concern about the very subject raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel. They sought changes in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the extent that a disclosure is necessary to determine if emergency health care workers have been exposed to a communicable disease for the purpose of testing, treatment and counselling, if needed.

The Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters supports the concept of universal precautions in regard to communicable disease and is promoted within its membership. However, there are times when universal precautions are rendered ineffective. An example is auto extrications where sharp metal may tear latex medical gloves.

The Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters simply want the right to know if they have been exposed. The right to know helps in timely treatment, prevents further transmission and would ease the members' concern for possible transmission of communicable disease to their families.

Again, let me state that the role of the emergency care giver is a necessary element in our society and these individuals are appreciated for the work that they do. It is because of this appreciation that we feel it is important for them to have something that will truly assist them. The amendments proposed to Bill 89 will not provide these individuals with what they are seeking, but would be an important link to providing a workable solution.

Therefore, as with my colleague the member for Cambridge, I am fully in support of this piece of legislation.

Mr Tilson: It's difficult to respond to all the excellent comments that were made for and against this bill, and I would like to respond very briefly to some of them.

I will say that the Ministry of Health has been informed of this subject for some time, even going back into the Liberal administration. Even in 1991, as a result of a number of letters that were written to the former Minister of Health, Ms Gigantes, an advisory committee was formed called the Public Safety Liaison Group and this group had representatives from the emergency health services, the office of the fire marshall, the Ontario policing services division, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the municipal fire instructors association and a number of other organizations.

On June 6, 1991, the committee unanimously supported essentially the gist of the proposed bill I'm putting forward. The Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters went so far as to communicate with the minister, informing that its membership had the right to know. That of course is what the member for Simcoe East has said, that people, care givers, the good Samaritans have the right to know. They have a right to know for their peace of mind, if they can confirm no exposure, or secure treatment and counselling if they have been exposed. They at that time asked that the minister tighten the present reporting procedures to require the medical officers of health to seek out fire, police and ambulance workers who may have been exposed to communicable diseases.

With the one minute remaining, I'm just going to read into the record a letter that was written to me by the Shelburne detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police to explain the terrible problem that care givers are given in this province. It's a letter to myself and part of it says:

"It may interest you to know that a member of this detachment was confronted by this very issue in June. He was investigating an accident in which the victim had received a head injury. While assisting the ambulance crew in loading the victim into the ambulance, the member was bitten on the arm. Unfortunately, the accident victim died the following day as a result of unforeseen complications. While there was nothing to indicate the victim was carrying a communicable disease, we discovered that no legal means was available to determine if the member had any cause for concern."

That's the problem. The law today is that there is no legal means and that is what the intent of my bill says.

"Situations such as this are very rare. However, this situation illustrates the importance of being able to obtain health information in special circumstances. It is important for an emergency services worker to be able to obtain this type of information quickly, not only for their health and safety but also for their own peace of mind."

FOREST INDUSTRY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Conway has moved resolution number 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Tilson has moved second reading of Bill 89. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Akande, Arnott, Bisson, Brown, Carr, Carter, Cooper, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Frankford, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harris, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Miclash, Mills, Murdoch (Grey), Murdock (Sudbury), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Rizzo, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward (Brantford), Waters, White, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

O'Connor, O'Neil (Quinte), Sullivan, Wessenger, Winninger.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 51, the nays 5.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 51, the nays are 5. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I ask that this be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: If that agrees with the --

Interjections: Agreed.

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until you're counted.

Thank you very much. Take your seats.

There is clearly a majority. Therefore, this bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Last evening in a meeting with the Ontario Forest Industries Association, it was made clear to my colleagues and I that the forest industry in this province is facing some difficulties. It is time for the Minister of Natural Resources to stand up and take note. All he has to do is to take a look at a number of plants that are going down, the jobs lost in this industry and the devastating effect that this has on such places as Hearst, with an unemployment rate of some 40%.

Earlier today my colleagues the member for Renfrew North and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin pointed out some of the inadequacies in this government's policy to protect this industry. They pointed to some 2,000 fewer employees in the industry over two years ago when this NDP government took power.

Let's review some of the statistics regarding this most important industry: 41 communities in this province, including four in my own riding, are dependent on the forestry industry; 63,000 people are employed directly, with another 127,200 employed indirectly in this industry. With the value of production being $10 billion and the contribution to export trade being $2 billion -- that's $2 billion coming into this province through this industry -- we can see the importance of the forest industry to Ontario.

Let me tell you how this government has made it more difficult for the industry to survive in this province. Higher energy costs are one of the highest costs faced in the industry, and now we're telling them that energy costs will continue to rise, giving the industry a substantial competitive disadvantage. Increased workers' compensation and higher transportation costs are two other areas that must be addressed by this government.

I call upon the NDP government to review its policies to ensure that the forestry-dependent communities throughout the province can look forward to continuing their contribution to this great province of ours.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise the House, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Culture and Communications how amazed I was to learn that this government is buying land in Nottawasaga township through the escarpment trust fund for the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority.

While I am pleased with this purchase, I am also confused. Five years ago the county of Grey wanted to sell the forested Kolapore Uplands to the Ministry of Natural Resources. MNR refused because the area in question was not a part of the Niagara Escarpment plan and the ministry had no power to buy land that was not designated as such.

Grey decided to request that the forest be included in the plan so the trust fund would be able to purchase it. The necessary resolution which would amend the regulation came before this House on December 12, 1990, and two long years later the Niagara Escarpment Commission finally endorsed the amendment which would add the uplands to the plan. But things have changed.

Now the Ministry of Natural Resources says the fund has no money to buy the land. It knew full well that Grey was going through the lengthy procedure to get the forest into the plan for one reason only: so that the MNR could buy the land. Now, suddenly, the Niagara Escarpment trust fund has discovered $300,000 to buy land in Nottawasaga township, where by coincidence the Minister of the Environment has a summer home. Is this what motivates the government to purchase land? I think all three ministers owe an explanation to the people of Grey.

GALT LITTLE THEATRE

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I would like to rise today to congratulate the Galt Little Theatre as it celebrates two important anniversaries this year.

First, the Galt Little Theatre celebrates its 60th anniversary of performances. When they started out 60 years ago as the Galt Collegiate Staff Players, the founding members probably didn't know that theirs would be the oldest company in the Western Ontario Drama League. Those original members probably didn't imagine the hundreds of productions that would follow: musical reviews, Shakespearian dramas and full-scale musicals like Oliver and the Wizard of Oz.

Second, this year is the 10th anniversary of the Cambridge Arts Theatre, permanent home to the Galt Little Theatre Company. After the company's nomadic existence in places like Tassie Hall and the Cambridge library, the players have really earned this proper setting for their work. It is a measure of the determination of this amateur theatre company that they have won for themselves a permanent home.

On behalf of many other Cambridge playgoers, I'd like to thank the Galt Little Theatre for all of their hard work for the community's enjoyment and wish them many anniversaries of equal significance in the years ahead.

LANDFILL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): You will know that all across the greater Toronto area, residents are up in arms and in fact there's a fury and a sense of anger that is unknown before, I think, in this province with respect to the way the minister, through her Interim Waste Authority, is handling the site selection process.

We are now down to short lists of potential sites that include parkland, wetlands, flood plains as defined by conservation authorities, environmentally sensitive areas and productive agricultural land.

This is obviously a problem in the greater Toronto area, and people are very upset and concerned about it. But it's not only found in the greater Toronto area. I'm asking pages to send over some pictures and a map to some of my colleagues. This is a picture that was sent to me by the Speed River preservation group, and this may very well end up being the Guelph dump. Yes, what you see is correct: This is class 1 agricultural land. Mr Buchanan, I hope you're noticing that. Mr Fletcher, I hope you're aware of what's taking place. Over here we have wetlands, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Wildman -- wetlands and a river flowing into a lake.

This is obviously a problem. It's not going on just in and around the greater Toronto area but all across the province. I say to my colleagues opposite that if the Minister of the Environment won't protect the environment, perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Agriculture and Food will.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise again on behalf of St Gregory Separate School in my riding. Since 1982, St Gregory has been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board for much-needed renovations and expansion. Finally, after eight years, they were in the number two position on the priority list for funds in 1992. However, under the government's new guidelines, the lists for new schools and renovation projects were combined and they were bumped from second to sixth. Now, after the Ministry of Education's delay in announcing the capital expenditure list -- a six-month delay, I might add -- they find they are not on the funding list at all.

On April 30, 1992, I formally requested a meeting with the minister, the president of the school building committee and myself. I received absolutely no reply. On July 5, 1992, the building committee president requested a meeting with you, both by letter to the minister and by phone, and received no reply. Yet another request for a meeting was made on September 28, 1992, and again there was not even the courtesy of a response.

I have made numerous statements in this Legislature and I have presented petitions, all of which have gone unacknowledged. You may not care about the concerns of my constituents, but the minister should know that I do.

Let me tell you that I've had hundreds of letters come to my office about St Gregory school. Better still, I'll let him answer the questions; I'll send these over to the minister by page. All they want is to meet with the minister and discuss the procedures to follow in order for their facility to receive the necessary funding for these much-needed renovations. I don't think that is asking too much -- simply a meeting.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to recognize the work of my colleague Evelyn Gigantes, whose Human Rights Code amendment that was passed six years ago today prohibited discrimination in employment, housing and services on the basis of sexual orientation. Since that historic event, gays and lesbians in Ontario have made significant strides, and in doing so, I believe the human rights of all Ontarians have been advanced.

Our government has been asked to take steps to remove the remaining barriers to equality which face the gay and lesbian community. Some of those steps have been taken. On January 1, 1991, this government extended benefits including health and dental insurance coverage to the same-sex partners of government employees. In September of this year, the historic Leshner decision was handed down by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This decision has been accepted by our government.

Today, the government was presented with postcards from 6,000 Ontarians asking that additional steps be taken to eliminate the barriers to equality of same-sex spouses. I am confident that our government will respond to this matter in a serious way.

1340

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is with a good deal of regret that I share with members of the assembly news they may already be aware of, and that is that St Catharines has once again been hit with another major plant closing, one that is devastating to the people who work at General Motors and those who reside in our community. The announcement was made today that 800 jobs will be lost at the rear axle plant in St Catharines as a result of a decision that was made by General Motors. This will be in addition to the 2,300 jobs that have already been announced as lost as a result of the closing of the foundry and part of the engine plant.

Members of the assembly may wonder from time to time why I have risen in this House in question period, in statements and on every occasion to raise the issue of the future of the automotive industry in Ontario, and specifically and parochially in the Niagara Peninsula and St Catharines. It's because of my concern that we're extremely vulnerable to these kinds of shutdowns and my concern that the provincial government should do everything possible to fight on behalf of St Catharines and Ontario to ensure that our facilities stay open.

The spinoff effect in our community is probably over $140 million in terms of the loss of salaries. I am encouraged by the resolution that was accepted unanimously, the resolution I introduced to this House, to save the foundry. I now call upon members to join me in trying to save the axle plant in my city of St Catharines.

OUTDOORS CARD

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It's related to the continuing saga of the blatant tax grab of the Outdoors Card.

In his 1992 annual report, the Provincial Auditor indicated that he had reviewed remittances for hunting and fishing licences totalling approximately $700,000 from 47 issuers in five districts. He discovered that approximately $500,000 was remitted more than two months late. Your deputy minister responded by saying you are taking action by implementing a new Outdoors Card in 1993, which will lead to the establishment of a new point-of-sale system for 1994-95. This could very well rectify the cash flow problem, but I want to know who you are trying to fool by charging $6 for your Outdoors Card.

You could easily have provided the magic strip card free of charge to anglers and hunters, and it would have created a straight flow of hundreds of thousands of dollars into the government coffers and stopped late payments entirely. I tried to be a good Samaritan by going directly to the MNR offices in the Macdonald Block to purchase my Outdoors Card, but MNR will not accept a cash payment. Instead, I had to fill out all of the paperwork, write out a cheque and mail everything to a post office box here in Toronto.

Minister, why are you making it so difficult for people to buy an Outdoors Card and, on top of everything, charging them $6 for their troubles? And while I'm on the subject, who manufacturers these Outdoors Cards? Was the job put out for tender, and if so, who submitted the winning bid and how much does the company charge for them? Answer those questions.

GORD AND IRENE RISK SENIORS CLUB

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm going to turn this statement into a tribute. I'd like to honour Antonio Perricone and the Gord and Irene Risk Seniors Club on Plunkett Road in my riding of Yorkview. There are a hundred members in that club. These seniors have got some guts. These seniors have got the ability it takes to change a community into a family. They do fund-raising for the community. They organize. They organize trips; they organize card tournaments; they organize political events. They are the core of our family in Yorkview.

I want to thank all of those seniors from Gord and Irene Risk, and Antonio Perricone, who is the leader of that organization, for everything they've done. I also want to apologize to that organization because I haven't been able to spend the time that I want. Mr Speaker, you keep me too busy in this place. Eighteen hours a day in this place, lately, has been driving me up a wall, and for that reason I haven't been able to spend the time to play briscola or tresette or even scopa; so for that I apologize.

I'll see you in Yorkview.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I would like to inform members today that I have released a report that will have a significant impact on how we manage this province's $10-billion forest industry and on the many communities that depend on the industry for their existence. The report is titled A Report on the Status of Forest Regeneration and is the work of an independent committee. The committee's work represents the first audit of this kind in Canada. It will be a valuable aid as we develop forest management practices based on an ecosystem approach to the forest, and may I say that if this had been done in 1985, as we asked for it, we'd be a lot farther ahead than we are today.

I want to assure the House that this government is committed to acting on the implications of the audit report. It shows that in the period studied by the committee, harvested areas of the boreal forest are regenerating successfully and are not being deforested. However, it also shows that the composition of the boreal forest is changing after logging and harvesting, and this must be addressed.

The audit is the first initiative to be completed under the government's sustainable forestry strategy. It is a review of regeneration of cutover areas in the boreal forests across northern Ontario.

The audit was conducted by the Ontario independent forest audit committee, which is made up of the chair, Kenneth Hearnden, professor emeritus in forestry at Lakehead University, and the vice-chairs, Susan Millson, co-owner of Millson Forestry Service in Timmins, and Chief Willie Wilson of the Rainy River band. They are here with us in the gallery today. I'd like to welcome them and thank them for their work. I am pleased that they are here to help release their report, and I want to commend them for their important work.

I am pleased to learn from their audit that regeneration in harvested areas of the boreal forest is satisfactory. The report tells us that the widely held impression that the boreal forest is being destroyed is wrong. The report indicates as well that there is a change in the boreal forest ecosystem after logging and regeneration and that there is concern about maintaining black spruce as a major species. Black spruce remains vital to the pulp and paper industry. I am committed to addressing the concern about black spruce regeneration.

We will be reviewing the report with the forest industry, environmental groups and other groups interested in our forests as we develop an action plan that responds to the audit's findings.

The audit indicates that when all tree species are considered, there has been satisfactory regeneration at least to minimum stocking standards on 96% of the harvested area studied by the committee. The report notes that if only conifer species are considered, 84% of the areas have been successfully regenerated but only 40% would meet minimum height requirements for free-to-grow status. The report says the committee found no cutover sites that were barren and where no regeneration has occurred.

In addition, however, the audit indicates that in the original forest, 57% of the sampled areas were pure conifer species and 6% pure hardwood. In the new forest, only 40% of the areas are developing as pure conifer and 19% as hardwood at present.

The committee was established after I announced in April 1991 that we would conduct an audit to determine the success or failure of natural and artificial regeneration on previously harvested areas in the boreal forest.

The terms of reference of the committee indicate it could look at areas harvested between 1970 and 1991. However, it decided to investigate the period between 1970 and 1985 because success or failure would not be apparent for at least five years after harvest or regeneration.

The committee found that the composition of the original forest is shifting after harvest and regeneration from domination by spruce and jack pine to one in which hardwoods such as poplar make up a larger component of the forest at present. This trend is more evident on productive forest sites, ones with fertile soils and well-drained conditions.

This information is important not only for ecological reasons but for what it means for the forest products industry, which is dependent on spruce and jack pine harvesting. A limiting factor in maintaining the conifer component of regenerated areas, particularly spruce, is control of competing vegetation.

1350

While the audit shows that the areas planted and seeded are regenerating more successfully than areas of natural regeneration, the report does not suggest that all cutover areas need to be planted or seeded. However, the committee also says that if the goal of regeneration is to maintain the boreal ecosystem as it was before logging, then natural regeneration must be planned and vegetation must be controlled.

My ministry is already studying ways of improving methods of tending the forest to prevent competing vegetation from interfering with growth of desired tree species as part of sustainable forestry. We will certainly act on the committee's observations about tending regeneration in the boreal forest as we continue to work on our vegetation management program.

The audit is an essential component of the sustainable forestry strategy and provides a crucial starting point and guide for future investment in Ontario's forests. The report makes seven recommendations. I expect to respond to them fully in the near future. In simple terms, the audit shows that we are growing trees successfully on harvested areas of the boreal forest.

Again, I want to express my sincere congratulations to the audit panel.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am pleased to announce that I will be introducing legislation later today that will expand political activity rights of crown employees. With this announcement, our government is meeting its commitment to recognize its employees' rights to participate in political activities. The legislation will strike a sound balance between protecting the integrity of public services and allowing employees to exercise their individual democratic rights.

We believe the current rules are too restrictive and too encompassing. The existing system restricts thousands of crown employees, including most senior managers and many middle managers, from participating in political activities. Those rights that do exist in the way of political activity are minimal. We believe the restrictions are too broad and may be in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under our legislation, all crown employees will gain additional rights and existing rights will be broadened. Unlike the current system, crown employees will no longer be required to take a leave of absence to exercise many of their political activities rights. These rights will be extended through a redefined two-tiered system that establishes a restricted tier and an unrestricted tier.

The following positions will be in the restricted tier: deputy ministers, senior managers in the Ontario public service, senior officers of the Ontario Provincial Police and full-time members of government agencies, boards and commissions. All other crown employees will be in the unrestricted tier. We believe this approach recognizes the fact that some crown employees hold positions that require limits on their rights that are more restrictive than those of others.

Under the existing system, employees in the unrestricted category are permitted only the most basic political activity rights. They are allowed to vote, to belong to a political party, to donate money to a political party and to attend all-candidates' meetings. These employees cannot, however, make political comments or raise funds unless they are seeking elected office or on a leave of absence.

The system proposed in the legislation would allow crown employees in the unrestricted tier to have rights similar to all citizens. Allow me to highlight some of the new rights. Unrestricted crown employees will have more freedom to comment on political issues, they will be able to canvass without taking a leave of absence and they will be able to choose whether or not to take a leave of absence when seeking a political nomination for any level of government.

In contrast to the existing system, crown employees assigned to the restricted tier will enjoy rights that they do not now have. For example, they will face fewer restrictions when making political statements and fewer restrictions when seeking elected municipal office.

The legislation also includes some limitations. For instance, a limited number of employees in the unrestricted category will not be able to solicit funds for candidates or political parties unless they are on a leave of absence. Examples of such employees are human rights officers, welfare workers and members of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Crown employees will continue to be prohibited from engaging in political activities while at work, on government business or in uniform. Crown employees still cannot directly tie their jobs to their political actions. With a leave of absence, this limitation will be less restrictive. As well, crown employees have to take a leave of absence to campaign as candidates in a federal or provincial election.

May I remind the House that all crown employees must observe conflict-of-interest rules unless, in the case of unrestricted employees, they are on a leave of absence. The oath of secrecy will of course still apply to all public servants.

Our proposed legislation reflects a consultation with the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union and with the Ontario Provincial Police Association. In addition, Frances Lankin, one of my predecessors, released a widely distributed discussion paper on political activity rights during May 1991.

The proposed legislation extends additional political activity rights to employees, but it does not require employees to exercise those rights. Crown employees are free to choose or refuse to become politically active.

Let me assure the women and men of the public service that this expansion of political rights will not be a burden to them, nor will it affect their working conditions or benefits. Recruitment, performance reviews, promotion and reassignment will continue to be based on the principles of equity, fairness and merit.

This legislation is not about changing the political neutrality of public services. It is not about changing how the Ontario Public Service does business. It is about extending rights to a group of people whose talents and interests have been unfairly and unnecessarily circumscribed.

This government believes that participation in public life is important. Governments that restrict the rights of a valuable and talented pool of people do not encourage that participation. This legislation will do that while protecting the integrity of the public service by applying careful caveats to these new rights.

I am sure members of the House are looking forward to supporting an initiative that provides more rights to crown employees while at the same time ensuring our public service remains one of the best in the world.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'll respond to the Chairman of Management Board just to say that I think the people who watch this Legislature, many of whom are unemployed, many of whom have friends and family who are unemployed, wonder what in the world the government is doing with its time.

I look at the issues that have occupied this Legislature over the last year and will occupy the Legislature over the next few months, and here's another example where we will spend time debating an issue -- I understand why the government brings it forward, but it is the Minister of Municipal Affairs who brings it forward, and we see our municipalities struggling to deal with the issues of high taxes, struggling to deal with the issues of the whole disentanglement area and this minister will be spending his time dealing with this legislation.

We see the Minister of Agriculture and Food with the farm community in real difficult straits. Yesterday, we had the very unusual statement by the minister saying: "Yes, I brought forward a bill on farm stabilization, but I announced at the time I was bringing it forward that I was going to change it. So why should you be surprised?"

Bill 40 from the Minister of Labour was a change to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We've never seen the business and the labour community so divided as it is right now -- two warring camps.

Something that personally has offended me for some time is that the minister himself guaranteed we would have an all-party legislative committee investigate the two times the government called the Ontario Provincial Police into the opposition's office to try and find out who, what you would call, whistle-blowed on the government. Twice the OPP came into the opposition offices.

The government promised us we would have an all-party legislative committee to investigate it. It went to the legislative committee and then the government members refused to come and testify. So the Premier himself committed. He said we would have that all-party legislative committee, and then the government members refused. We have confirmation. The ministers and the deputies refused to come.

So we see a piece of legislation today dealing with part of the collective bargaining when the people of Ontario are so desperate to get on with job creation. We are going to be spending our time and efforts over the next few months continuing to deal with legislation like this.

1400

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources, and the first thing I would like to do is congratulate the members who are here with us today: Dr Ken Hearnden, Susan Millson and Chief Willie Wilson.

The purpose of the audit was to determine the success or failure of artificial and natural regeneration on previously harvested areas of boreal forest. The primary conclusion confirmed what we already knew: that a regeneration gap exists between the area harvested and the area being treated for reforestation. The audit stated that the province must give greater attention to planned artificial and natural reforestation activities. The amount of commercially desirable boreal species which are coming up in the cutover areas are significantly less than what was on the previous stand. The audit noted that a lack of treatment funds was a primary factor contributing to the regeneration gap.

The regeneration budget of MNR has been gutted. Implications are that the minister is considering cutting back significantly on the number of tree seedling contracts in this province. We know in the forest-tending industry the number of acres or hectares tended is falling dramatically under this government. In the estimates, it tells us there will be 50,000 less hectares tended next year than this year.

It's very difficult for us to know over here in opposition where the government is going with this. The minister has committed that he will respond to the report in a meaningful fashion. Well, I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, over the two years of this government, everything has been going in exactly the wrong way in the forests of Ontario. This report gives us an opportunity and the minister an opportunity to start doing the regeneration that he should have done during the two years that he's wasted already. The study is an important, significant piece of information that will allow the minister to do things that he should have done already.

I said in estimates, and I'll repeat: It seems this ministry can't chew gum and walk at the same time. We think you could have done the study and we think you could have done the reforestation at the same time.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, I know others wish to respond, but I wish to comment briefly on the report by the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister talks about seven and a half years wasted because he needed an audit. I too want to talk about seven and a half years of wasted time. You didn't need an audit to tell you what was happening. This report, and I congratulate the audit committee, shows that up to 1985, regeneration was proceeding very well. So this study shows that for 42 years of Progressive Conservative government regeneration was proceeding very well. This study also shows that there was a problem, that the regeneration had shifted the areas the forest was coming back in, that the boreal forest was changing, that there was a shortage now of spruce and the softwoods and jack pine that were there.

What was happening at that particular point in time? In the late 1970s and 1981 to 1985, Alan Pope dramatically increased the number of jack pine and spruce seedling facilities. We increased the tending money. In the campaign of 1985 we announced a new tending program to address this issue, and then we lost the government and we had seven and a half lost years, $100-million cuts, seedlings being cut back, no place to plant them, money cut from the tending program.

I congratulate the audit committee and I concur: Up till 1985 our forests were well managed. What few problems there were were being addressed by Frank Miller, by Leo Bernier, by Alan Pope, and right up until that point in time, that's what the study shows. I congratulate the audit committee.

Shame on you. Shame on the Liberals. Shame on this Liberal-Marxist coalition that set us back in the forest industry by seven and a half years.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, I just want to compliment my leader on his remarks and tell you that I agree with everything that he had to say here.

I want to commend Mr Hearnden and his committee for the efforts they have put forward in bringing this report in. We appreciate the information they have brought. It's been compiled by a group of professionals, and I hope the province will benefit from that report they have brought in. The report shows that there's been no deforestation taking place. According to the report, "Representative samples of conditions in the cutover areas suggest satisfactory generation of 96%."

I say the report from 1970 to 1985 has been excellent. It's exactly what we were hoping for. I hope the Minister of Natural Resources and the government as a whole will consider seriously the recommendations of this committee, which strongly urged a long-term financial commitment to silvicultural funding.

I have spoken in this Legislature on many occasions, as recently as this morning, on the effects of the minister's decision to cancel the planting of some of the 35 million trees this past year. The auditor's report tells us that the forest industry is vital to the economic wellbeing of this province -- approximately $10 billion worth of forest products also produced annually, and 169,000 jobs are related to the forest and the spinoff industries.

The decisions this government will make in the near future will have a great impact on this important sector, and I hope all members will realize the contributions the forestry industry makes to our province.

Minister, you've promised your government is committed to sustainable forestry. You have now had the report of an independent auditor asking for a commitment to this province's forests. I certainly hope the document serves as an important starting point in the development for long-term planning. It indicated that from 1980 to 1985 things were great.

Remember when you were in opposition telling the government of the day how the forestry was so bad and how the industry was in so much trouble? This report shows us that it's not as bad as it looks. I hope that in the seven years you have been under control with the Liberals that report will be as good, but I doubt it.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Just a quick comment on the Chair of Management Board's statement with respect to the extension of political activities. This was part of the deal that was cut back in 1985 between the socialists and the Liberals during those bedwetting years when they were in bed discussing the details of how this would be implemented. It's funny, you take seven years and the growth has been amazing.

We know full well that just beyond, as I said before, those bedwetting years we now have this minister coming forward simply to get ahead of the courts, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have allowed this anyway. So this is just to beat the court system.

We're not shocked but we think there are far more important issues faced by this government than this issue, considering the courts would have done it anyway.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, we have unanimous consent from all parties to do a statement on December 6.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): This coming Sunday marks the second annual provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Sunday is the third anniversary of the Montreal massacre, one man's 19-minute rampage at Montreal's École Polytechnique that left 14 innocent women dead. We, as individuals and as a nation, reeled with horror at the news of this tragedy. It is an event from which we may never fully recover.

December 6 is a day to mourn for the victims of the massacre and their families. It is also a day to renew our commitment to ending all violence against women and to eliminating the attitudes towards women which led the murderer to act as he did.

While some were quick to dismiss the massacre as the senseless act of a madman, the murders were not random or indiscriminate. The killer was very clear about his motives. His own words explained his actions. This man had internalized attitudes towards women which many of us find no longer acceptable: that women are inferior to men and should be subservient to them, that women's place is in the home and not in the working world, that men have a right to the best life has to offer while women get only what is left over.

The entry of women into the traditionally male field of engineering represented what that killer most feared and hated. He was made all the more bitter because they had accomplished what he could not, and so this man, in cold blood, robbed 14 women of their futures.

1410

The Montreal tragedy wrenched the blinders from the eyes of many who had disbelieved what women had long been telling them about violence in our lives. It was a watershed, a turning point beyond which it became difficult to ignore or be complacent about violence against women.

It does not take a great leap of awareness to see the similarities between the Montreal assassin, who killed women whom he felt had attained too much power, and the men who beat and humiliate their female partners or stalk and kill them when they leave or threaten to leave.

The belief that women are inferior and subordinate to men is deeply entrenched in our society. As we inch our way towards a more equitable society, visible signs of progress are met with resistance. Those who have enjoyed power and privilege are reluctant to part with it and will fight to the death to retain it.

If it is possible to draw anything positive from the events of December 6, 1989, perhaps it is this: The massacre, and the backlash against those who clearly understood it to be an act of misogyny, spurred people all across this province and this country to action. Individuals, corporations, small businesses, religious organizations, school boards and community groups joined in the efforts to counter the occurrence of violence against women.

Men who wish to address men's accountability and responsibility for violence against women launched the White Ribbon Campaign. Organizations such as the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario mobilized their membership. The federation's far-reaching No To Violence campaign sees women teachers' associations and other community members working in partnership to find long-term solutions to violence against women in all its forms.

One community succeeded in getting a cable network to produce public service announcements aimed at violence prevention, a local family restaurant to print violence prevention messages on its place mats and the phone company to include a new page in its directory listing all sources of help available to female victims of violence. Similar events are repeated in communities across this province and are echoed in the spinoff events as the messages and the desires to take on this issue have spread.

The Montreal murderer wanted to silence feminists and others who believe that women are entitled to the same pursuit of personal fulfilment men are. What he accomplished is just the opposite. We have added new voices to the chorus and the call for change is stronger now than ever before. The range of voices as well is greater, with men speaking out in ever larger numbers against male violence of all kinds.

By the time that the assassin entered l'École polytechnique that fateful Wednesday in December, it was too late to change the way he felt about women or their place in society. It is not too late to try to ensure that our society's values and attitudes do not lead to similar actions by the men of the next generation, but we don't have a moment to waste.

We need more female role models so that young girls and young boys grow up seeing women in positions of power and accomplishment and regard this as natural, as the way things are, rather than a mere dream of the way they should be. But we also need male role models who, through their conduct as well as their words, educate young boys that violence against women is wrong and that they must take responsibility for ending it.

In a recent movie, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a role model for millions of North American young men, points a gun at his wife and pulls the trigger saying, "Consider this a divorce." Audiences have been known to laugh and applaud this scene. Men who do not see violence against women as funny or worthy of applause need to point out to young boys how dangerous and damaging these film images are and that such behaviour is to be lamented, not imitated.

We need to have equity in our education system so that young girls are not dissuaded from pursuing the maths and sciences in which they demonstrate early promise. Those disciplines must cease to present the male experience as the norm when in fact it is only one half of the norm.

We need to teach our children that girls and boys are entitled to achieve and do whatever is within their capability. We must ensure that they understand that violence is not an acceptable way of dealing with conflict, anger, disappointment or fear. We must demonstrate to them that positive and fulfilling relationships are based on mutual respect, not control and domination.

The newly established violence prevention secretariat in the Ministry of Education will coordinate the efforts of government and communities to achieve these goals. We must succeed in creating a community which does not tolerate violence in any form, for our children's sake and for the sake of our children's children. We owe them at least that much.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): It has been three years since 14 young women were gunned down at l'École polytechnique de Montréal. The senseless slaughter shocked Canadians, it angered us and, finally, it stirred us to action.

In commemorating a Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, we are working to ensure that there are no more senseless killings and that one day women will be safe in their homes and on the streets. We are working to ensure that no doors in our society will be closed because of gender.

There is much work to be done. Even though it is clear that spouse abuse is a crime, one out of every 10 women in this country is abused by her partner. A recent poll reports that 57% of Canadian women fear to walk in the streets in their own neighbourhoods at night.

Women have been the targets of abuse and discrimination for a long time. The more vulnerable in our society, whether they be women, children, the elderly or the disabled, have been victims of violence and abuse for centuries. It is not new, but it took the senseless slaughter of 14 young women with hopes and dreams and promising futures to shock us into the realization that we could no longer stand back.

Perhaps more important is that Canadian men began to realize that as they are part of the problem they are also part of the solution. Most men are not batterers, most men are not violent, but the turning point was that men began to realize that they could no longer stand back and stay silent. It makes a big difference, because it tells women that we are no longer alone in our fight against violence.

The 14 young women who died in Montreal have helped to change our society's views about violence against women. Their deaths brought home the fact that no woman is immune, that there are major problems with the way society has traditionally viewed violence against women and that if we want to change things we must begin by changing attitudes.

The message I have today is that ours is a very violent society. I always say that the biggest hope is the next generation, but I wonder what type of hope there is when our children are constantly subjected to violence on television and in the movies, when we have sportscasters who complain how boring hockey is because they are no longer maiming and injuring and when sometimes the written press sensationalizes some of these instances without giving part of the solution. I think people of the media have taken on a responsibility in the last few years to tell this story, but it has to go beyond that. There has to be a movement to stop this senseless violence in our society.

As we commemorate the Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, I challenge each one of us to join in the battle to stop this violence, to stop the silence, to break the cycle and to ensure that our communities are safe places for all women. I believe that history will record that the Montreal massacre was the turning point in the battle against violence in our society. If that prophesy is true, then perhaps, after all, those 14 young women did not die in vain.

1420

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's an honour for me to join my colleagues the member for London Centre and the member for Eglinton to speak on behalf of our leader and our caucus in remembrance of 14 young women who were murdered at l'École polytechnique de Montréal on December 6, 1989. It was a vicious and senseless crime against women, in particular women who were striving to become professionals in a male-dominated field. They were seeking careers in engineering. They were intelligent, ambitious and role models for younger generations.

Today, our thoughts are with their families and friends who we understand must be remembering the horror they experienced just three long years ago. At the same time we mourn this passing, we must work harder than ever for change. Women shouldn't be expected to continue fighting against violence alone. As legislators we have a responsibility to involve our constituents in a community effort to reduce crimes against women and as Canadians we have the responsibility to ensure that attitudes right across our country are changed.

On December 6, 1990, as a tribute to the 14 women killed, we introduced a resolution requesting that the government of Ontario establish a women in science and engineering scholarship fund. This fund would allow women to access money to help them enter the science and engineering faculties at Ontario universities, colleges and polytechnical institutes. We feel this would be a tribute to those women whom we are remembering. I believe it's imperative that we send a message across this country that women will continue to explore new fields and reach new heights.

December 6, 1989: We in Canada will remember for ever this date. It has become both a national and provincial day of remembrance of a most terrible tragedy and a day when we can remind ourselves, with very serious thoughts, that we must strive -- it's our personal responsibility to do so -- in every possible way to eliminate violence against women.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Once again, this government's complete refusal to understand the seriousness of our economic situation has cost jobs for people in this province. The minister will be well aware that General Motors has just announced that it is cutting its wheel axle operations in St Catharines, with 800 lost jobs as a result, and that it's accelerating the closing of the engine foundry in that city, at the cost of another 2,200 jobs.

We knew this was a possibility. The member for St Catharines asked the Premier to deal with this issue himself. Yet when the crisis with General Motors arose, the best the Premier could do was to send the former Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to talk to GM.

We hear that the Premier has gone to St Catharines today to talk to GM workers, and I ask the minister, does the Premier not realize that today is too late? Why did he not go when the member for St Catharines asked him to, when there might have been a chance to save those jobs?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I'm sorry that the honourable leader of the official opposition characterizes this in such a partisan way. This is a tragic day for the people of St Catharines, it's a tragic day for the workers of St Catharines and it's a tragic day for the workers in the nine plants in North America, of which one happens to be in St Catharines, because they are losing their jobs or will eventually lose their jobs.

The fact is that the Premier is in St Catharines today meeting with the workers and with the company. The fact is that I left Michael Wilson and the other trade ministers in order to answer questions and to provide some information to members of the opposition here today. I'd be happy to outline the many programs we have already initiated in anticipation of some of the problems in St Catharines. I hope that she and the member for St Catharines would cooperate and be part of the team to try and do something about the situation that is happening in St Catharines today, just before Christmas.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a concern that the GM operation in St Catharines is in effect being dismantled piece by piece. We've had 750 general layoffs, and these are what are called indefinite layoffs, which usually means for ever; second, we have the closing of the foundry and part of the engine plant, for 2,300 jobs lots; third, today we have the abandoning of the axle plant, which means 800 further jobs are lost. There is a fear out there that the entire operation will disappear if the bleeding is not soon stopped.

Will the minister assure the House and the people of St Catharines, and probably the people of the province of Ontario, that the Premier will now go to Detroit, will meet with the very highest officials of General Motors in Detroit and attempt to persuade them to change their mind about the closing of the operation of the foundry and selling the axle plant and indeed to persuade them to put further investment in our community, which has been so reliant upon the auto industry for so many years?

Hon Mr Philip: I can assure the member for St Catharines -- and I'm sure he knows this already because I have invited him to meetings in St Catharines and indeed here with the various municipal leaders and other leaders in the St Catharines area -- that this government is prepared to do everything we can to work with the people of St Catharines, with the workers of St Catharines. That's why the Premier's down in St Catharines today.

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): Why don't you do something?

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Quinte says, "Why don't you do something?" We have done something, if he'd pay attention to some of the things that we've outlined already in the House. The Minister of Labour is working with the Canadian Auto Workers Union, local, GM, and Employment and Immigration Canada, through a recently formed plant adjustment committee, to develop an adjustment program for laid-off workers at GM plants. My own ministry --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, I left the trade ministers' meeting so that I would be available to tell the members of the opposition exactly what we're doing, but they don't want to give me a chance to do that, so I will continue with my answer despite their interjections and their attempt to make this a partisan issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Philip: The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology assisted the Niagara Regional Development Corp and the city of St Catharines executive to set up the St Catharines-Niagara Community Development Group, a group that is coordinating some economic development in that area. The chairman of the region, Brian Merrett, and the mayor of St Catharines, Joe McCaffery, have worked together as part of a team in that area.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response.

Hon Mr Philip: I'd suggest that instead of criticizing this government and trying to make this a partisan issue over the heads of the poor workers who are suffering today, he join that team and try and build that area.

Mrs McLeod: Surely the minister realizes that this is a tragic situation. Surely he knows that today's statement is even worse than GM's last statement. Another 800 jobs are being cut and the closure of the foundry is being accelerated by six months. The minister stands here and tells us he is happy to recite once again all that his government has done to encourage business in this province. Surely the minister realizes that business confidence in this province is at a record low. Minister, this is not a non-partisan issue. Nobody wants to invest in Bob Rae's Ontario. Minister, the reality is that St Catharines needs new industries now --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: -- before the damage that is done to that city is irreparable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Guelph.

Mrs McLeod: I ask, what hope can you offer to the people of St Catharines who are being laid off that you will be able to attract new industries and new employment to that city, or, given your government's record of business-bashing and finger-pointing and pure defensiveness, will you continue to do nothing for the people of St Catharines?

1430

Hon Mr Philip: The doom and gloom leader of the official opposition talks about finger-pointing. We can see where the finger-pointing is coming from. It's coming from her and the third party, which have nothing but doom and gloom about this province.

The fact is that the trade ministers from across Canada, whom I'm meeting with today, would love to have the kind of foreign investment that's coming into Ontario, because it's more than all the other provinces combined at this point.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Had the minister concluded his response?

Hon Mr Philip: Not very well. The leader of the official opposition is trying to say that somehow the tragedy of the workers in St Catharines, in the St Catharines plant, the one out of nine plants that may close in North America, is somehow the fault of this government. In fact, if she'd read the statement by Mr Jack Smith, the president of GM, he clearly stated:

"We did not solicit or attain incentives or concessions from any government level. Moreover, our decisions should not be interpreted as a lack of involvement of any government agency, individual or group of elected officials. These were strictly business decisions based on a complex set of internal factors."

That's what the president of GM International has said. I'm so sorry that the leader of the official opposition can't believe what the president has said in his announcement today.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Let me ask my second question of the Treasurer and find out if he feels, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology does, that everything is just fine in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Cambridge.

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, with the federal Minister of Finance's statement on the economy, the government's continued excuses about the failing Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the leader just to take her seat for a moment.

It would be very helpful if members on both sides of the chamber would allow questions to be asked without interruption and for responses to be given without interruption. The leader of the opposition may wish to begin her question.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, yesterday you said that the federal Finance minister lacked serious economic renewal vision. This statement, coming from you, was somewhat ironic to say the least. Higher taxes for people in businesses, Bill 40, a mismanaged Workers' Compensation Board, an economic environment that is doing nothing to attract companies to this province, that is the economic renewal vision of the Ontario New Democratic government. It is doing nothing for Ontario and its 550,000 unemployed people.

Treasurer, at least you could have come clean with the people of Ontario about the state of our economy. Instead, you released your economic and fiscal outlook before the federal government's minibudget presentation. I would ask you, given the new federal projections of its deficit and its projections of economic growth for the country, are your budget projections still on target or are we facing a new economic reality in Ontario because of the federal statement yesterday?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): There's the makings of a speech coming on in response to that question. I would remind the leader of the official opposition that she whined about our not bringing forth our statement early enough, and now she's accusing us of trying to get it out before the federal government. I don't understand where she's coming from.

On the other point, I would remind the leader of the official opposition that when we brought down our budget this year we announced, and are indeed carrying through with, $4.5 billion of spending on infrastructure and training in this province, more than has ever been done before in the history of Ontario.

We also reduced taxes for the small business sector in the province as well. So, believe me, I don't need any lectures from the leader of the Liberal Party about our not coming clean with the state of health of the Ontario economy, given what they did back in 1990.

Mrs McLeod: I neither whine nor lecture. I am simply asking the Treasurer of Ontario to tell the people of this province the truth about our economic situation in December 1992. Treasurer, you have spent the last year asking Ottawa to bail out the Ontario economy through infrastructure spending, through increased transfer funds and through fiscal stabilization payments. I ask what you have to show for the effort. Ontario is clearly getting very little of Ottawa's new infrastructure spending and the federal government is clearly not giving this province any more transfer payments.

Treasurer, I suggest your economic renewal package, like your budget, was predicated on getting more money from Ottawa and increasing tax revenues from Ontario. With yesterday's statement by Mr Mazankowski, it's apparent that the federal money isn't coming, and as for counting on increasing tax revenues, the federal tax revenues are falling, which means the pattern may be repeated in Ontario.

Can the Treasurer tell us whether he will go back and redo his revenue forecasts because of the new federal numbers? Will he tell us now, instead of months from now, what our real fiscal situation is?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I want to clear the air on what the leader of the official opposition calls a bailout from Ottawa. She made reference to the fiscal stabilization program and infrastructure spending. Does the leader of the official opposition prefer those, to which we are fully entitled, given the equalization payments in this country -- is she really saying those are bailout moneys, moneys to which we are fully entitled? Surely to goodness she's not referring to those as bailout funds.

Finally, I would remind the leader of the official opposition that only a week ago or so we released our Fiscal Outlook for the balance of this year and for 1993-94. We have said before in this House that when the federal government originally gave us its projections on what income tax revenues would be for this fiscal year in the province, we took those income tax projections of the federal government and reduced them. I wouldn't want to say this number is spot on, but as I recall, we discounted that number by about $800 million, because we didn't think it was terribly realistic.

Finally, we also, in the past couple of weeks, announced what our revenue projections were going to be off and built that into the fiscal outlook both for this year and next year. So nothing is being hidden from the people of this province or from the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I'm interested in the Treasurer's use of the term "bailout." It's not a term I've used. It clearly must be a part of his wish and prayer in his budget projections. I'm simply talking about the Treasurer's continuing expectations of transfer payments from the federal government. It's quite clear that the federal government has its own financial problems; it's not going to be anxious to bail out the government. But Treasurer, you presented a budget and you continue to present a budget which has expectations built into your revenue figures, expectations of transfers from the federal government. Let me point to one specifically.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Durham Centre is out of order.

Mrs McLeod: In the 1992-93 budget, you have included $1.2 billion in federal fiscal stabilization money in your revenue projections. The federal finance minister has made it very clear that he is not going to give out any more money this year. You've now said you want to meet with Mr Mazankowski soon to talk about the state of the provincial economy as well as about whether you will ever see the stabilization money.

Treasurer, do you still expect to receive the fiscal stabilization money as you predicted in your budget? Can you tell us when you will be meeting with Mr Mazankowski and reporting back to this House? Can you also tell us how, without that meeting, you can reasonably assume you are going to receive that money and continue to assume you're going to receive it?

Hon Mr Laughren: We now have both the official opposition and the third party implying, if not explicitly, certainly implicitly, that we're not entitled to that $1.2-billion fiscal stabilization fund. I can tell you, we are fully entitled to that money and we intend to get it.

1440

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: No matter how hard I try not to be provocative, the official opposition rises to the bait every time.

The last time the fiscal stabilization plan was raised, it was raised by the leader of the third party, who told this House and the thousands of people who watch question period across the province that he had phoned the minister's office --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Substance Abuse Strategy): The federal Finance minister's office.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- the federal Finance minister's office -- and had been told there wasn't a chance we were going to get that $1.2 billion.

Well, guess what? Members of the media and our office phoned the federal Finance minister's office and asked him if he had told the leader of the Conservative Party in the province that. They told us absolutely not, and implied that he was indeed blowing smoke. Those are my words, not the federal Minister of Finance's.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition's energies would be better used in helping us to get what is fully entitled to us rather than rising in her place and implying we're not entitled to the money. It's time for you to stand up for Ontario.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for Cochrane South come to order.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Get it over with now. You've got two and a half more years.

Yesterday's so called mini-budget from the federal government revised Ottawa's deficit projection for this year upward by $6.9 billion and for next year by $10 billion from that Treasurer's previous projections.

I'm sure you don't like to hear those numbers. I certainly don't like those deficit numbers. I don't think anybody in this country was particularly pleased to hear them. But at least the federal government and the federal treasurer are coming clean with Canadian taxpayers on the state of the country's finances. At least we know what we're dealing with in Ottawa. A lot may not like it, but it is honest and we know what we are dealing with.

Treasurer, when can we expect you and your government to come clean with the people of this province of Ontario on the exact size of Ontario's deficit?

Hon Mr Laughren: A week or so ago, when we released our Fiscal Outlook, we did indicate that we were going to have to struggle this year and next to meet the projected deficit numbers that were laid out in our medium-term fiscal plan in the 1992 budget. There's no question that it's going to be a struggle, no question about that whatsoever.

We are working extremely hard on the expenditure side. We don't control the revenue side as directly as we do the expenditure side. I can tell the leader of the third party that if you compare what the federal government has done on its own operating expenses with what this government has done with its own operating expenses, they don't hold a candle to the discipline we've imposed on our own spending, not a candle.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: What was provocative about that? We still have the deficit targets, which the leader referred to explicitly, for this year and next year. We are doing everything we can to meet those targets. We will see what happens to our revenues for the balance of this year because the leader knows -- all right, I'll finish my response in the supplementary.

Mr Harris: I agree with the Treasurer on the comparison of the expenditures that Ottawa controls and Ontario controls. Really, you can't hold a candle. You are outspending them, outstripping the spending and the money going out the door two, three, four, five times to one. And you're quite right; we agree with that.

But, Treasurer, what I really want to deal with is the fact that the federal treasurer yesterday at the very least had the courage to treat Canadian taxpayers with open respect. They're not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. As much as many may fundamentally disagree with them on other areas, you're going to have to give them that much.

Your government, however, is continually cooking the province's books because you don't seem to have the intestinal fortitude or the integrity to take the heat for your gross economic mismanagement. One example you mentioned today in response to the leader of the Liberal Party is the $1.2 billion in federal bailout payments that you insist on adding to your revenue projections.

You're quite right. An official from my office talked to an official from Mr Mazankowski's and confirmed what was also told to the Windsor Star and confirmed, as we just found out yesterday, there's not a hope in hell you're going to get one cent of the $1.2 billion in this fiscal year. That's what I said then; that's what they told the Windsor Star; that's what they told me.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a supplementary?

Mr Harris: The statement we saw yesterday makes it more obvious than ever that there's no mention in this fiscal year of one cent of the $1.2 billion. Will you finally admit that today and revise your own projections for the deficit by $1.2 billion for this fiscal year?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'd like to make two points in response to the leader of the third party. First of all, the federal government announced yesterday that it was reducing its operating expenses of ministries by 3% in the budget and 2% further. To me, that comes to around 5%. This government announced a 10% increase in the budget, added another 5% to it, for 15%, so if you want --

Interjection: Decrease.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- decrease in operating expenditures in this government. So don't tell me that we haven't done a better job than the federal government in maintaining and controlling and reducing our own operating expenses, because we have.

Second, I have always said that it is our belief that we are entitled to the $1.2 billion from the federal government in fiscal stabilization. I've also said that we may not get it this year. If we don't get it this year, the deficit will be increased by that amount for this year, but we'd get it next year instead. I've never said anything different than that.

But I ask the leader of the third party to please, in the interests of this province and its taxpayers, stop referring to something to which we're entitled as a "bailout fund," because that it certainly is not.

Mr Harris: If you don't want to call a payment, ex gratia, over and above the regular transfers to a province that can't control its own finances, is not a have-not-enough province to have the federal taxpayers bail it out, you call it what you want.

However, let me say this: The decreases that you are talking about in your expenditure aren't as much as you hiked them in the first year in office. In fact the only time the federal government has increased expenses is the transfers to you, to your Minister of Health, to your Minister of Community and Social Services. Those have been in excess of the rate of inflation, but not their own spending, if you wish to talk about that.

By way of final supplementary, I want to talk as well about something that was in the federal announcement that again may not have appreciated everything that the federal government is doing. I understand that very well. However, there was a pledge yesterday by the federal Minister of Finance not to fight the national deficit by further hiking taxes. This shows that, if nothing else, Ottawa today understands the basic economic rule that you cannot revive the economy of this country by taking ever more money out of people's pockets, by taking that money out of the economy and giving it to the government.

I ask you, Treasurer, will you send that same signal to Ontario taxpayers today? Will you make a similar pledge? Have you now grasped that simple truth that the federal treasurer seems to now have grasped, and will you pledge to the people of Ontario that they have nothing to fear by the way of one cent of new tax increases from your government?

1450

Hon Mr Laughren: I feel I must respond to part of the leader of the third party's preamble in which he continues to talk about the fiscal stabilization moneys which are owed to us as a bailout. He would be serving his own taxpayers better if he would be in Ottawa, fighting with his friends in Ottawa to make sure we get that money rather than convincing them for his own partisan purposes that we're not entitled to it, because we are.

The other point is that before he gets too carried away with extolling the fiscal virtues of the federal government, he might --

Mr Harris: It was the honesty and the integrity.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, okay.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try again.

I would remind the leader of the third party that one of the changes announced yesterday was reducing UIC benefits from 60% to 50% of income. That alone is going to take $300 million out of Ontario and put increased pressure on our social assistance expenditures in the province. I think the leader of the third party needs to be reminded from time to time that, while he may be a Tory supporting the federal Tories, he has obligations to this province as well, and it's time he started carrying those out.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Interjections.

The Speaker Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Government Services and it's related to a decidedly unconventional tender awarded by his ministry to North Country Renovations in July 1991.

On August 22, 1991, your ministry issued a letter -- I have a copy of it here -- the purpose of which was to give reassurances to the subcontractors and suppliers of North Country that they would be paid through an irrevocable trust to induce them to do business with North Country. The suppliers ultimately became victims of favouritism. In December 1991 your ministry decided to breach this irrevocable trust agreement, directing government money to the minister's personal contractor and leaving some suppliers as victims of the ministry's favouritism.

When the minister was asked about this six months ago by my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, he pleaded ignorance and said: "Somebody played Santa Claus here, and I plan on finding out who. I promise I will get to the bottom of this." The minister has had six months to get to the bottom of this. What has he found out?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): This question, I think, is bordering pretty close to a question of privilege, but I'll let that go for now.

The allegations the member made yesterday and today are totally unfounded. The allegations he makes in his question today, referring to an event of August of last year and referring to actions of my ministry, I have gotten to the bottom of, I'll tell the member right now. There were no irregularities whatsoever in that contract. The investigation is going on right now and of course I cannot comment on it.

Suffice to say, in answer to today's question and yesterday's question, that I myself am not under investigation by the OPP, nor have I ever been, and that the contractor was not my personal contractor; he was a businessman in my area, trying to carry on business.

Mr Runciman: Yesterday I said the minister was involved in a police investigation. I stand by that, and that was confirmed by the OPP. He's involved in a police investigation that's been confirmed by the police.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): No, he's not.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Runciman: On December 12, 1991, the owner of North Country Renovations wrote a personal letter to the minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: I don't know if the minister can even hear this question.

Hon Mr Laughren: Complete innuendo.

Mr Runciman: This is no innuendo; this is fact. If you want to shut up for a minute and listen to what I have to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This House stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1456 and resumed at 1506.

The Speaker: Would the member for Leeds-Grenville direct his first supplementary through the Chair, please.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Speaker, this is my first supplementary to the Minister of Government Services.

On December 12, 1991, the owner of North Country Renovations wrote a personal letter to the minister pleading for special treatment, as he was apparently being physically threatened by his employees. We know that letter was sent and we know that letter was received. Exactly 11 days after the letter was sent, the minister's contractor got that special treatment when the ministry handed over $13,000 of government money in breach of the trust agreement. Six months ago the minister denied that he'd ever seen such a letter.

Will the minister indicate today who in his office received this letter, personally addressed to him, and was he apprised of its contents?

Hon Mr Wilson: The letter the member refers to, I still say to this day I haven't seen that letter. As for the person getting special treatment, there was no special treatment. All payments made in the case of this contract were in accordance with the Construction Lien Act. Since the member is fond of quoting, I will quote now from Superintendent Bob Guay of the OPP, "Mr Wilson is not under investigation." The interview I had was as Minister of Government Services --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: The interview I had with the police in relation to this case was in my position as Minister of Government Services because my ministry did in fact administer the contract in question. But I reiterate that the contractor involved had no special treatment from my ministry or from my officials. That, sir, is a fact.

Mr Runciman: You don't have to be a cat to smell a rat here. The writer of the letter confirmed he wrote it; the ministry confirmed it received it. I want to say, in terms of the minister's playing word games, that I said he was involved in a police investigation and that has been confirmed. This whole process --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask members of the House to make some effort for restraint. Will the member place his question, please.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This whole process reeks of favoured treatment. Two small businesses have lost close to $16,000 as a result of this smelly deal. I have a lot more faith in the public service than I do in this government. It's difficult to believe that any civil servant would engage in the serious breaches that occurred in this contract without political interference.

When the minister was aware that his personal contractor was doing business with his ministry, he should have gone the extra mile to make sure he was treated like everyone else. Instead, he got favoured treatment involving serious irregularities and the breach of a trust agreement. How can the minister justify his ministry playing favourites, particularly when one of the creditors who got the money was the minister's personal contractor? How can he justify that?

Hon Mr Wilson: Perhaps the member should have spent some time on research. Perhaps he should have researched his question and his allegations with the member for Etobicoke West -- oh, he's over here now -- who's been through this question once before. He could have saved us all a lot of hassle and not wasted the time of this House.

The member knows he's wrong. The member knows the facts. He just seems to be reluctant to put the proper ones forward. I think this is the last time we should hear this question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: There are no irregularities in this contract. The answer has been given before in this House and I will say no more, sir. Thank you.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer and it has to do with your Fiscal Outlook, really, next fiscal year. This fiscal year we'll deal with as the numbers come in, but the document, Treasurer, raises some interesting questions for us in the opposition; I think for the financial community as well.

In your revenue estimates, you're assuming essentially the same level of revenue next year as this year, roughly $44 billion -- $43.8 billion -- about the same year over year. But within that, you are expecting a very substantial increase in revenue from personal income tax, about $1 billion, and from the retail sales tax you're expecting about a $220-million increase, and corporate tax revenue up about $450 million. Those three big tax revenues are up quite substantially, about $1.8 billion, about 7%. That's about 55% of your revenue, but that's up dramatically. But all your other revenues drop dramatically. The other 45% of your revenues are down about $1.8 billion, about 7%.

My question is, how is it that three of your major revenue sources are up dramatically and all the rest of the revenue sources are down dramatically?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I think I missed the early part of the --

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I think you missed it all.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, that could be. I think I missed the early part of the member's question about the year to which he's referring.

Mr Phillips: This is not the supplementary, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, that's right.

Mr Phillips: I'm speaking about next fiscal year, 1993-94, and the revenue estimates, Treasurer, in your Fiscal Outlook. May I repeat the question, Speaker?

The Speaker: No. I believe the Treasurer heard the question. It was the year he was looking for.

Mr Phillips: The essence of it is that your three big revenue sources are up dramatically, about $1.8 billion, while all the rest of your revenues are down $1.8 billion. Why is that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sure the member opposite would appreciate the fact that at this point in time there are rough estimates put in almost as placeholders for what we think the revenues will be in order to do planning for the next fiscal year in terms of expenditures and in terms of commitments that we make out there. But there's been no decision made on what, if any, specific taxes will be raised in the next fiscal year. That decision has not been made at all.

Mr Phillips: The estimates are accurate almost to the decimal point in the Treasurer's document. The reason I raise this is because the financial community certainly analysed this document. Treasurer, you say, "Personal income tax revenues, which account for 31% of Ontario's total revenues, will be $835 million lower next year than they were in 1990-91." You can give the exact number, because you say what you had in 1990-91 and then you say how much it will be next year. These aren't rough estimates; they're straight out of the government document.

My question is a simple but important one, because those of us who follow the Treasurer's documents carefully read them carefully, and we use them to try to anticipate what the government's all about, and so, frankly, do the money markets; they look at this document. I want an answer to my simple question: How can it be that your three major sources of revenue are up dramatically next year, $1.8 billion, over 7%, and all the rest of your revenues are dropping $1.8 billion? How can that be?

Hon Mr Laughren: There's nothing mysterious or magical about that. It's simply that at this point in time, and I'm sure the member opposite would appreciate the fact, here we are in the first week of December trying to project what revenues will be from various sources in 1993-94. While we try to be as precise as we can, let's not kid each other that it's a great science when it comes to projecting revenues. We've learned that in the last couple of years.

All I'm saying to the member opposite is that this is our best guess. Assuming no changes in any of those taxes that are presently in place, those would be the projected numbers for 1993-94. That's all.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The issue of stable funding for farm organizations is today one of the most divisive issues among farmers and in rural Ontario. Your Premier said in a letter to Mr Maxwell on November 4, and I quote, "We do not intend to proceed with any plan that will result in deep divisions among farmers or in rural Ontario."

I think you would agree with me now, Minister, that the mishandling of this issue has led to deep divisions in rural Ontario. It has led to deep divisions among farmers, both those who may have been for some form or a modified form or all of your proposal and those who are opposed.

Mr Minister, according to the words of your Premier and now what has happened in the last little while, your stable funding proposal now appears to be dead in the water. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture quite frankly right after the last election asked you to proceed with the stable funding proposal worked out two and a half years ago, the one that was agreed to by all parties and farm associations, but you insisted that you would proceed with your own proposal. This was the compulsory proposal.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the leader have a question?

Mr Harris: This was the one where you have to join the union before you are eligible for one cent of government money. This was the one where you had to set up this whole association, this new bureaucracy that would be funded out of the dues money first and, secondly, if you did not join the union you weren't eligible as a farmer for any government program.

The Speaker: Could the leader place a question?

Mr Harris: I would ask you now, Minister, why you insisted on going with your own heavy-handed blackmail approach to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, your way or the highway. Now that your way is dead in the water, will you return to the proposal that was agreed to two and a half years ago, so that there can be some form of stable funding for our farm associations in this province?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It's difficult to comprehend how the leader of the third party can make so many statements that do not reflect the reality of the situation.

First of all, two and a half years ago there was a proposal that was brought to me by the OFA as one organization to represent farmers in this province. I rejected that proposal at that time because it was simply going to be one organization for Ontario only. We thought and we still believe that there were more organizations in the province that reflect the interests of farmers across the province, and collectively we worked with three organizations which call themselves general farm organizations.

The proposal, by and large, was worked out with those three organizations. One of the points that the leader of the third party did not mention was the concept of the fines, and I've already said that would not be in the proposal and was not intended to be, either on my part or on their part. The leader of the third party didn't mention that.

However, the rest of the proposal was worked out with the farm organizations, and everyone should understand that the proposal was not my proposal nor the government's proposal. This came to me from the farm organizations, and collectively we worked together to put this proposal together. It was not my proposal.

We worked with the farm organizations, and any divisions that are out there are in many cases politically motivated. They're not motivated on behalf of agriculture in Ontario.

1520

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's pretty important that the leader of the third party understand that this was put together by all farm organizations, along with myself.

Mr Harris: Even though I didn't ask it, the minister feels compelled to tell us that the bill he introduced just on Thursday is totally contrary to what he wants. I don't know why he introduced it, but I appreciate that he wished to tell us that.

I want to say to the minister by way of supplementary that the member for S-D-G & East Grenville and the member for Grey have worked with you in good faith. They have tried their darnedest to bring farmers together. They have tried their darnedest to get an understanding among all farmers and yourself. In fact, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville fought for and insisted on at least a vote, which you were denying right up until last week, in order for you to proceed with your proposal.

However, Minister, you have betrayed their trust and the trust of all farmers in this province, and I would ask you, now that your proposal, according to your own party and your own Premier, is dead in the water and out the window, will you now agree to the proposal we all agreed to two and a half years ago and that my party supported? That was the proposal that would allow the dues to go to any one of the three farm associations without taking away the rights of independent farmers, who would have the right to represent themselves and keep the $150 themselves, to represent themselves at that point in time? Will you go back to that one that was agreed to and asked for by the OFA, that would be agreed to by all three associations, who would have an option --

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

Mr Harris: Would you go back to that so our farmers can at least have some form of stable funding for their associations in this province?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The proposal that the leader of the third party refers to was never on the table. There was some talk in the last election campaign about stable funding --

Mr Harris: It was as far as the OFA, the United Farmers, the Christian Farmers and the Liberal Party were concerned and as far as we were concerned.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: But it was not a proposal that the third party accepted.

A couple of other points here. In terms of strengthening the farm organizations and farmers across the province, I think the leader of the third party is part of a party that represented the government of this province for 42 years. During that time, agriculture was very important in this province and farmers had a strong voice in this chamber. There's a time now for all farmers to have a strong voice to represent themselves to provincial parties, provincial governments and, if I might add, to the federal government, which saw fit to slash the transfer payments to farmers by 10% next year and 10% the following year.

Mr Harris: In the absence of your being able to talk to your cabinet, we are going to have forced unionization of farmers.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party will come to order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: If there ever was a time to have strong farm organizations in this province, it's now. The leader of the third party obviously doesn't want to see strong farm organizations out there. The organizations wanted this to be a non-partisan issue. We tried to do that. That's why we worked with the member for S-D-G & East Grenville and the member for Grey. We continue to try to do that to make this a non-partisan issue on behalf of farmers --

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The leader of the third party is trying to make it a partisan issue, which will hurt farmers across this province.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is for the Treasurer. Recently in this chamber you were questioned by the honourable member for Renfrew North and the honourable member for Mississauga North about the proposed new head office of the Workers' Compensation Board. In your response to the member for Mississauga North you said the legal interpretation had been requested to determine the status of the obligations undertaken by the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to the new board office. I and I'm sure many others would like to know if you now have this legal interpretation.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes. I have indeed received a legal interpretation that the agreement reached between the compensation board and the developers of the new building, which as I recall occurred just before the new chairman, Mr Di Santo, took his seat at the board, was agreed to and, secondly, that it was a unanimous agreement by both labour and business representations on the WCB that the board have a new building developed of which the board would be a major tenant and that the contract or obligation is indeed legal and binding.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Treasurer. He will recall that last year, and this year for the last several weeks, I have directed questions to him, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and to the Premier about the automotive industry in Ontario, specifically in St Catharines.

The Treasurer is aware of the importance of the auto industry because of the multiplier effect -- one job in four being part of the auto industry, responsible to the auto industry -- and he is aware as well that close to half the jobs, about 4,000 jobs at the present time, will be lost in St Catharines in that operation.

I want to ask the Treasurer what specific measures he will put forward from his own ministry -- not from other ministries but from his own ministry -- what ideas he might have to assist the people of St Catharines and the auto industry in order that we can maintain the investment we have today and in order that we can encourage new investment in our province.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'm sure the member for St Catharines would want me to redirect that question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I'm pleased to tell the member for St Catharines, who I'm sure is quite concerned, as all of us are today, about what has happened in St Catharines, that my ministry will be doing everything possible to work closely, to assist in the sale of the axle plant, which will not close, of course, in 1993 if it is sold.

Tim Armstrong, who's being hired as a special adviser to the auto industry, is working closely with the Save the Foundry Committee to develop a business plan and options for the foundry to see what can be done to salvage that particular operation in St Catharines. The member for St Catharines is well aware of the various other things we are doing with the city of --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You're doing nothing.

Hon Mr Philip: Well, the member for Oriole says, "You're doing nothing." The member for St Catharines knows better than that --

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

Hon Mr Philip: -- because he's been part of this consultation process. I can tell you that we're working closely, of course, with the municipal leaders and various other leaders in the community, including himself.

Mr Bradley: My supplementary is to the Treasurer again, to see whether he fends this one off to someone else. This is to the Treasurer regarding the Niagara Peninsula itself --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I can't do that once he's fended off? Well, I'll have him in here to listen, at least.

The unemployment rate in the Niagara region at the present time is some 13%, which is the highest in Ontario. It's the second highest in all of Canada and we have a chronically high rate of unemployment. The minister knows the various closings and job losses, so I don't want to dwell on that with him. But I want to ask him two things: Would he encourage the Treasurer to accelerate the move of the Ministry of Transportation to St Catharines and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to Niagara Falls? Would he participate along with the Treasurer in designating the Niagara region as an area eligible for special assistance, the way we used to years ago for areas that were chronically depressed with high levels of unemployment?

Hon Mr Philip: The member has made a number of good suggestions. In fact, in the House yesterday, and I believe he was quoted in the media as suggesting that somehow we were going to slow down the movement --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: Well, people asked him that. I can assure the member that, unfortunately, his suggestion that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation would not be moved on time to the Niagara area is completely false. We intend to move ahead on schedule. As Minister of Transportation, I worked very closely with that ministry and we intend to move, on schedule, the Ministry of Transportation.

I can tell him also that my ministry is working with Employment and Immigration Canada on a proposal to fund a special regional adjustment committee that will work with business, labour and the stakeholders in the community to come up with various adjustments. I think that is what he is suggesting. I think that's an excellent proposal. We are already working on it and I would encourage him to be part of the team that's working on it. I encourage him to give me any further ideas, since the one he just proposed is excellent. We're already working on it, but if he has some proposals of how we can adjust it in any way and improve it, I'd be happy to receive his suggestions.

1530

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There were thousands of people with developmental disabilities here at the Legislature a week ago today expressing their concern and fears about your cuts to their services, in particular the $5 million that was cut from sheltered workshops. The concern was expressed about the lack of consultation and the disruption of the reforms that were going on at community-based support services. In particular, there will be devastation to the programs in York and Simcoe counties, and my colleagues have raised those concerns in the House.

But minister, the questions that these citizens are asking your government are, why is it that your government gave such little notice about these cuts, and why is it that virtually all of these cuts are directed towards community-based sheltered workshop programs and that your government has protected the institution-based workshop programs, whether it be a day program or whether it be an activated week-long employment program? Why have you made the conscious decision to punish almost exclusively the community-based support services provided by associations for developmentally disabled adults in this province?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member is quite wrong in his assumption that we are not constraining in that area as well, because we are. It is important for him to understand that we are doing this in a phased way, both within the community and within the facilities. I understand his concern about the timing of these things, but that is partly a function of the length of time it takes us to really develop a consultation process with the groups about how to remove some of that funding.

The member needs to recognize that over the last years there has been a change in the whole focus of work within the associations for community living. In fact, last year at its convention the Ontario association adopted a very strong statement against segregated work settings and for integrated work settings. We also agree that this would be appropriate, and so, over the two years, given that the budget had increased while the numbers served had gone down over previous years, we made that constraint decision and we are pacing that decision over the two years to try and assist our communities to adjust accordingly.

Mr Jackson: I chose my words very carefully. The majority, almost exclusively, of these funds are being cut from community-based sheltered workshops. The other common point in all of this is that if they are members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, schedule 1 or schedule 2 facilities, those facilities with the exception of the Muskoka regional centre, which is the exception to the rule here -- it's a facility that's going to close -- but schedule 1 and schedule 2 facilities with OPSEU employees are getting their programs protected and they're getting their funding. But non-unionized sheltered workshops in this province are all getting cut.

My point, minister, is that your predecessor was caught making a private deal with Fred Upshaw and the union, and they had a six-month pause caused by a union leader making the decisions about the disabled community. Now, after your government promised it would never do such an offensive, discriminatory act, we have your government doing it with sheltered workshops.

The minister has a puzzled look on her face. She should look into this issue, because if the schedule 1 and schedule 2 facilities that are OPSEU-based are getting their funding --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Jackson: -- you're sending a message to the disabled community that has nothing to do with its needs, but everything to do with the needs of your friends Fred Upshaw and the OPSEU union.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I simply reject what the member is suggesting. It is not the case at all and I would be happy to have any of the material on which he has based his claims, but it is my firm contention that over the same two-year period that we're talking about in terms of the $5 million to the transfer payment agencies, there will be considerable change in all our facility operations, which is in keeping with this government's policy.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

CORRECTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of privilege, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I was absent from the House yesterday. I find in reading Hansard that the Minister of the Environment, in responding to a question from my colleague, indicated that I had taken a particular action in contacting her. The minister may well have been confused about two very different issues and therefore may have inadvertently misrepresented my position.

There is in fact only one direct contact I've had with the minister. It's a statement in this House from almost a year today. I would hope that the minister would act to correct the record.

The Speaker: The leader will know that members may rise to correct their own record and not someone else's, but I certainly appreciate her concern. No doubt it's been duly noted by the minister affected as well.

Point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Then I ask unanimous consent for the Minister of the Environment to correct her record on that matter.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to correct the record? Agreed? No, I heard one negative voice.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): If the leader of the opposition would like to send over to me the document she has, I will certainly examine the record, examine what she said, and if appropriate, correct the record.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is this a new point of order?

Mr Elston: Yes, it is.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Thank you to the Minister of the Environment, first of all, but secondly, a couple of things.

I've raised this issue a couple of times, Mr Speaker, but I was watching perhaps just a little more closely today, because during the course of question period, while it became slightly rambunctious at times, I have again noticed, sir, that you are not as willing to call to order the members of the government side.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: I'm serious about this, sir.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: I spent some time today, sir, looking at what happened, and I noticed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: To be quite honest, sir, we have not been doing very well in here, and I agree with you on that basis. I fully appreciate that, and that it is difficult. But I have, sir, been standing in the back area there, watching what goes on in the place, and today in my place here I watched as several times you called us to order here on the opposition benches and in fact stood and let the clock run down as the barracking back and forth occurred.

I put the case to you again, sir, that as long as the government is yelling and screaming --

Interjections.

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

Mr Elston: As long as the government members are prepared to barrack back and forth and cause disruption with our people, there will be responses, it is fair to say.

Having been unable to find themselves being called to order publicly, it means that they are able as a group to keep barracking, and you stand and let the clock run down. That may be a particularly good tactic to silence us, but with respect to the government members, they will let it go on. Only at one time today -- and I appreciated the fact that you felt the House had kind of gotten into a very bad situation -- did you recess or stop the clock when the barracking continued.

I only note, sir, that on various occasions, while you called the member for Cambridge to order on one occasion, the member for Guelph on one occasion, the member for Cochrane South on one occasion, those were very brief, even though they continued during the course of almost the first 37 minutes, as I was looking at the clock, to barrack as my leader was asking her questions.

At the same time, the Treasurer, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Natural Resources, whom you called to order but once, were continually talking while my leader was trying to put her question, which in effect therefore requires a longer presentation. You cannot put the case crisply when people are interjecting that way.

I noted these things. I noted as well the running of the clock on three occasions when the government members were interjecting and you stood. On three occasions there were some 20, 40 and 20, roughly -- these are just timings I made quickly looking at the clock -- that ran from the clock while those people across the way were barracking.

While I understand that it is the responsibility of both sides, as long as there is no penalty attached to the government benches for doing that, then it will continue, and we will be the ones who are penalized because it is in very many respects the question period of all members, but more particularly the question period for the opposition members of the House, because this is the only time the ministers answer to the opposition, and in fact that's why the standing orders are put this way.

I appreciate that you may have some difficulties in this, but it is my honest observation. It is, from my point of view, very unsettling, and I ask you --

1540

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Is that a point of order? Let's get on with this.

Mr Elston: It is a point of order, because you're disrupting it. It is a very serious problem, and it is a problem that we bear more than the government members, because as I said before, it is our time that leaves the clock.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I don't want to prolong this, but I would hope that the member opposite would also recognize that in your role as Speaker, on a number of occasions in this assembly you have extended the question period beyond the expiry of the time in order to give the opposition members an opportunity to ask an additional question, despite the fact that the question period had expired. I think the question period is certainly a period of importance to the opposition to be able to hold the government accountable, but surely it is a period for all backbenchers to be able to express their views.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I appreciate his very deep concern and I certainly share concern that question period should be the optimum opportunity for members of the opposition and government backbenchers, as specified in the standing orders, to have an opportunity to ask questions. I will always do my utmost to maintain order and decorum in the House equally, as was applied today. I have offered on previous occasions, and if members would like to take a look at the weekly time sheet that is put on my desk, I'm more than pleased to share that information. What it reveals is not only the amount of time used by questions and responses, but the amount of time utilized by the Speaker having to stand.

I will candidly admit to the member that today was an unusually difficult day, from both sides of the House. I don't know why, but there seemed to be a reluctance to maintain any semblance of self-discipline. I cannot do this job by myself. I have indicated that to other members. There are 128 other members in the House, and it is a shared responsibility to try and maintain order and decorum. I regret very much if the honourable member has a perception that his Speaker is not maintaining an even hand. I can only assure the member that I always do my utmost to maintain an even hand and to provide balance in the chamber.

I will make one other observation, that indeed when it is necessary to recess the House for a period of time, there is in a sense a penalty to the government, because what you are doing is the clock does not stop, it resumes, and you are utilizing time which eats into time normally spent on doing public business, normally government business. So that if, to use an extreme, it were necessary to recess the House for a total of 20 or 30 minutes, it takes away from the government program. I understand that. I try to utilize whatever is at my disposal to maintain order and decorum, and I will do that relentlessly. All I ask, in conclusion, is that every member of this assembly make an effort to try and maintain the dignity of this chamber. I appreciate the expression that the member has brought to my attention. A point of order?

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a different point of order, Mr Speaker: Last night, as you know, I raised an issue with respect to the Clerk of the committee of the whole. I was not given the opportunity of receiving the privilege of abstaining. I did abstain and I was, as a result, asked to leave the chamber.

In fact the Clerk of the committee of whole House, in my belief in violation of his powers, required the Sergeant at Arms to escort me from this place. My view is, sir, that I was not in fact and should not have been subject to that sort of procedure by the Clerk of the whole House.

I ask for your written ruling as to whether or not the Clerk of the whole House can and has assumed a new responsibility of throwing me and any other member from the legislative chamber. I say that this is particularly important because, if the Clerk of the whole House -- I did not put up a struggle against the Sergeant at Arms. I thought that would be totally inappropriate, but my sense was that it was not in fact proper procedure.

Having subjected myself to it, Mr Speaker, I want you to immediately clarify if my position is correct that in fact the committee of the whole House Chair did use bad procedure and in fact cannot and will not be allowed, in the future, to eject a member from the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I must hasten to tell the member for Bruce that the Clerk of the House does not interfere in any way whatsoever with the procedures. Now, I do believe that perhaps the member for Bruce was referring to the Chair.

I want to just quite briefly mention a couple of things. Number one, I think all members who were in the chamber last night will acknowledge that the second Chair of committees handled a very tricky and complex business: a total of three and a half hours in that chair without a break. Quite frankly, as I watched it, I thought he did an absolutely superb job of trying to conduct the business of the House.

I had an opportunity to review the measure which the member brings to my attention. He is correct. An improper procedure was followed. Indeed, the committee should have risen and reported to the Speaker and the Speaker then would have dealt with the matter which was at hand.

Naturally, the second Chair of committees feels as badly about the situation as you do, and all we can do is to offer our apology for what occurred.

Lastly, as with the member for Bruce, I too, noting the size of the Sergeant at Arms and the fact that he carries a sword, would take the same course of action that he did.

Mr Elston: If I might, in fact I wish to apologize to the clerks of the table. I did not mean to say "Clerk" but it was in fact the Chair. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

PETITIONS

WOODLOTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding the Trees Act amendment.

"Contrary to some reports of clear-cutting of woodlots, I believe these incidents to be few and far between. Most woodlot owners would not allow clear-cutting on their woodlots because it would decrease the value of their property.

"Most farmers and woodlot owners cut enough wood for their heating requirements and some cedar trees for fence posts and sell firewood to supplement their income.

"In conversations I have had with neighbours and people in this area, we feel this proposed law to be restrictive. As land owners and taxpayers, we pay thousands of dollars each year in taxes. We strongly object to this proposed law, the Trees Act amendment. If this Trees Act were to be implemented, we would become tenants on our own land. What about land owners' rights?"

It is signed by 450 people in and around the riding of S-D-G & East Grenville. I have affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario.

"Re: Proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. We believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario, and in the Niagara region in particular. We believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.

"By our signature here attached we ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

People like J. Beeke from Lookout Street in Ridgeville, Marie Beeke from Lookout Street, Anna Linke from Scott Street in St Catharines and a whole pile of others have signed this petition. I have affixed my name so as to comply with the requirements for presentation of a petition and I serve this on you, sir.

1550

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase jobs losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

To show my agreement, I will sign this as well.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and to the Ministry of Transportation.

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

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injury and reducing costs, we support the graduated licensing for new members."

That's been signed by me on behalf of 94 constituents.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from members of the community of Middlesex county who respectfully ask that the arbitrator Mr John Brant's report be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, that there are better solutions available to the London and Middlesex annexation. The amount of land awarded to the city of London in this annexation is too extensive. It will jeopardize Middlesex county and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

LANDFILL

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of communities,

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

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

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

I affix my name to this.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas there is a concern in Bruce county and neighbouring communities that the Rae government will refuse to do rehabilitation and general maintenance work required to keep Bruce A functioning efficiently; and

"Whereas a detailed technical report prepared by informed and objective people has already shown that the maintenance and rehabilitation work is not only cost-effective but profit-generating; and

"Whereas there is concern in Bruce county and neighbouring areas that Bob Rae will circumvent that study by using non-objective people to restudy the cost-effectiveness of rehab and maintenance expenditures,

"Therefore, the undersigned request that the Legislature accept the list of signatures on the attached document addressed to Bob Rae and require the Premier to respond directly to them, indicating that he will guarantee a fair assessment of Bruce A maintenance and rehabilitation plans."

I attach my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "Whereas there is a concern in Bruce county and neighbouring communities that the Rae government will refuse to do rehabilitation and general maintenance work required to keep Bruce A functioning efficiently; and

"Whereas the detailed technical report prepared by informed and objective people has already shown that the maintenance and rehabilitation work is not only cost-effective but profit-generating; and

"Whereas there is concern in Bruce county and neighbouring areas that Bob Rae will circumvent that study by using non-objective people to restudy the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation and maintenance expenditures,

"Therefore, the undersigned request that the Legislature accept the signatures on the attached document addressed to Bob Rae and require the Premier to respond directly to them, indicating that he will guarantee a fair assessment of Bruce A maintenance and rehabilitation plans."

I attach my signature, sir.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption. The committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's Ms Cunningham's private member's Bill 124, which she very skilfully led through the legislative process. I appreciate the assistance of all the members of that committee and I move its adoption.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be adopted? Agreed.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPERANNUATION ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS REPEAL ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 ABROGEANT LA LOI INTITULÉE «SUPERANNUATION ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS ACT»

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

Bill 107, An Act to repeal the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act and to provide for the transfer of assets and liabilities of the Superannuation Adjustment Fund Account to the Ryerson Retirement Pension Plan of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute / Loi abrogeant la loi intitulée Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act et prévoyant le transfert de l'actif et du passif du compte du Fonds d'indexation des pensions de retraite au Régime de retraite de Ryerson de l'Institut polytechnique Ryerson.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the Treasurer have some remarks to make?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Very brief remarks, Mr Speaker. This bill repeals the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act. The only pension plan to which the act applies is the pension plan of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, so the bill provides for the transfer of assets and liabilities arising from the act to the Ryerson pension plan.

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT (POLITICAL ACTIVITY RIGHTS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE (DROITS EN MATIÈRE D'ACTIVITÉS POLITIQUES)

On motion by Mr Mackenzie, on behalf of Mr Cooke, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Public Service Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique

[Report continued in volume B]